Quoting piscivorous: I made the comment a couple of days ago that Senator McCain was winning the candidate definition period and I appear to have gotten it right according to both the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Gallop now reporting only a 3 point spread in it's Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 43% which is within the margin of error. Real Clear Politics running average General Election: McCain vs. Obama has moved down to 2.3%. So far out the the pooling is not what I would call concrete but it is interesting to note the trends.

Concrete or not it's always good to celebrate at a favorable turn of the dice... Enjoy! It may turn many times between now and then though...

Oh I'm sure it will.

(IR)Regardless of your speculation, you must remove the IR.
Thanks Gentleman.

Quoting graz: (IR)Regardless of your speculation, you must remove the IR.
Thanks Gentleman.

My thoughts exactly! Argh, Matthew! You're too smart to say that, even as a verbal slip. You may say regardless. You may say irrespective. You may not say That Other Word. Cripes, no wonder you got fired from The Atlantic. ;^)

Quoting bjkeefe: My thoughts exactly!

Argh, Matthew! You're too smart to say that, even as a verbal slip. You may say regardless. You may say irrespective. You may not say That Other Word.

Cripes, no wonder you got fired from The Atlantic.

;^)

I was awaiting your input. But I figured you were riveted by the discussion of Batman and funnelcakes.

I think the probability that Matthew could cite a reference to back up this claim is very low so therefore I'll ignore him.

I'm not a graphic novel... Therefore I am

Well, at least NERRRRRRRRRRRD! Matt speaks of comics as if the last 20 years never happened and people in colorful tights beating each other up—or meta-versions of such—are still the ne plus ultra of graphic novel quality, and thereby manages to persuade Ross that he really isn't missing anything. I mean, Watchmen wasn't even the best graphic novel to come out in 1986—ever heard of a book called Maus?—much less the best graphic novel of all time. I can easily think of 25 comics off the top of my head which have come out since Watchmen that are at least as good, and several are even by Alan Moore—From Hell, the utterly whacked-out Promethea, maybe even League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, all of which as intertextuality goes make Watchmen look like a wind-up Ouroboros. Don't get me wrong, I love Watchmen. It's a great book, one I re-read every couple of years, although from the preview I'm betting the film version will be approximately as disappointing as, say, The Hitchhiker's Guide movie was. But it's a meta-superhero story, and that only goes so far. Trust me, Ross—read Graffiti Kitchen, read Curses, read Jimmy Corrigan, read One! Hundred! Demons!, read whatever Jim Woodring and Marc

One word: Persepolis.

With Matt talking about McCain "enthusiasts" and Ross talking about "building him up" I've started to think that Bob's instituted some sort of fairness doctrine vis-a-vis McNasty. Even the MSM (David Gergin/ Joe Klein) are taking him to the woodshed. My starting point is this is the guy that in his prime couldn't put away a callow George W. Bush in 2000. Try as he might, in my mind, he'll never disentangle himself from that particular relationship. Before he "went negative" he could at least have embodied some pathos as he captained the Republican "Voyage of the Damned". It's only August, but his campaign only elicits contempt and revulsion from me. Hey John, they're always saying you're looking for a VP that you're simpatico with. Forget Joe Lieberman. Let's put Don Rickles on that short list. Hey Barack, to paraphrase George C. Scott in The Hustler. "Play him Slim, he's a loser".

Mmm...I think Persepolis is a fantastic read, but I wouldn't exactly call it a great comic...Satrapi's basically a solid-but-derivative cartoonist who's smart enough to know her limits and not allow them to get in the way of the great story she has to tell. I'd say the film (which she was intimately involved in the making of) is actually superior to the comic for this reason—it contains all the expressionistic effects that one guesses she could see in her mind's eye but just didn't have the chops to pull off on the page. To see where she derives her style from (perhaps even more in the film than the comic,) check out David B's Epileptic, which is definitely Better Than Watchmen. To see a woman with utterly terrifying chops, check out Phoebe Gloeckner's A Child's Life. P.S. Oh, and Joe Sacco's Soba should have been on that short list for Ross, given how politically oriented his books are...really, anything by Sacco is worth reading, but that's a great little compact character sketch and an excellent introduction to his work.

Quoting Jesse F: I mean, Watchmen wasn't even the best graphic novel to come out in 1986—ever heard of a book called Maus?—much less the best graphic novel of all time.

