You're Joking...Right?

A friend forwards the following:

The madam opened the brothel door to see a rather dignified, well-dressed good-looking man in his 50s or maybe early 60s. "May I help you?" she asked. "I want to see Valerie," the man replied. "Sir, Valerie is one of our most expensive ladies. Perhaps you would prefer someone else." said the madam. "No. I must see Valerie." was the man's reply. Just then, Valerie appeared and announced to the man that she charged $1,000 a visit. Without hesitation, the man pulled out ten one hundred dollar bills, gave them to Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, the man calmly left.

The next night, the same man appeared again, demanding to see Valerie. Valerie explained that none had ever come back two nights in a row—too expensive—and there were no discounts. The price was still $1,000. Again the man pulled out the money, gave it to Valerie and they went upstairs. After an hour, he left.

The following night the man was there again. Everyone was astounded that he had come for the third consecutive night but he paid Valerie and they went upstairs. After their session, Valerie questioned the man. "No one has ever been with me three nights in a row. Where are you from?" she asked. The man replied "Arkansas." "Really?" she said. "I have family in Arkansas." "I know," the man said. "Your father died and I am your sister's attorney. She asked me to give you your $3,000 inheritance."

The moral of the story is that THREE things in life are certain:

1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Getting screwed by a lawyer.

S’true, innit?

And while we’re on about jokes…one of the more blog-worthy things I passed up this past week was Barack Obama’s admission that he got high as a teen-ager, while speaking to a group of teens at some (ahem) high school in New Hampshire. Which, to begin with, isn’t really news at all since he wrote about his teen drug use in one of his books. And, when you think about it, his admitted drug use makes Senator Obama pretty much an average sort of kid, given that (a) he was 18 in 1979 and (b) 51% of high school seniors in that particular year supposedly smoked pot (the percent-of-use stats have declined markedly since then). But Senator Obama’s admission isn’t the joke, it’s the reactions to his admission that provoke MY laughter. I’m not alone in this regard, either:

Mitt Romney waded in on BO’s former teen weed burning divulgence and condemned it, saying that Obama’s confession sent a bad message to young people, namely that you can “get high and become president.”

First of all Mitt, you gotta relax, man… Obama, like you, is not going to become president, so chill, okay? In addition, as a good religious man you should applaud his honesty in owning his previously bad record, right? I mean c’mon, Mr. Romney . . . at least he’s up front about it. He didn’t flip flop on what he did in the past or try to explain away why he did what he did to ingratiate himself to a gullible voting block in a sad and desperate attempt to become president.

Another conservative said this week that Barack coming forward with the admission that he toked the ganja was not only unwise but was also a bad example for children. Telling the truth has now become a bad example? I believe that was Larry Craig who said that. I could be wrong.

The absolute cake taker freaking out over Barack’s breasting of his dirty deeds was a 350lb chubby Christian who was all up in arms regarding Obama’s former relationship with the cannabis. He too said that such an admission left a poor pattern for young people. I was thinking, yeah? Well, so does being morbidly obese, chunky butt. Hey, Jabba… being a bloated, self righteous crank with a totemic view of vice is also a bad example for the children, so dial down and take care of your own house, Jenny Craig.

That’s from a column by Doug Giles at TownHall.com. Mr. Giles goes on to say that he, as a conservative, wouldn’t vote for Senator Obama in the first place…but Obama’s admission about pot-smoking is both refreshing (as opposed to the infamous “I didn’t inhale.” Yeah, right.) and long overdue from our candidates.

It’s good to see I’m not alone in this regard. More support for my particular point of view can be found in this Houston Chronicle editorial, published yesterday. I’ll stop here…except to wonder, yet again, is Obama still smoking? (the comments to this thread are hilarious…)

This is kinda-sorta related to the rhetorical question I posed yesterday (“Are we really that stupid?”):

November 25, 2007 -- IT'S hard for Hollywood pacifists like Brian De Palma to capture the hearts and minds of America if Americans won't see their movies. While the public is staying away in droves from “Rendition," “Lions for Lambs" and “In the Valley of Elah," audiences are really avoiding “Redacted," De Palma's picture about US soldiers who rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then kill her and her family.

