1.) Look up an unattractive, matronly old nanny in the directory or online. Keep her contact info handy.

2.) Get it on with your current, hot nanny. Make it clear that it's just sex from the start - no strings attached.

If things go south (and not in the good way =), you'll always have non-hot Backup Nanny available for your kids.

(AND btw, this should go without saying, but: wear a rubber!}

If the Florida recount fiasco in 2000 never happened, you might be right.

But it did.

And the fact is that if just a very small few of the Naderites had opened their eyes and seen that Bush and Gore were NOT clones of each other, then the last 8 years would have been a hell of a lot different.

{And by different, I mean better}.

So any unrepentant Nader voters out there - this progressive has two words for ya...

We are all allowed to make fun of our own kind.

Vin Gupta can make fun of his fellow Indians by gently mocking the Indian accent with his "Ramesh" character.

A non-Indian person, however, cannot.

Chris Rock can make fun of black people's habits and lives.

A non-black person, however, cannot.

Carlos Mencia can make billions of "beaner" jokes.

A non-Mexican person, however, cannot.

Get it?

I am both politically liberal and of South Asian (aka "Indian") descent - and I have always loved Apu from The Simpsons.

Why?

Because he is always portrayed as a real, three-dimensional (cartoon animation aside=) person, like every other character on the show.

Sure - the writers have fun parodying stereotypes with him. But they do that with every character on the show - from McBain (the suspiciously Ahnold-soundin' Austrian action star) to BumbleBee Man ("Ay, que lastima!") to, of course, Homer himself...the greatest stereotype send-up of the W.A.S.P. American Everyman in the history of TV!

Thank you - please come...I mean, write again!

Voting for Nader did not facilitate any of the ostensible goals of Nader voters. It created the Bush Nightmare. The implications for 2008 should be obvious.

Thank you! Couldn't have said it better myself.

As far as I can tell, the ad only does a "generic" send-up of the transplanted Indian-to-America accent.

I myself don't really know if there are nuances that would identify "Ramesh" as being from Hyderabad, say, or Mumbai; in general I don't think it would be any more or less offensive to Indians from different sects, regions etc. But that's just me.

Btw, I laughed at/enjoyed your Clinton supporter comment. I myself am - as HRC fans here on Salon would say - an 'Obamabot'...

Yup - I'm male and a Obama supporter...which makes me sexist!=)

Nobody here - least of all me - is telling anyone who to vote for.

I haven't told anyone, for example to vote for Clinton over Obama or vice versa.

So, one more time ~deep breath~ - if you want to vote for Kucinich, be my guest.

If you want to vote for Brad Pitt for president, be my guest.

My point - which, after all the posts I've made is apparently still lost on you - is that a vote for a candidate that has no...that's right, NO...chance of winning is a vote that is being thrown away.

You have every right to make that vote.

And I have every right to comment that the vote you threw away so you could congratulate yourself on strict adherence to principles is a vote that could have helped elect a candidate who might just approximate the beliefs and approaches to which you subscribe.

I also have every right to suggest that you are being narcissistic - putting your ideals over the welfare of people - in throwing your vote away in this manner.

Finally - as I mentioned before, I think that there are enough liberals in 2008 who understand that another neoconservative presidency is unacceptable...who understand that their IS a distinct difference between our candidates and theirs...and who realise that compromise does not automatically damage your principles or ideology.

So vote for whom you want, Vishnu. But if the GOP takes the White House again, you and your ideologues have no right to complain one iota. Capiche?

I agree with Carol that the ads are creepy, and don't make sense - "jailbait" victims of statutory rape are typically 14-17 years old. So why use the head/face of a 8-11 year old?

There are many skeezy guys out there who would try to seduce a 16 year-old jailbait female in high school; yet, skeezy as they are, these men are (usually) not pedophiles, i.e. interested in pre-adolescent little girls. Why is this distinction lost on the creators of the ad?

********

However, as far as this question raised by Carol --

Should we use images that are appalling to one demographic because they effectively serve another?

I think the answer should clearly and emphatically be YES. Think of it this way: if an AIDS awareness ad was found to be highly effective with a demographic of gay males - but was found appalling by, say, devout Evangelicals or Muslims - what should take priority?

The ability to effect positive change in health and in a community at large - or the wounded feelings of offense felt by another group?

SCENARIO 2

If an anti-drug PSA ad features Justin Timberlake in it, and I am deeply offended that a boy-bander is being served up as a role model to teens, do I have the right to demand that it be taken down - even if the ad is actually effective in curbing drug rates in teens?