As a kid, I thought Maus was very enjoyable and a nice way to introduce a child to the Holocaust, but it goes over well-tread ground. The only difference is that the Nazis are cats and the Jews are mice. Otherwise, you can get the same story from any number of sources. Watchmen addressed a number of seemingly distinct subjects (concepts of heroism, global politics, philosophy, etc.) in an interesting and novel way. You can read it several times and get something new out of it. That was not my experience with Maus.

I wish Matthew would allow Ross to speak.

That's fair enough, from a certain perspective, though it's important to keep in mind that there's been an exponential explosion in material about the Holocaust since Maus, perhaps even partially due to its massive success: Spiegelman himself once said that when he first started researching Maus in the late 70s, he was basically able to go to the library, say "Gimme what you got on the Holocaust," and read it all inside of a couple of weeks. So in one sense, this criticism is a bit like blaming Hamlet for being full of clichés. As for formal originality, we'll have to just agree to differ: I think the fact that you can re-read Maus without gaining anything new—as opposed to Watchmen—is really about how smoothly Spiegelman incorporates all the formal tricks he honed in his earlier work into the narrative. If you actually pull Maus apart page by page—as Hillary Chute did, in a doctoral dissertation that netted her a Harvard Fellowship—you'll find that there's an incredible amount of formal ingenuity going on underneath the surface. Unlike with Watchmen, though, it just doesn't draw attention to itself, because that's

You raise some good points, and I definitely concede that I might be short-changing Maus -- it's been almost two decades since I read it. At the very least, you've convinced me to go to the library later today to read it again. While a good amount of Holocaust literature was written after Maus, I think it's fair to say that the most important works occurred well before. The most notable achievement of Maus, I think, was making something as horrific as the Holocaust understandable and approachable to children. This is no easy task, and my perception of Maus as going over well-tread ground is not meant to make light of its impressive achievements. I also fully agree with you that Maus is a far better introduction to comics than Watchmen. Whether that is a factor in deciding which work is more artistically impressive depends upon your aesthetic philosophy.

Those are good points, and I freely admit that my take has to do with my own aesthetic leanings—I also prefer Thurber to Perelman, Newman to Costello, DJ Shadow to Girl Talk, etc...i.e., I have a strong bias towards work that's gone through 50 drafts in order to seem like it was casually tossed off in an afternoon over work that wears its kaleidoscopic cleverness on its sleeve, a la Alan "I Worship a 2nd Century Roman Sock Puppet And Use Magick To See Into The Fourth Dimension" Moore. If you prefer the latter, though, you may well prefer the Breakdowns re-issue to Maus...that book's nothing if not formally impressive as all get out. And since I can't seem to tear myself away from making recommendations, one more: the Spiegelman/Karasik/Mazzuchelli adaptation of Paul Auster's City of Glass. I like the original novella just fine, but this is the one comic adaptation that I'd regard as superior to its source material. Unless you count Watchmen as being an adaptation of those Grade-Z Charlton comics it's based on, of course...

Quoting Jesse F: Those are good points, and I freely admit that my take has to do with my own aesthetic leanings—I also prefer Thurber to Perelman, Newman to Costello, DJ Shadow to Girl Talk, etc...i.e., I have a strong bias towards work that's gone through 50 drafts in order to seem like it was casually tossed off in an afternoon over work that wears its kaleidoscopic cleverness on its sleeve, a la Alan "I Worship a 2nd Century Roman Sock Puppet And Use Magick To See Into The Fourth Dimension" Moore. If you prefer the latter, though, you may well prefer the Breakdowns re-issue to Maus...that book's nothing if not formally impressive as all get out.

And since I can't seem to tear myself away from making recommendations, one more: the Spiegelman/Karasik/Mazzuchelli adaptation of Paul Auster's City of Glass. I like the original novella just fine, but this is the one comic adaptation that I'd regard as superior to its source material. Unless you count Watchmen as being an adaptation of those Grade-Z Charlton comics it's based on, of course...

Thanks Jesse for the recommendation of the Auster adaptation. Having read most of his work, I was drawn to the movie adaptations,
Smoke

Matthew: In case you read these comments, I'm following up on something I said by email. I see you, or someone, has resurrected your old site (matthewyglesias.com). Thanks for that. Nice to know the archives are there for posterity. Ideally, though, a visit to your old home page would not result in an immediate redirect, but would offer visitors a link to your new digs, or the option to browse the archives. Following on, what are the plans for the stuff that you posted on The Atlantic's site? I hope these posts will remain accessible, too. It's not as though I am obsessively poring over your canon. It's just that every so often, I come across a link pointing to your earlier work, and it would be nice not to have to suffer the pain of link rot. Good luck at the new gig.