[…]

“Redacted" - which “could be the worst movie I've ever seen," said critic Michael Medved - took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters, which means roughly 3,000 people saw it in the entire country. “This, despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity, high praise in the Times, The New Yorker, left-leaning sites like Salon, etc.

This lil blurb appeared in the right-leaning NY Post, so its veracity is questionable if you're a member of the tin-foil hat brigade. But for the non-paranoid among us: good news. We’re apparently not that stupid. Better news would be Brian De Palma deciding he’s had enough of Amerikkka and announcing he’s going to emigrate to the south of France where his world-view would be much more acceptable (or not. I keep forgetting: Sarkozy.) Chances of that? Hah.

Some people are really pissed about De Palma’s hit piece, though. Including Congressman Duncan Hunter, who sent a “scathing letter” to the MPAA:

The ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee sent a letter to the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America yesterday calling the new Iraq war film "Redacted" shameful in its view of U.S. soldiers.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, sent a scathing letter regarding Brian De Palma's new film to MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman asking that he not forget that there are heroes who have sacrificed their lives for the United States and Iraqi people.

"Unfortunately, Brian De Palma's new movie 'Redacted,' which opened in several theaters this week, portrays American service personnel in Iraq as uncontrollable misfits and criminals," Mr. Hunter stated in his letter to Mr. Glickman. "While incidents of criminal behavior by members of our military should never be ignored, the isolated incident on which this film is based negatively portrays American service personnel and misrepresents their collective efforts in Iraq."

Mr. Glickman, a former Democratic congressman and agriculture secretary, could not be reached for comment.

Of course not. And even if Mr. Glickman were available, we’d likely get some pap about the First Amendment, “isn’t this a great country where dissent is tolerated,” and all that happy horseshit. It’s a good thing I’m not king…because there’d be a whole bunch of deportations…or “exiles,” if you prefer… after a fair trial for treason, of course. Coz if De Palma’s merde isn’t “aid and comfort” to our enemies I don’t know what IS.

(h/t to Flopping Aces for the WaTimes link)

Today’s Pic: Keeping with yesterday’s theme…today’s pic isn’t a pic at all, but a link to another “It Could Be Worse” pic I put up not quite a year ago. I simply get all thankful when I go back into the archives and look at these photos. I saw enough of this frozen white stuff to last me a lifetime…and then some… whilst living in Upstate NY.

Never again.

Paying the Price

So. I mentioned I was up late the night before last when I put up yesterday’s placeholder post. I didn’t mention just how late I was up, nor did I mention the time I actually rolled out of bed. For the record, I was up until 0330 yesterday morning and was awakened by SN1 calling to chat around 1000 that same morning.

One pays a price for such behavior…and the price is: falling asleep while watching the news just after 1800 hrs, and having your eyes pop open eight hours later at 0200. And there’s not a thing you can do to get back to sleep, because, well… you’re done. I tried and gave up at 0300 or so. It’s gonna be a long day, methinks.

Wild, wild weather today. We’re under a “high wind warning” until about 1800 hours this evening and let me tell you: the wind is fierce! El Casa Móvil De Pennington is doing some serious rockin’ to and fro…I just might have to go out and buy some Dramamine. It’s that bad.

“Well, how bad is it, really, Buck?” you ask? This bad…

I should shoot a video and post it, coz it’s a real “you had to be there” kinda thing.

Not much in today’s news, so let’s flog a dead horse. Peggy Noonan, writing in yesterday’s WSJ:

Mrs. Clinton has never gone after a fellow Democrat quite the way she's going after Mr. Obama, and it's an indication of how threatened she is not only by his candidacy but, one suspects, his freshness. He makes her look like yesterday. He makes her look like the old slash-and-burn. I doubted he could do her serious damage. Now I wonder.

What Mrs. Clinton is trying to establish is this: to criticize her--to speak of her critically as a human being, as a person with a record and a history and a style and attitudes--is, ipso facto, to be dirty, and low, and destructive. To air and raise questions about who she is, how she operates, and what can be inferred from her past actions is by definition an unjust act.

