Why I'm A Big Fan Of Sean Braisted

The man has perspective.

Doodles In Our Schools!

Superintendent Julie Hackett said she could not discuss an individual student and did not address the drawing specifically or the teacher's reaction to it, but did say the school has safety protocols in place that were followed

.

"Safety protocols"? that's perfect. Well, good thing: I'm sure there was a clear and present danger of this child erecting giant crosses everywhere and hoisting his teachers and peers on them.

Sorry, I Don't Buy It

AndrewSullivan.com is ostensibly written by one fellow: Andrew Sullivan. Indeed, one of the appeals of the site is that is is the (ostensible) opinion of one person. If someone else authors a post on the site, then his or her name needs to be on the post to differentiate the post from those actually written by Sullivan. Honestly, I'm very disappointed.

It Is Possible That I am the King of Sweden

I commented over here in what I suppose is a sort-of defense of Bill Hobbs. I should clarify that I have no idea what happened and that my main issue is with everyone acting like agreeing to a plea bargain (or something similar like this) necessarily means anything more than your taking the least worst of a bunch of bad options. The "King of Sweden" business was just based upon my personal interactions with Bill and his family. I figure that since others were allowing their personal feelings color their opinions of this situation, that I would as well. That's really all that was about. Probably won;t do much to counter accusations of being an apologist for spouse abusers, but there it is just the same.

Just Asking...

...not to be a pain in the butt but because at this point I honestly don't know:

Somebody define "victory in Afghanistan" for me.

UPDATE: Re-reading this, I suppose it could be construed as some kind of knock at the president. It's not meant to be. While President Obama certainly should have an answer to this, so too should those who criticize him for his Afghanistan policy. It's basically a question for anyone.

If They Ever Make a Movie About Bob Corker.

...there's a guy who should play him:

Not All That Impressive

Salon presents this essay as an example of conservative apostasy, which I suppose conservatives are supposed to read as some kind of deep criticism.

But this guy is no conservative apostate. He's just a recovering jackass. If you read the whole thing, you see that Mr. Big Time Conservative here really just had a brief--three or four years or so--flirtation with right-wing political activism before reverting to the left-of-center fellow he was before 9/11. Furthermore, this dalliance with political goofiness mostly occurred during--surprise!!--his college years. Big deal. And shame on Andrew Sullivan for treating this navel-gazing tripe as some kind of deep, introspective thought.

First Rule of Politics

The more likable person usually wins.

Slate Tackles the Big Issues of the Day

Wow, that Timothy Noah is a real hero. Years after the few people who would have even cared about the Great "Baby Einstein" Scandal have stopped caring, there he has been keeping continuous tabs on the nefarious Julie Aigner-Clark, whose offenses against mankind are beyond number.

Thank you, Timothy, for not letting this one go. My children thank you, too.

P.S. Nice "zinger" there at the end. No "refund" on the Bush presidency, indeed. You are such a card!

"Humbled"

Well, he should be.

This is just embarrassing all around. I will say this, if the theory is that having Barack Obama as president is in itself worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize (a ridiculous proposition, in my opinion, but just for the sake of argument...) then shouldn't the award go to the people who put him in office? They're the ones who actually did something.

P.S. One theory: maybe the European intelligentsia thinks that this was a clever way of tying his hands. "I can't take any action against Iran now, I won the Nobel Peace Prize!" Methinks that Barack Obama wouldn't actually think that. He won the prize, now on to other things. You feed the ego...

P.P.S. Over at "Southern Beale's" (originality-free since 2003), the author seems to think that Republicans are just mad that more Democrats (four) have won the award than Republicans (one). Yes, that's the beef: after all, everyone knows how much Republicans crave the approval of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. They're just jealous!

She'll Never Work In This Town Again

Now that she actually has to deal with it, a Democratic speechwriter urges caution on "health care reform."

Art, of a Sort

The only thing that could have made this better is if, upon scrolling over Samuel Adams, that caption read simply: "Brewer, Patriot."

Does this guy not realize that a few people on here weren't exactly the most devout folks in the world?

(Via Sullivan)

The Bible Is the Inerrant Word of God!

Except, you know, when it's not.