Does this mean I qualify to appear on bloggingheads as well?! http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/133...&out=00:01:07/

Quoting nikkibong: Does this mean I qualify to appear on bloggingheads as well?!

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/133...&out=00:01:07/

LOL! I would say, however, that this is a classic case of meeting necessary, but not sufficient, conditions.

Auster: I think you'll really like that adaptation, then—it really captures the feel of the Auster novella in a way that reflects a deeply thoughtful take on the problems of translating a work from one medium to another. If Douglas Hofstadter liked the funnybooks more, he could've dedicated a whole chapter of Le Ton Beau de Marot to this one. Also, Mazzuchelli's art is beautiful—and if Matt is reading this, hey, he once drew Batman! Girl Talk: One thing that's occurred to me with GT—although I've haven't read this anywhere, so who knows—is that its ADDishness may be a product of Gillis's trying to stay on the side of the angels in terms of Fair Use, at least according to his own moral compass. The net result is exhilarating for any given track, but if I listen to three in a row I remember why even Dr. Demento worships John Fahey. Newman vs. Costello: You are correct, sir! Although Paul Newman vs. Lou Costello is a much, much more thought-provoking comparison...

Oh, and one more point about Maus: while TSE's triad of key pre-Maus Holocaust books is a point well taken, I do think that there's one big difference between Maus and the rest of them, which is that Vladek Spiegelman was basically an asshole. He was an asshole before the Holocaust, he was an asshole after the Holocaust, and if the Holocaust hadn't happened, he might've ended up an even bigger asshole. Yet this very meanness is virtually inextricable from the resourcefulness and savvy which enabled him to survive where so many others were killed. That, to me, is the tension that drives the dual narratives of the book, and content-wise is much more a source of its power and re-readability than any cat/mouse metaphor. In other words, Maus is certainly not the first major work about being a Holocaust survivor, but it may well be the first major work about being a Holocaust survivor survivor...

Anybody else watch the episode with Daniel Deudney? http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/298?in=&out= I enjoyed it so much I read his book. Then just last month I read Watchmen for the first time, and kept thinking, "This is just like Deundey!" Anybody else know about Ronald Reagan and "the Little Green Men again"? http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/0...ere_ever_.html

Matt and Ross have hit the nail on the head. The reason to worry about carbon emissions is not because we can predict their effect on climate--modeling is virtually impossible given the complexities--but precisely because we cannot. Think of it as "tail risk" or a catastrophic negative black swan. But beyond the worrying, proper characterization of the risk should force us to think more constructively about potential responses. Incremental "solutions" which are guaranteed to fail due to lack of participation from China and India, for example, should be subjected to rigorous cost/benefit analysis. [I consider allowing our earmark-addicted Congress a monopoly on carbon credits is a cost.] I would suggest overinvestment in worst-case scenarios: mitigation through atmospheric manipulation, scenario planning for radical decentralization of the power grid, and so on.

Quoting piscivorous: I made the comment a couple of days ago that Senator McCain was winning the candidate definition period and I appear to have gotten it right

The latest polls show the MCcain attack-ad-bump to be continuing but slowing according to your GE average going back to 3.1 spread but the other two are up ~1 point for Mccain.
My expert analysis is that the Paris / Brittany blowback and specifically the Paris Hilton rebuttal is re-winning the candidate definition period for Obama. Did you ever think of saying "close the gap" or "shows an upward trend" do you have to use "winning"? I probably wouldn't be mocking your consistent trend mongering if your wording was a little less sensational. But please, by all means, enable me.

With Senator McCain making light of the Paris Hilton add and her repeating the same comedic lines, that the Senator used himself, do you really believe it is a rebuttal. After all it is Senator McCain that has says we should make use of all energy sources long before Senator Obama decided that compromise was necessary. Perhaps we conservatives see the add through different eyes and see the humor in it. Senator Obama -"whatever" seems a bit reactive don't you think?