But Americans have always--always--looked at and judged the character and personality of their candidates for president. And they have been right to do so. It mattered that Lincoln was Honest Abe, Washington had no personal lust for power, that FDR was an optimist and a manipulator, that Adams was a man of rectitude and no small amount of stubbornness. These facts, these aspects of their nature, had policy implications and leadership implications. They couldn't be more pertinent. They still are.

Ol’ Hill has a lot to live down. Barack drew blood, and it ain’t gonna be the last time it happens during this long, long campaign season. As Bill Kristol said in a Weekly Standard article: “It was a bad week for Hillary.” Understatement, that.

Paul Mirengoff, on the other hand, thinks this dust-up is insignificant:

The candidates' spat will have no impact on the race -- think of it as the first inning of an exhibition baseball game. But just as exhibition games help managers assess their talent, the candidates (especially Hillary) should be wondering about the judgment of the staff member[s] who bit so hard on Geffen's comments and the aftermath.

The point is well-taken…in that it was Hillary’s staff, and not her, that apparently over-reacted. But, knowing organizations as I do, I find it incredibly hard to believe Hillary couldn’t stop this train wreck long before it happened. It is her staff, after all. And I believe this event was significant, if only for the fact it removed Hillary’s aura of inevitability, as Mr. Kristol noted.

And so it goes…

Today’s Pic: Yesterday I put up a pic of Inger Jirby’s back gate. Here’s a shot of her kitchen, which is probably of interest to me and me only. But hey! It’s my blog, right? Check out that stove…

Taos. May, 2004.

Big Fun

Schadenfreude: scha·den·freu·de. Pronunciation: [shahd-n-froi-duh]

–noun
satisfaction or pleasure felt at someone else's misfortune.
See also: Hillary is Sistah Souljah'ing the entire Democratic Party¹ and It's Her Party, And She'll Cry If She Wants To².

1:

It started with Hillary's unique experience on 9/11 - the day she witnessed the world falling apart while the rest of us went to Disneyland. Then yesterday we heard about how Hillary thinks terrorism is a bad thing, while her fellow Democrats think it's no big deal. And today we get an earful about those nasty rich Hollywood Jews - oh, sorry, I mean fags.

Could Karl Rove have written a better script?

It's becoming increasingly clear that Hillary isn't running as a new Democrat, she's running as as (sic) a non-Democrat. Her strategy seems to be attacking everything and everyone associated with the Democratic party, and especially its base - and using Republican talking points, at that - in order to somehow position Hillary as a modern-day Diogenes, independent, above-the-fray, alone in the wilderness, forever on the look-out for honest politics.

In other words, Hillary is Joe Lieberman.

2:

The longer answer is that Hillary looks about ready to self-destruct. She got rattled by the loss of her exclusive connections to Hollywood, which has made clear that they will not commit solely to her. With Obama scoring big in his Tinseltown debut, Hillary understands that a major portion of her husband's contributions has just dried up. Instead of redoubling her efforts to woo the celluloid titans back to her side, she blew her stack and demanded ridiculous penance from a competitor who hadn't sinned against her.

In fact, Obama has decided to allow Hillary to look as bad as she can, issuing a classy response this evening:

My sense is that Mr. Geffen may have differences with the Clintons. That doesn’t have anything to do with our campaign… I’ve said I’ve had the utmost respect for Senator Clinton. I consider her an ally in the Senate. And will continue to consider her that way throughout the campaign…

Hillary apparently felt that the 2008 primary campaign would be little more than a coronation, and the general election a Restoration. Instead, she finds herself in the first tough election of her life, and she's starting to crack under the pressure. This reaction seems very much like the disillusionment of arrogance.

Lotsa stuff happens in the primaries, lotsa stuff gets said that is either (a) retracted later and written off as “campaign rhetoric” or (b) ignored all together. Still and even, Hillary looks pretty inept here, at best. Or worse, she looks like what I think she really is: a vindictive shrew. And that’s too bad, because I really would like to see her get the Democratic nomination. She’d be a whole Helluva lot easier to beat than a few of the other guys running. But…I’m savoring the moment, as it were. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving gal.