Terry Frank: Comically Wrong Again!

The human cartoon scores another whiff.

Let's Talk About Drugs, Shall We?

WHAT: A forum. The topic? “Drug Legalization and Emerging Economic Opportunities”

The goal of the talk is to discuss emerging economic opportunities and policies (laws) that may affect businesses and people operating legally under state law (also what changes in the law would be needed to protect business people engaged in this trade).

WHERE: Vanderbilt University. Specifically, the law school.

WHEN: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 from 5:15 PM to 6:15 PM.

WHO: David Boaz, Executive Vice-President of the CATO Institute, Paul Kuhn, board member of NORML and Robert Mikos, Vanderbilt law professor.

I will be the moderator. Why me? Dunno exactly. I guess they figured someone who once wrote this would be a good person to have moderating a forum on drug legalization. Or maybe everyone else they asked said no. Who knows? Anyway, I'm honored to do it.

The event is open to the public, so come on out if you get the notion. No drugs allowed at the event. As far as I know, anyway.

Democracy In Action

This man is a duly elected state representative. I have no further comment.

Best Part About This Video

The "Call me!" near the end. (around 1:17) Remind you of anything?

Maybe We Should Be Kind Of Worried About Violence

I'm (mostly) with Kaus here.

I mean, put aside your political prejudices here, if you can, and think objectively: don't you find some of these folks--meaning "folks who seem overly obsessed about the offenses (real and imagined) levied against them or society by politicians"--a little scary?

Just to be clear here, I'm talking about folks of all political stripes. There are screwballs on the political left, too. I will say this though: if you hate Barack Obama on a personal level, or as close to a personal level as you can get given that he is the President of the United States, there's probably something wrong with you. Seriously: you may need professional help. And I don't mean that rhetorically.

The guy is by any reasonable measure the most personally likable president we've had since Ronald Reagan. Bush I was generally likable, but in that WASP-y patrician sort of way that told you he would give you the time of day only out of a sense of duty to do so. Bill Clinton was Mr. Warm-and-Fuzzy, but you always got the feeling that it was only because he got something out of it. Bush II was likable on a superficial level, but it's hard to really like a guy whose main qualification for the high station he attained was having the same first and last name of the guy who held that station just eight years before him.

Barack Obama, though...this is a guy you really have to work at to hate, and I'm speaking as a person who could potentially lose his job tomorrow if some of the things he wants to happen with health care come to pass. If you hate Barack Obama on a personal level, the problem is not him. It's you.

A Very Gay Day Indeed

Six years ago—almost to the day—I lost a Metro Council district runoff election by a mere 25 votes. Just having gotten to the runoff was rather impressive, if I do say so myself, because the eventual winner, Parker Toler, had the backing of both the labor and the business folks as well as pretty much anyone in the district over the age of 50, who make up a disproportionate number of voters in Metro elections. He also had over $25,000 in campaign donations.

I had about a fifth of that in my miniscule war chest. Other than that, I just had me. My family pitched in a bit, but 98% of the campaign was me and me alone. I designed my own signs, my own literature, my own everything. I also—with some family help—did all of the mailings. I had no phone bank, no campaign staff, no nothing. Just me. Basically, my campaign was me going door-to-door before and after work on weekdays and all day on weekends, often with my then one-year old in tow.

The media liked me, which I’ll grant can be a double-edged sword. I received endorsements from every paper, including The Tennessean, which I found mildly surprising, because they knew my general political inclinations, but, evidently saw fit to overlook them in favor of the overall impression they had of me. The Nashville Scene endorsed me, which, given that I had been—and would return to be—a staff writer for them, was kind of a slam-dunk.

And..Nashville Out & About endorsed me. They did this—presumably—because of the answer I had given them to their question about laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, which was, in effect, that I would not support the imposition of these laws on the private sector but would support such a law for the public sector. In other words, businesses and private citizens could discriminate on this basis but the government could not. If you’re wondering why that paper would endorse me with that “halfway” position, the answer is because the others in the race wouldn’t even go that far.

As George Will might say, “Well.”