It'll be interesting to see if Obama's "Pocket" Ad helps push the McCain slump farther. And this news clip will surely help, too. That one line from Obama tells you all you need to know about the McCain campaign:

It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

Yea and that is sure to build the bipartisanship Senator Obama talks about. Don't know the effect will have. It will depend on the play it gets I would imagine.

Quoting piscivorous: Yea and that is sure to build the bipartisanship Senator Obama talks about.

Gawd, that old canard? Again? Any time Obama pushes back against the ratharkins, you guys always start with the faux-outrage, "B-b-but he said he'd be bipartisan." Beyond lame. You want bipartisan outreach from Obama, start agitating your own side to run on the issues, and not on smears.

Gee I thought that talking about energy was one of the issues. Also think it is pertinent to point out that one of Senator Obama's issues, during the primary was his ability to reach across the isle. If one can't point out his inconsistencies on this what can one talk about?

pisc: Your habit of changing the subject with every reply is sometimes amusing to play with, but this time, I'm not going to bite.

I didn't change the subject; I replied to this

Quoting bjkeefe: Gawd, that old canard? Again? Any time Obama pushes back against the ratharkins, you guys always start with the faux-outrage, "B-b-but he said he'd be bipartisan."

In response to

Quoting bjkeefe: It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant.

[/quote]

You should find this a little more on topic about the issue.

Using the website FuelEconomy.gov, Verrastro writes, we can estimate that "the maximum (estimated) fuel economy (i.e., mileage) savings drivers could expect as a result of keeping their engines properly tuned (4%), replacing air filters (up to 10%), properly inflating tires (up to 3%) and using the correct motor oil (1-2%) is 18-19%. Since American drivers use roughly 380 million gallons of gasoline (not including diesel) per day, an 18% improvement translates into a savings of 68 million gallons, or 1.62 million barrels of oil per day."

Current crude oil and condensate production in the OCS is about 1.25 million barrels per day.

So... What does that mean?

It means that if every American was running around with significantly underinflated tires and improperly tuned cars, then, yes, Sen. Obama is right, the savings from inflating the tires and tuning the cars could arguably match or exceed current output from the OCS.

However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road -- as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics -- and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any

Yes, you're right that Obama was off in saying that just proper tire inflation will save more gas than drilling will produce, and that the claim is based on the faulty assumption that everyone has under-inflated tires at present. Nonetheless, the larger point stands -- there is a lot to be gained, right now, from conservation, and a lot of techniques are cheap and easy to do, if not downright free. It's also worth reminding those who might be tempted to swallow the image of wingnuts chortling over their tire pressure gauge campaign props that this is not Obama's entire strategy. His remark was an answer to a question along the lines of "What can I, as a private citizen, do right now?" I know you personally don't need to be reminded of that, but apparently, many of your compatriots do. Or at least, they need to be contradicted when they say it for whatever nefarious reasons they may have. Especially since they were screaming, seems like just the other day, about McCain's "100 Years" being "TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT!!!"

Nor is Senator McCain's solution to just drill but that is how it gets portrayed. I guess it must be an election year and pols will be pols..

Quoting piscivorous: Nor is Senator McCain's solution to just drill but that is how it gets portrayed.

Well, yeah. But, in fairness, you can't blame the media for everything, and McCain of all politicians certainly can't. They are, after all, his base. You also have to acknowledge that McCain himself has not been putting out much of a message on energy besides "drill now" and "Obama's energy plan is bad." I pay pretty close attention, and I could not for the life of me think of what else he has ever proposed, let alone tried to talk up on a consistent basis. Ditto his campaign surrogates. Looking at the relevant page on his campaign web site, I do see a long list of things McCain claims to support or claims to believe. Once you scroll past the couple of screenfuls, I mean, which are all about drilling. Oh, yeah, scrolling down, I'm reminded that I've heard him mention new nuclear power plants a few times. So that's something. I dunno. A list that long, yet in many places short on specifics, makes me wonder how serious he is about anything past the first two items. Compared to Obama's energy page, McCain's seems a lot less detailed and looks like

Quoting piscivorous: With Senator McCain making light of the Paris Hilton add and her repeating the same comedic lines, that the Senator used himself, do you really believe it is a rebuttal. After all it is Senator McCain that has says we should make use of all energy sources long before Senator Obama decided that compromise was necessary. Perhaps we conservatives see the add through different eyes and see the humor in it. Senator Obama -"whatever" seems a bit reactive don't you think?

