Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
A present for you.
Link at sig
.... with a last name like "Langsetmo" I'm never going to make it in Washinton....
Oh well.
Cheers,
But, it's okay. It don't Mean Nothing'.
A ' jabbers ' or '2' got deleted. O, drop dead?
phooey. It up to thee wise, fool, a sage/idiot?
Silence. I'll buy some deodorant, enjoy soups.
~Ignore? okay. Play 'hit' rusty dead door nail.
~Cranky. okay. Play somewhere else? I hears.
okay.
~
That first time blogger is a Easter Bunny.
He so obese and funny. Offspring think?
Thee Easter Bunny is obese. Nasty? Hops.
Blogger comments make obese belly pop.
The Easter Bunny and Santa belly jiggled.
Oy! say:`Thumper and Bambi are necrotic.
Who killed thee deers? If a head is lopped?
It's a good idea to practice a smile. O Role?
Roll up Capital Hill on a stinky scats board?
Just FYI, Arne never claimed to be cute.
But he posted some pictures to prove it...
~
As it downloads.
No get a facelift.
Ya' be U. GG be?
No be a lawyers.
None are any___.
OHO. I's change?
I wonder how much of this is due to some brain-dead voters? When I worked for the state of Texas, in the 1970s, the elected official who signed my pay checks was Jesse James. His successor (or maybe predecessor, I don't remember) was Warren G. Harding. There was also a scandal (well, in another state it would have been a scandal) of a gentleman facing a felony charge and certain conviction who was running for the legislature as a means of avoiding trial and conviction. His surname was a spelling variant of the name of a very famous Texas politician named Ralph Yarborough. His case was widely reported in the newpapers but still he was elected. His luck ran out, though; his election was annulled and he ended up in prison.
I have been informed that "cute" is good, even when applied to 60something year old men.
Berry Berry Good. Way Good. Sehr Gut! Wunderbar!
I wish I was cute.
-------------------
Man, that is wicked. You remind me of the many graduate students I taught in -----------. They were wicked too. Dumb as posts, but wicked. I congratulate you on your wicked idiocy.
Come to think of it, that's one of my wife's favorite adjectives. It's generally followed by [haircut] or [item of clothing], and usually directed toward a woman (or facsimile thereof).
I was specifically instructed that an old man being refered to as "cute" by a younger female, is good.
True.
Now, if only I looked like Carl Sagan.
Sheesh
As in, "cute scarf!"
http://tinyurl.com/65y434
I know Jebbie won't be able to resist...
I agree that there's definitely room for a book and/or PhD thesis about political nepotism in American history. I went to Wikipedia's lists of Governors for New Jersey and Connecticut, two states (a) I've lived in (b) that go back to the beginning. Just eyeballing the lists of names (and not doing the statistics that someone really ought to do), it seems to me that there was more nepotism before the Civil War and then again after WWII.
My preliminary hypothesis would be that the intervening period was a time when political parties were extremely strong, stronger than they are now. When party is a strong identifying brand, family or name doesn't have to be -- and may even work against one.
Preliminary prediction: nepotistic succession will be rarer in Parliamentary systems than in the US. Prelimary test: List of recent Prime Ministers of the UK, where you have to go back to Harold Wilson to find a P.M. from a political family. By comparison with the comparable period of US Presidents, the UK PM list also comes from a wider range of class backgrounds and a *much* wider range of educational backgrounds.
Very preliminary conclusion: we need either stronger parties (fewer independents, for instance), better nepotism, or some other way for rising politicians to acquire an identifiable brand.
I work for a living. I no Sir.
No, siree, me neither. I'm just a dude (minus the ranch). I scramble for a living like anyone else (except for those who talk smartly about fiat currency, keeping one's money in cash, gold or--what--hydroponic tomatoes?).
Mr. Greenwald points to the existence of a nepotistic privileged coterie. To characterize them as "aristocratic" is to imply a degree of responsibility, a sense of noblesse oblige,not in evidence.Oligarchic is more apropos since no merit need be imputed.
yours
FPJohn
• I think the topic is worthy and compelling, and I certainly deplore the nation's class stratification, of which political nepotism is a symptom... but on this hard day's night I can't think of anything pithy to add on the topic.
• FWIW, I'm astonished that JKP1000 omitted Frank Sinatra, Jr., from his list of dynastic performers.
• And am I correct to think those "Editor's Choice" stars have just debuted here? I know they're standard on those other Salon columns I rarely read, much less comment on. Meh. If Glenn himself awards them, OK. I find the concept irritating for reasons I won't bore folks with.
• Also, while I fully respect and support Glenn's editorial decisions, I'm more bitterly opposed than ever to comments censorship since I was a victim of CommonDreams' post-election Night of the Long Knives purge. I'm by no means sucking up when I say that Glenn's approach is an exception. He practices what he preaches, and obviously weeds this English garden with great care, restraint, discernment, and discretion. In a word, Glenn is fair.
No offense to anyone, but I'm extremely wary of the idea of Glenn deputizing volunteers to assist him in this function. I certainly wouldn't want the responsibility, even if I could spend the required time here-- not that I harbor the conceit that my name leaps to mind, BTW.
It's too much of a slippery slope; I've seen too many sites in which vigilante comments commissars delight in their power to zealously attack supposed "trolls" or "disruptive" visitors who challenge cliques of regulars or disrespect the host.
Sometimes the intervention is compounded by deliberate ambiguity over whether the commissar has actually been appointed by the host, or if they're taking it upon themselves-- of course, if they can actually censor or delete offending comments, it's obvious that they have administrative privileges conferred by the host.
Frankly, although I don't want to Name Names, I don't think much of certain popular leftish bloggers who, unlike Glenn, respond to the admittedly difficult issue of controlling pathological commenters by a combination of cultivating an "in-group" of bouncers and implementing harsh top-down, authoritarian, draconian rules because they don't have time to "babysit" the comments, etc. Especially when they can't bothered to clarify ambiguities or inconsistencies in their ground rules.
I'm reasonably sure that I'm not in danger of being banned by Glenn for the crime of being an occasionally tedious and always garrulous pain in the ass, and I enjoy the ephemeral sense of "community" that comes from long-term participation in blog comments. But in my experience, recruiting comments police is not the answer.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