This position, once it was made public, caused great consternation among a number of folks inside and outside of my district and I would usually make it a point to go talk to any person who inquired about face-to-face to explain where the position and how I had gotten there. Most people, happily, respected the fact that I had come to talk with them and were to live with it, although I can’t say for sure how they may have eventually voted. I suspect I batted about .333 with them.

There were a few, though, who, frankly, I saw no reason to waste my time bothering about. These were the people—and you’ve seen the type—who give Christians, or religious folks of any flavor for that matter, a bad name. There is actually a special label for them, developed over the years by authors, sociologists, anthropologists and other keen observers of the human condition. That label is, of course, “Complete Asshole.”

My personal favorite of this subspecies was a person I’ll call “John,” because John was indeed his actual name but since it’s so common it doesn’t matter if I use his actual name. My position on this issue—as opposed to, say, my position on schools, roads or taxes—inspired John to become my his special email pen pal, assaulting me with Bible quotes and other writings giving the usual patter regarding the allegedly highly unfavorable view God has of homosexuals. I eventually wrote him that I appreciated his opinion, but that we would just to agree to disagree on this one.

That set him off. John sent back this long, blistering email that concluded with the following:

“Mr. Abramson, I see from your campaign mailings that you have a young son. I don’t think someone who holds your views is fit to be a parent and I might have to do something about that.”

And that was it. To this day, I have no idea what he was talking about. What would he do, exactly? Talk to my son? To me? Assault me with a tire iron in the Kroger parking lot? Kidnap my son? What? Beats me. All I know is that it was extraordinarily creepy. Definitely the biggest “WTF” moment of my foray into local politics.

I have no idea what happened to John. Don’t really care, for that matter. But I do know that if John is still living in Nashville, he had to wake up this morning to read this story.

And that just completely makes my day.

If The President of the United States Wishes to Talk to My Son in School...

...I'm cool with it. He's the president. Having the president talking about how important school is seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable thing for the president to do.

But, seriously, all of you folks who are getting all bent out of shape about conservative types getting all bent out of shape about President Obama doing this, I'm sure you would have been perfectly fine with President Bush (the second one, or, heck, even the first one) doing the same thing, right?

Doubtful.

Back to the Future

This would mean a lot to me, I suppose, if it were, say, 1993 or so.

Because I think that's the last time I ever sat down to watch the nightly news.

For what it's worth, sometime in 2001 was the last time I bought a Tennessean.

Wow, Such Astonishing Power the Republicans Apparently Have

President Obama is blaming the Republicans for killing the Democrats' attempt at health care reform.

Huh. Well, here's the current scorecard:

1) The Democrats control the White House.

2) The Democrats control the House of Representatives by a wide margin.

3) The Democrats have a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate.

Try all they wish to pin blame on Republicans, but, if they do indeed screw this up, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. And it's pathetic for them to pretend otherwise. Indeed, they could pass anything they want without a single Republican vote. So, what's stopping them?

Two Great Quotes for the Day

“I became a Conservative by being around Liberals and I became a Libertarian by being around Conservatives.”

"I’m glad they’re doing this instead of something."

Just Saying

One last word about Sherri Goforth, before that story disappears into the ether altogether:

I've run across some lefty folks complaining about the fact that the employment policy in place at the legislature resulted in her getting only a warning/reprimand in her file/slap on the wrist for her first offense rather than getting fired outright. After all, in the private sector, she would have been fired outright, more likely than not, right?

Right. It is a bit annoying that government employees often aren't subject to the same strictures as those in the private sector, isn't it?

(NOTE: Yes, I know that there are some good arguments for having these sorts of rules in place for government employees. Doesn't make them any less irritating when there's someone you really want to see run out on a rail.)

Goodbye, Tim Chavez

Tim Chavez used to drive me crazy way back when. I remember reading his Tennessean columns in the mid-1990s and thinking about them the way I now think (on the rare occasions I even read The Tennessean) of Saritha Prabhu's dreck: knee-jerk conventional wisdom-style liberalism (although Tim was a much better writer).

But then this weird thing happened: Tim started questioning some of the shibboleths of those on his political "side of the fence." It wasn't that he had turned on them, really, (though, certainly, some thought that): it was that he had come to the realization that--sometimes--folks on his side sometimes let ideology get in the way of reality (which happens all over the political map, by the way).

