Okay, Joan, this one deserves a response from you. I'm no fan of AP, but can you dispute the figures they quote?

PUMAs were attacked in large part b/c of their prevailing gender. They defended Palin b/c they immediately recognized that the really nasty attacks on her were also largely driven by gender (not to mention classism). The gender issue didn't originate with PUMAS. They simply stood up to those on the New Left wielding gender as a weapon, either overtly or covertly.

Also, thanks to tomredtoon for the book recommendation. Especially as Obama is our first celebrity president, Schickel's work sounds like pertinent reading.

...given Obama's proven ignorance about issues and his cavalier attitude towards facts; given the huge disjunction between his claims and the truth; given the hypocrisy of many of his policy positions and his successful manipulation of the (craven) media -- how can I, or you, or any thinking progressive develop a non-racist challenge to him? In other words, how do we point out and challenge his actual failings and lack of qualifications without disparaging his person (and being accused of racism)?

There. Fixed it for you.

Where in my last comment did I state or imply that you are a racist? I was addressing the plight of the PUMAs in 2008, something which I think would've been more than obvious. Also, where in any of my posts on this site have I stated or implied that I am a Palin supporter? What I support is at least a modicum of civility in political discussion and analysis, not to mention an end to the blatant misogyny now emanating from the so-called left and numerous media sources.

As for Obama being well informed in his candidate phase, well, where's the evidence for that one? All along, Obama has seemed largely a creature created by the MSM, a ratings driver whose reality has very little relation to the massive hype (one definition of celebrity). Yes, the press liked JFK, but there was something to work with there, something original and far more substantive than what Obama had and has to offer. The volume and pervasiveness of MSM hype in Obama's favor has been nothing short of stunning. In political terms, it's unprecedented. Obama is our first People Magazine president. Who expects that to turn out well?

Gee suz, salon - give it a rest. Sarah Palin as universal bogeywoman is wearing more than a bit thin.

The teaser headline for this entry reads: "Secret Bush CIA Progam: Will Dems Investigate?"

The answer is: are you kidding?

You say:

Uncle Fester, I'm with you on Ashcroft. His wife stood up to the bullying, too. How horrific and illegal were the Bush-Cheney maneuvers when a career Christian conservative and law and order guy like Ashcroft (and his deputies) risk their jobs to block them? And why doesn't Obama want to know?

In case you hadn't noticed, in general, unless it makes for a good photo op or for improved popularity ratings, it's off Obama's radar.

Also:

Or maybe he knows, and he's decided the rest of us can't handle the truth...

Isn't this carrying the Dad In Chief bit just a bit too far? I thought Obama's chiefest obligation was to protect and defend the Constitution, not hide it in a closet.

All those cheap, disposable goods are helping to destroy our environment, gobbling up forests and raw energy, then spewing pollution during their production and during their convoluted, transoceanic shipment chain. The big box stores they end up in are cheaply constructed and easily abandoned, highly emblematic of our disposable culture. How many out there are aware that particle board, which can be destroyed by moisture, continues to emit formaldehyde fumes into the air for many years? (Think about this next time you shop for kitchen or bathroom cabinets.) When something breaks or simply deteriorates, we haul it to the curb and expect it to magically disappear, defying the laws of physics. So we end up with endless trash heaps and landfills, with garbage barges circling the oceans.

For many years, I have bought used everything - clothing, jewelry, furniture, books, cars, houses, lighting fixtures...

I've also been a dealer in antiques and vintage goods, and know full well that old almost invariably means much better quality. During most of mankind's history, things were made to last, and pride of workmanship extended to adornment of the most mundane functional items.

What we are losing is almost all connection to the earth, to a sense of wise limits, to a love of careful creation, to caring about and for objects of integrity and beauty which become part of our personal history. This is beyond sad. If not halted, this wanton misuse of the earth will destroy it, and us in the bargain.

The hubris of casual materialism must end.

You've fallen for the IKEA trap: going for decent design at the sacrifice of sturdy craftsmanship and durability. Yes, IKEA offers nice, clean styles, but how many years before it all hits the local landfill? Not many, guarantee you. (Their soft goods - sofas and such - are of especially poor quality.)

Better to buy far fewer things and go for solid workmanship. This is actually far more economical in the long run.

BTW, how many on this site have ever taken the time to refurbish/refinish/renew old pieces of furniture made entirely of decent wood? I've done this many times over the years, so our house is full of legacy furniture which will be around long after we are gone. I find this very comforting.