Quoting handle: Did you ever think of saying "close the gap" or "shows an upward trend" do you have to use "winning"? I probably wouldn't be mocking your consistent trend mongering if your wording was a little less sensational. But please, by all means, enable me.

I was "mocking" the way you overstate your points, by overstating mine to the point of silliness, but "whatever". (That was a joke, the "whatever" part, the other words I typed were an explanation of the humor involved in my post, that was mocking your post, wherein I wrote that I was mocking your post, so you would understand that I was... oh never mind).
Or maybe you are pretending to be obtuse, by rebutting Paris' energy "solution"? You kooliadcons

Quoting piscivorous: I made the comment a couple of days ago that Senator McCain was winning the candidate definition period and I appear to have gotten it right according to both the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Gallop now reporting only a 3 point spread in it's Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 43% which is within the margin of error. Real Clear Politics running average General Election: McCain vs. Obama has moved down to 2.3%. So far out the the pooling is not what I would call concrete but it is interesting to note the trends.

Let's click on those links today....
Uh oh! looks like I was right, Obama is winning the all-important-according-to-you "definition period"! Victory is at hand!
I'm making fun of your sensationalism again, just so we are clear this time. Polls hovering around a few percent don't look like trends to me but like I implied earlier, anything that opens the door....

Quoting piscivorous: I made the comment a couple of days ago that Senator McCain was winning the candidate definition period and I appear to have gotten it right according to both the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Gallop now reporting only a 3 point spread in it's Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 43% which is within the margin of error. Real Clear Politics running average General Election: McCain vs. Obama has moved down to 2.3%. So far out the the pooling is not what I would call concrete but it is interesting to note the trends.

Yes the "trend" is continuing, "I appear to have gotten it right" 3.6% spread now...
Damn the margin of error, full speed ahead!
Oh wait, the "fair and balanced news" has Mccain up by 19% today!, guess I was wrong.
Wait, they wouldn't be trying to manipulate the average would they? Sorry, forgot they were "Fair" for a minute! My bad....

Quoting piscivorous: I made the comment a couple of days ago that Senator McCain was winning the candidate definition period and I appear to have gotten it right according to both the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Gallop now reporting only a 3 point spread in it's Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 43% which is within the margin of error. Real Clear Politics running average General Election: McCain vs. Obama has moved down to 2.3%. So far out the the pooling is not what I would call concrete but it is interesting to note the trends.

Oh my gawd, 4.4%! Mccains in a nose dive! Stick a fork in im......

******4.8%****** Fox still has Mccain @19% up! what an obvious, and intense load of *&#@!

Quoting piscivorous: I made the comment a couple of days ago that Senator McCain was winning the candidate definition period and I appear to have gotten it right according to both the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Gallop now reporting only a 3 point spread in it's Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 43% which is within the margin of error. Real Clear Politics running average General Election: McCain vs. Obama has moved down to 2.3%. So far out the the pooling is not what I would call concrete but it is interesting to note the trends.

Quoting piscivorous: I made the comment a couple of days ago that Senator McCain was winning the candidate definition period and I appear to have gotten it right according to both the Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll with Gallop now reporting only a 3 point spread in it's Gallup Daily: Obama 46%, McCain 43% which is within the margin of error. Real Clear Politics running average General Election: McCain vs. Obama has moved down to 2.3%. So far out the the pooling is not what I would call concrete but it is interesting to note the trends.

Oh no! Obama with a .2 percent slide down to 4.6!!!! Time to do the partisan dance and downplay, distract, and ignore..... Nothing to see here folks! Why it's another interesting trend, Mccain is "winning" again, at least sort of, but just wait until we will see the effects of the hit literature. Hope you are proud of your lie machine. What ever it takes to win, right? I have a feeling they can't lower the bar any more than '04 though, and the Dems have learned to limbo... insert cute dancing animated gif here.

Quoting handle: ... hit literature ...

I'd really like to see a serious investigative effort put into how the right wing games the bestseller list with these books. I've heard stories about large lots of books of this sort being purchased and given away for free, or being shipped to warehouses, and either quietly remaindered or thrown out a few months later. The article you link to hints at this:

The book is being pushed along by a large volume of bulk sales ...

I don't doubt that there are some people eager to buy books like this, but I'm curious to know what percentage are individually purchased through the usual retail channels. BTW, for anyone who's interested, Media Matters already has a lengthy piece up, fact-checking The Obama Nation.