I got to know him pretty well after that, and while he never went into too much detail with me, something happened when he was volunteering (or something) with Metro public schools. He got a wake-up call of some sort, and he came to believe that conventional "liberal" solutions or prescriptions for public education weren't working, at least not for those on the bottom rungs of the socioeconomic ladder. He wanted to look at other ideas--even those proposed by conservatives--but became disillusioned when his usual compatriots--Democrats, unions, etc.--didn't want to go along, vested as they very much were in the status quo.

This realization made him more open to conservative types generally, but while some conservatives started to think of Tim as one of their own, he really wasn't. Tim's passion was bettering the lives of the poor and underprivileged, walking--as he saw it--in the footsteps of Jesus. And when he thought that conservative types had better ideas than liberal types in that regard, he said so.

If you want to honor Tim's memory, here's one way to do it: don't always assume that someone who takes a position is doing so because they are a Republican or a Democrat, or a man or a woman, or a conservative or a liberal, or a white person or a black person, or a rich person or a poor person, or married or single, or a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim or an atheist, and that therefore they hold that position because of what they are.

To be sure, the opinions of many people (perhaps even most people) are largely determined by these things. But there a few people who have a real passion beyond their own identities. They are few and far between, but they are out there, and are usually the ones most worth reading and listening to. And now, alas, we just lost one of the best.

It's Not Racism! It's, Um, Something Else, and as Soon As I Figure Out What It Is I'll Tell You

"I think all along, Steve Cohen has known that's his vulnerability," said political scientist Marcus Pohlmann at Rhodes College of Memphis. "It's not so much that he's disliked because he's white, but he's running in a district that was created to elect an African-American."

...which means--does it not?--that any person who is not an African-American may be resented--dare we even say "disliked"?--for occupying the seat, for no other reason than that he or she is not an African-American.

Just once I'd like one of these people to just come out and say this simple, undeniable fact: Steve Cohen will pretty much always be vulnerable because the majority of his congressional district is black and he is not. Stop trying to spin it into something else. It is what it is: a race-based opinion.

Well, What Did You Think Was Going to Happen?

And, like clockwork, here it comes: the appeals to refrain from terminating Sherri Goforth, coming from some of the very folks who pushed this issue to the point where such an outcome is now the most likely possibility.

We've been here before. Remember Bill Hobbs back in 2006? A big deal was made in the press about that goofy Muslim cartoon he put on the Internet, his employer (Belmont University) was mentioned in the articles (even though Belmont had nothing to do with that cartoon), putting Belmont in a position where it really had no choice but to save face publicly by giving Hobbs the heave-ho. I remember talking to some folks in the local press back then and getting this general reaction: "Well, that's silly. They shouldn't fire him." As though the press accounts somehow had nothing to do with it; as though Belmont was just sitting around and just up and arbitrarily decided to can him. It's like someone shooting a guy in the head and being surprised that they fall over dead. "Well, I'll be damned. He died just like that. Huh. Never saw that coming."

The probable outcome of this episode will be the termination (one way or the other) of Sherri Goforth. So, don't act surprised. And don't act like you had nothing to do with it. Own it. Hell, be proud of it, the "greater good" and all of that. I honestly doubt this will result in "some good com[ing] out of this incident" with "lessons...learned so our state won’t be lambasted again nationally." But, hey maybe it will. I just hope that this one woman's job and professional reputation (seriously, who would hire her for the near future?) is worth all of that. Color me skeptical. And, again, be careful, because you could be the next one in someone's sights.

For more on this general concept, Google "reasonably foreseeable" and see what you come up with.

Insert "Goforth" Pun Here

Like most local conservative types, I spend a lot of time worrying about what Mike Byrd thinks of me, so let me just say for the record that there is no defense for that email. That said, a few quick things:

1. There are political staffers on the Hill and there are clerical/constituent service staffers on the Hill, the latter far outnumbering the former. Goforth was not a political staffer, like, say Lance Frizzell or someone like that. She was in the second, apolitical category, Doesn't make what she did right, and, yes, I believe it's a potentially terminable offense, but let's get a little perspective here: Sherri Goforth is no Bill Hobbs.