Well now. It’s about time: When Tush Comes to Dove; Real women. Real curves. Really smart ad campaign.

In part, Dove's strategy is not unlike the Body Shop's old eco- and animal-friendly stance: Buy our products because you like them, but also because you're making a righteous statement. To buy Dove is to cast a vote for more "real curves" in advertising.

But there's a dirty little secret here. Because, in the end, you simply can't sell a beauty product without somehow playing on women's insecurities. If women thought they looked perfect—just the way they are—why would they buy anything?

[…]

Short-Term Grade: A. These ads are real attention getters—everyone's talking about them. On that level, they're a smashing success. Also, Dove now owns the "friend of the everywoman" angle. Smart move on their part to spot this open niche and grab it. Finally, if I can get sappy for a moment, it is sort of nice to see the unperfect have their day in the sun.

Overall Grade: D. Sadly, this is not a winning play for the long haul. If Dove keeps running ads like this, women will get bored with the feel-good, politically correct message. Eventually (though perhaps only subconsciously), they'll come to think of Dove as the brand for fat girls. Talk about "real beauty" all you want—once you're the brand for fat girls, you're toast.

Snarky enough for ya? I suspect the author (a woman) may be right when it comes down to the bottom line about the efficacy of the ad campaign, but in the end I really don’t know. I agree with her point about the beauty industry plying their trade on the backs of women’s insecurities, and I’ve always thought that sad, if not inherently evil. Thus, my “about time” comment.

I was unaware this ad campaign even existed (what with living way the hell out here in the boonies) until I saw one of the campaign’s models on the news yesterday. I’ve not seen any Dove ads on TV (you can see one here) and there aren’t all that many billboards on the highways around here. And I don’t read women’s magazines. So pardon me if I’m discussing something that may be common knowledge in the metropolitan areas of the country. It’s news here in P-Town, at least within the geezer demographic.

But…back to that model I saw on the news. I don’t remember her name, but she is a 62-year-old vivacious blond that I wouldn’t mind having on my arm…anywhere, any time. And yes, she was certainly… uh … “more plump” than your average model-spokesperson. And that’s a good thing, at the risk of repeating myself, yet again. Long-time readers know I go on about this subject from time to time and are aware I prefer the full-figured female form. I’m just glad to see someone in America’s beauty industry apparently agrees and is coming around.

Good on ya, Dove.

More on that Tony Snow/White House correspondents roundtable I wrote about yesterday, in today’s WaPo:

"If there is a flash of tempers between me and Tony, it's not about him and me, it's nothing personal," said Gregory, whose televised clashes with Snow have become legend.

Snow grinned. "What you see quite often at the briefings are sharp exchanges, but David's right: It's not personal," the press secretary agreed. "I not only like but admire everybody else sitting up here on this podium. It is a real pleasure and a privilege to work with them, to get to know them. . . . It is a wondrous thing."

Other than this, the article is chock full of anecdotes for those of you who missed the show itself, including the Crawford/400 degrees bits. And about that quote above… I wrote yesterday that Snow and Gregory got along well “for two guys that hate each other.” And yes, I did see the exchange quoted above. I just don’t believe it. Coz…politicians and reporters and even press secretaries LIE, ya know. Just sayin’.

It was such a beautiful day yesterday here in P-Town, and we’ll have a re-run today. Relatively calm winds and a high of about 70 degrees or so. Yesterday was one of those odd sort of days when one runs both the AC and the furnace. It must have been 90 degrees inside El Casa Móvil De Pennington when I got home yesterday afternoon. I tried to just grin and bear it after opening up the windows, but couldn’t. So I flipped on the AC for about an hour. And then two hours later the furnace kicked on. It feels like Spring, it does!

Today’s Pic(s): A couple of shots at the Audubon Sabal Palm Sanctuary in Brownsville, TX, (scroll down just a bit at the link) including YrHmblScrb in the most elaborate duck-blind I’ve ever seen. The blind overlooks the duck pond, which is home to not only ducks, but nearly every conceivable sort of water fowl known to man. I’m not a “birder,” but I can (and did) appreciate the solitude of the bird-watching environment. A great place for quiet contemplation, which I was given to at that period in time. “Given to” understates the case more than a bit, but ‘tis quite another story!