Quoting bjkeefe: I'd really like to see a serious investigative effort put into how the right wing games the bestseller list with these books. I've heard stories about large lots of books of this sort being purchased and given away for free, or being shipped to warehouses, and either quietly remaindered or thrown out a few months later.
[/url].

Excellent point, I was confused by the "bestseller" status. While I agree there is, no doubt, a rabid readership for this type of "[insert non-profane name for what ever that is here]", I have to wonder if people like Rupert are the biggest fans, and if so do they recycle? Seems to me that book burning would be scandalous on quite a few levels...

Quoting handle: Excellent point, I was confused by the "bestseller" status. While I agree there is, no doubt, a rabid readership for this type of "[insert non-profane name for what ever that is here]", I have to wonder if people like Rupert are the biggest fans, and if so do they recycle? Seems to me that book burning would be scandalous on quite a few levels...

The NY Times does append a dagger (†) to a book's listing in its bestseller lists, which "indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders." They just added one to Corsi's book, which wasn't there when I looked a short while ago. Interesting to note what other books get the dagger -- Tori Spelling's "memoirs," a screed by political hack Dick Morris (tagline: "Americans are fleeced by government, business, labor unions and lobbyists."), and The Revolution, by Ron Paul. There's also a dagger next to The Drunkard's Walk, by Leonard Mlodinow, but I'm guessing this is from school orders. As for your question about recycling or burning, it is my understanding that large quantities of books like this are mulched.

Quoting bjkeefe: The NY Times does append a dagger (†) to a book's listing in its bestseller lists, which "indicates that some bookstores report receiving bulk orders." They just added one to Corsi's book, which wasn't there when I looked a short while ago.

Interesting to note what other books get the dagger -- Tori Spelling's "memoirs," a screed by political hack Dick Morris (tagline: "Americans are fleeced by government, business, labor unions and lobbyists."), and The Revolution, by Ron Paul.

There's also a dagger next to The Drunkard's Walk, by Leonard Mlodinow, but I'm guessing this is from school orders.

Sooo.. stick a dagger in it already, eh?

Quoting bjkeefe: As for your question about recycling or burning, it is my understanding that large quantities of books like this are mulched.

Of course, such an obvious choice! Should have known...

ADDED: If you want to buy the book, buy it by clicking here, and you'll support this blog (without paying any extra).

Guess: 1. Whose blog this line appears on.
2. Where "here" would point to if I had any desire to actually reproduce the link. Hint: An alleged Obama supporter, but not Mickey Kaus. Even he has standards. Comparatively speaking. (h/t: flory)

Bonus: Backpedaling (fail) by said blog author in the comments for the same post:

Why am I "associating myself" with this book? I read a NYT article about it and I wanted to parse through that article and figure out what was going on. That makes a blog post. I haven't read the book and am not recommending it. I give an Amazon Associates link to make a percent for myself, because that's my standard practice (unless I forget) whenever I write about a book.

Standards remain unchanged. Fisking a newspaper article now equals "writing about a book." But that's okay, because it's really only about being a parasite on a sleaze to make a few bucks.

Topic for discussion: Since the costs for hosting and bandwidth for said blog are zero, how should we interpret "support this blog?" Possible answer: "M-Fer, I want more red wine."

Quoting bjkeefe: Topic for discussion:

Since the costs for hosting and bandwidth for said blog are zero, how should we interpret "support this blog?"

Possible answer: "M-Fer, I want more red wine."

Oh come on now. Why assume she doesn't have a legitimate need for the money? Isn't it more likely that the funds help pay for her anti-psychotic medications? That lunatic did a poll the other day asking her readers who they thought she would vote for in November. Fully half (when I looked) thought she was voting for Obama. She's a Rush Limbaugh fan -- subscribes to his site so she can listen to the podcast, even. She bashes Obama and defends McCain almost daily. She said she was influenced in her thinking by McCain's Paris Hilton ad. And still, half her ultra-right-wing readers don't trust her to make The Right Choice in November.

I bet she'll vote for Obama, especially if it looks like Wisconsin will go to him, just to build her "cred" for when she spends the next four years parroting the rest of the wingnuts' attacks.

Quoting bjkeefe: I bet she'll vote for Obama, especially if it looks like Wisconsin will go to him, just to build her "cred" for when she spends the next four years parroting the rest of the wingnuts' attacks.

That should buy a few boxes of wine... or rehab.