2. Her biggest offense, from a professional perspective, was embarrassing her legislative member, Diana Black (speaking of punnable surnames...), who will have this following her around for approximately the rest of her political career.

3. Tennessee Republicans continue to have a PR problem. And it's completely self-inflicted. Don't blame people like Jeff Woods for shooting you. Blame yourself for giving him the guns and bullets. And--you know--stop doing that.

What Goes Up...

Well, this was inevitable, but it took four-and-a-half months to get there. Not a bad run, really.

Remember, no matter who we have as president, at least half of the country is pretty much always going to have some kind of beef with him (or her).

You Might Need a Life If...

...you've ever gone into a place of business and demanded that the proprietor change the television channel because it gets your political panties in a wad.

Here's a crazy thought: if it means that much to you, frequent another place of business. Just for the record, political prudes are no better than the moral sort. Find something else to worry about.

Richard Posner

My theme is the intellectual decline of conservatism, and it is notable that the policies of the new conservatism are powered largely by emotion and religion and have for the most part weak intellectual groundings. That the policies are weak in conception, have largely failed in execution, and are political flops is therefore unsurprising. The major blows to conservatism, culminating in the election and programs of Obama, have been fourfold: the failure of military force to achieve U.S. foreign policy objectives; the inanity of trying to substitute will for intellect, as in the denial of global warming, the use of religious criteria in the selection of public officials, the neglect of management and expertise in government; a continued preoccupation with abortion; and fiscal incontinence in the form of massive budget deficits, the Medicare drug plan, excessive foreign borrowing, and asset-price inflation.

Just In Case You Thought the President Was Busy...

...he apparently isn't.

P.S. Gosh, being the ones in charge sucks doesn't it?

Pens and Swords

“I appreciate that,” Christopher said. “But I would have done it anyway. One must take a stand. One simply must.”

Tough Question On The Stimulus

Wow, that Washington press corps is really getting to the bottom of things:

President Obama: Michael Fletcher from the Washington Post?

Question: Yes, thank you, sir. What is your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?

Obama: You know, I think it's depressing news on top of what's been a flurry of depressing items when it comes to Major League Baseball. And if you're a fan of Major League Baseball, I think it -- it tarnishes an entire era, to some degree. And it's unfortunate, because I think there are a lot of ballplayers who played it straight.

And, you know, the thing I'm probably most concerned about is the message it sends to our kids. What I'm pleased about is Major League Baseball seems to finally be taking this seriously, to recognize how big a problem this is for the sport, and that our kids hopefully are watching and saying, "You know what? There are no shortcuts, that when you try to take shortcuts, you may end up tarnishing your entire career, and that your integrity's not worth it." That's the message I hope is communicated.

This was followed up by a foreign policy question by Helen Thomas, who should have been put out to pasture years ago. They preempted House for this?

Take Five

1. Our quasi-Republican governor (that's meant as a compliment) fights back publicly.

2. If it were possible for the federal government to fix the national economy by pumping more money into it on a constant and indiscriminate basis, don't you think that someone would have figured that out by now? If that were possible, the first political party to do it would be in power forever. Who could oppose it?

3. My hunch--and that's all it is--is that President Obama's (by the way, this blog has an editorial policy of always referring to the President of the United States as "President " upon first reference) stratagem was to sort of let the Democratic leadership in Congress gets its jollies out with the stimulus bill and then take the reins legislatively afterward. But I wonder if he thinks it's now gotten out of hand. Seriously, how could they have screwed this up? when you focus so much on the failings of the other party you tend to forget about those of your own.

4. In full agreement.

5. Over here too.

Take Five

1. It's only January and I think we already have a winner for Unctuous Blowhard Post of the Year. Apparently, an anxious electorate breathlessly awaits the endorsement of Rob Huddleston. (Psssst, Rob, you have their phone numbers too, right? Who died and made you Ted Welch?)

2. Yes.

3. 24.

4. From Heather McDonald:

Noonan warns Obama that “radical movement on abortion” would rouse the “sleeping giant that is American conservatism.” Maybe so. But many conservatives are just as worried that a Democratic Congress is about to give government an all but permanent role in the economy, thus impairing the dynamism and entrepreneurship that is America’s greatest economic asset.