February, 2000.

Agendas

The Big Story (sorry, Mr. Gibson. It won’t happen again.) on memeorandum today, in various and sundry permutations, is how the Bad Men in the Rethuglican party are perpetuating the war-machine, preventing the kindly, paternalistic (maternalistic, too!) Democrats from taking the first steps to Bring Our Kids Home! On the other hand, could it be the Media mischaracterizes Senate Resolution vote?

Contrary to the implication of these "news" reports, the Democrats are attempting to end debate on a single resolution (and need 60 votes to do it) and force a vote on that single resolution without allowing others to be considered. By opposing cloture (which would stop debate), the Republicans are actually keeping debate open.

Or, said another way, Democrats want to prevent other resolutions from being considered. Republicans are attempting to keep debate open to force Democrats to consider and debate other resolutions and amendments.

Agenda? Does the MSM have an agenda? Quelle horreur! Who’d a thunk it… But, back to the issue… As I read somewhere: “Welcome to the majority, Senator Reid.” We can slow-roll you, too.

Further on Richardson’s speech at the DNC this past weekend… David Broder writes in the WaPo:

The stars of the weekend, judging from reactions in the ballroom and the lobby, were not Obama and Clinton but former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Both of them played to the antiwar sentiments of this liberal-leaning audience by demanding that those now in Congress do more than pass resolutions decrying President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq. Edwards wants to pull out 40,000 soldiers now; Richardson said that Iraq "is not worthy of one more lost American life."

[…]

Unlike Edwards, Richardson dwells on his varied experience as a member of Congress, ambassador to the United Nations, energy secretary, diplomatic troubleshooter and now a reelected governor. Others may talk about extending health care, improving schools, creating jobs; he says he's already done it. Vilsack made a similar claim about his eight years as governor of Iowa, but Richardson could give him lessons in speech-making.

The full text of Billy’s speech is at the “Richardson said” link above. Here’s the meat:

You would think that when the Congress realized they were lied to, they would have done something about it. Well, they still can.

Once our troops are gone, we still have a role to play. We have a moral responsibility to bring the Sunni and Shia together in a national reconciliation conference. And we have a strategic interest in organizing a regional conference with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Syria and Iran, to help stabilize Iraq.

But more than anything else, we have a moral obligation to those Americans who have laid down their lives.

Some say we cannot let their sacrifice be in vain. But you will never convince me that those slain patriots would have wanted a single additional life to be lost just to validate their own sacrifice.

Instead, the moral obligation is to honor their service by bringing their mission to a close. By ending the bloodshed … and finally letting the Iraqi people set their own course.

Those would be the principles of my presidency. And those would be the ideals I would seek.

Oh, Bill. You are SO wrong.

So, a mere three days after posting a link to the “War and Peace” of food healthy eating articles, I’m gonna let you in on a secret: I love this stuff. And this stuff, too. If you chase the links, you’ll note the nutrition info says a serving is a “half-cup.” What they really mean is half of a four-ounce container, a mere two ounces, at 150 calories per serving. Eat the whole four ounce “cup” and you get 300 calories. I think this is why I like this stuff so much…it’s rich—rich like Mom used to make. Real eggs, real sugar, real milk, no sweeteners, no artificial or substitute anything. Damn, it’s good!

Today’s Pic: Lotsa motorhead talk going on over at Lex’s new collaborative blog adjunct, including posts from Kris and SJS. And, in that vein, I’ll offer up a pic of one of my favorite cars. I’m tempted to say this one is the best car I’ve ever owned…but I’d be excluding that ’96 Impala SS (mine was black), the ’82 Beemer 320i, the ’67 Chevelle SS396, and, of course, The Green Hornet. Decisions…

Rochester, NY. January, 1999.

Update: For the googlers who come around looking for Impala pics, there's a 1996 Impala SS brocure here.