5. Heh: "Juicebox Mafia."

Take Five--Titty Ho Edition

1. For your inner 12-year old.

2. Special elections. Can't trust 'em.

3. Darn. No Senator Caroline Kennedy. And she had so much to offer. Like, er, her last name. And, well, other stuff that I can't think of right offhand.

4. Black: the new black.

5. Big Hollywood.

English Primarily

I am no longer a Nashvillian, but if I were I would vote against the "English Only" amendment, or whatever those crazy kids are calling it these days. I have a lot of reasons, but here are a few off the top of my head:

1. It is unnecessary. I don't about you, but every time I go into Nashville, everyone still seems to be speaking English, just as they they were when I lived there. Not the King's English, necessarily, but English just the same.

2. It's a waste of time and money. We already had to waste time and money having a special election to fill Ronnie Steine's seat way back when. This is equally appalling. Actually, it's more appalling, because at least then you got the psychic thrill of watching Steine, never one to shy away from turning up his nose at people he considers inferior beings, get whacked around a bit.

3. Even Buck Dozier thinks this is a stupid idea. Buck Dozier.

4. Telling people they have to do something is often the least effective way to get them to do it. Immigrants will learn English for the same reason they always have, because they have to function on a day-to-day basis. They're not going to learn it because there's some law written somewhere saying so. There are a lot of speed limit signs on the roadways, too. How are those working out?

5. It smacks of the worst kind of political fetishism that has infected segments of the right over the past few years. It's small, narrow-minded and with no big picture perspective. And ultimately pointless.

But what do I care? I'm a Williamson Countian now. Maybe over lunch I'll head over to Nissan headquarters and ask them their opinions on passing similar "English Only" mandate over here. I'm sure they'd really appreciate it. After all, they need us more than we need them, right?

Take Five - One Week's Pay Edition

1. I knew all about this, really I did, because I know everything that's going on at the state legislature, unlike you mere mortals who are completely out of touch, but I chose not to say anything until right now, because, well, um, I'll think of something...really I will...

2. Question: this incident was apparently well-known (and, apparently, just one of many such "notorious" incidents in the legislative cesspool), so, er, where was the Capitol Hill media on this (not to mention the other incidents?

3. Female Democratic Rep. Janis Sontany was privy to one of the more lurid occurrences reported in the memorandum. Democratic Rep. Janis Sontany voted for Kent Williams to be Speaker of the House. Discuss.

4. Democratic Speaker Jimmy Naifeh knew about all of these allegations, yet pulled all of the strings to make Kent Williams his personal Mini-Me. Discuss.

5. "Discuss" somewhere else of course. FITP remains a one-man show.

Yup II

"But may I add a small sigh of relief at once again having a president who can actually, you know, speak in public? It has been SO painful for the last eight years."

-- Charles Murray

Yup

Mickey Kaus reporting from Washington:

Conservatives I've met in D.C. so far have been near-ebullient, not downcast or bitter. Why? a) They know how unhappy they'd be now if McCain had won; b) Obama has not fulfilled their worst fears, or even second-to-worst fears; c) now they can be an honest, straight-up opposition.

Wow, This Is Indeed Truly Creepy

I guess it took having a new President to get these people to do things are nice.

Question: what were they doing before? And how pathetic is it that you allow the vagaries of presidential elections to dictate how you operate?

Here it is:

Historical Question

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers."

Has a president ever publicly acknowledged (in a neutral fashion) the existence of atheist Americans? Just wondering. Seems like a pretty major thing to me, historically speaking.

Attention Lame Democratic Partisan Types In Washington

When even Keith Olbermann thinks you're being disrespectful, you're probably being disrespectful. Just saying. You won. Act like it.

Judging From The Election Results in Tennessee, Their Parents Didn't Vote For the Guy Anyway

Katie Allison Granju apparently thinks the purpose of school is to sit around watching television news.

P.S. One wonders if she would have written this post if John McCain has been elected instead of Barack Obama. I somehow doubt it. And note this laughable comment from one of her readers:

"We were planning to keep ours home today in order to ensure a complete, uninterrupted viewing. The middle school announced they would not be viewing it, and the elementary school announced it was up to individual teachers".

"Complete, uninterrupted viewing." Uh-huh. No parental propagandizing there!

Bloody Idiots

Take Five -- Inaugural Edition

1. Most interesting and exciting inauguration since Reagan's first in 1981. I may actually watch this one (I think the last one I watched was Bush I in 1989). And for my fellow Republicans who are bent out of shape, get over it. Face it: we're just jealous we don't have a guy with his particular skill set right now. Same way the Democrats were a little jealous of Ronald Reagan way back then. And if your problem is that the mainstream media's ridiculous heavy-handed fawning over the new president makes you physically ill, well, that's what Fox News is for. Avoid Chris Matthews like the plague. And most of the others as well.

2. I decided back in February of last year or so that it would make no significant difference in my life of either John McCain or Barack Obama were elected president. I liked them both then. I still feel that way now.

3. Wow, I thought President Bush was just like Adolf Hitler. You know, megalomanical, power-mad and so forth. And yet everyone seems to be saying how well his transition team is working with the incoming folks. In fact, this is quite possibly the most seamless presidential transition we've had in decades. sure, Obama's an all right chap. But it takes two to make a transition. Bush deserves some credit here, right? He's certainly doing a much better job than the sainted Jimmy Carter did in his last days.

4. Our Savior. (Not really.)

5. Presidential approval ratings.

Indeed

Wisdom from the Economist:

The most effective repudiation of the Bush years would be a successful Obama presidency. John Conyers, Paul Krugman and the rest should recognise that.

Forget This Judas Stuff

Yeah, yeah Kent Williams is "Judas," Benedict Arnold," whatever. Come on, those are cliches. This is all you need to see. The first minute tells the entire story.

Take Five

1. Meet the Vichy Speaker.

2. No, I'm sticking by this. As I said to a Tennessee lefty friend of mine yesterday, progressive cheering of yesterday's debacle is akin to the Allies cheering for the Soviets overrunning the Nazis in 1944-45. Sure, seems great while it's happening. But now what are you going to do? What exactly is your next move? The Republican takeover the House was the very thing that was going to encourage the old farts to leave office, making room for people a little more like you. So, now what?

3. Bob Krumm wasn't surprised. I confess to being surprised. I would have thought any cracks in the coalition would have broken well before yesterday.

4. I can't completely resist being a pain in the butt here: could we now please stop pretending that Stacy Campfield, David Oatney, Rob Huddleston, et al have any idea what the hell's really going on on the Hill. I mean, where was all the inside scoop we're always supposedly getting? Let's face it: it's really just a handful of like-minded folks talking to each other, a conservative activist blogger echo chamber Why, here's Oatney just yesterday, right before the collapse: "Jason Mumpower still says he's "on top" of the Williams situation, and Williams was notably cheery when I saw him in the hall today."

Wow. Evans and Novak this isn't.

5. Well, I wouldn't worry about trusting the man's "word" anyway. He's not the one running the show anyway.

Attention Progressive Tennessee Democrats UPDATED

Yes, yes, get it out of your system. Have a good ol' hardy-har-har at the expense of those wacky hapless Tennessee House Republicans, the Charlie Brown to the Democrats' Lucy Van Pelt.

And then, stop. Be careful what you're applauding here. Just because these people have "D"s next to their names and just because they pulled a fast one on the "R"s doesn't mean they're on your side. Not even close. In fact, you probably would have been better off with the Mumpower Republicans in charge, because at least then you have known what you were getting: your enemy--and the battle lines--would have been clear. Now, you've just got the same bunch--a somewhat corrupt bunch no less--who had no use for you before back in charge of things, while you have no avenue for political recourse. After all, what power vacuum is there now for progressivism to fill? The Democrats are back in charge. What do they need you for?

Yep, like you, the Naifeh gang is laughing their asses off at the Republicans. But what you don't seem to understand is that they've nailed you to the wall as well. And there you are, enjoying yourselves.

UPDATE: Some seem to believe my inner Republican is showing. This post is supposedly all sour grapes. Nah. Don't really care all that much. In all, I'm actually pretty amused by the whole thing.