And Jrod, I agree with your statements re Old John, and I hope that your personal situation continues to improve.

Hey, I can say that, I had cancer too. That’s how it works, right? Lucky for me, I did have insurance, but had that lump been detected after my planned cross-country move, I would not have been insured. Now I’m stuck here in podunk working a job I hate for horrible pay because I can’t give that insurance up, and I’m lucky to be here. Had I moved, I’d just be dying right now. McCain thinks this is a dandy situation. So like I said, fuck Lumpy-jowls, fuck his free, gold-plated treatment, and fuck anyone who dares say the US has the best health care in the world.

The way I see it, McShame could use a few more lumps on his face, courtesy of this shovel. What the hell would he care, he’d have half a dozen doctors on hand to fix him right up. Meanwhile, a poor working mother has to decide whether she wants to take her sick child to the doctor or pay the utilities. A poor working man has to ignore that pain in his side, because his $8 an hour non-union construction gig doesn’t give insurance, and he has to save up some money for the jobless winter to come. A poor family has to live like paupers, despite working two full-time jobs, because the cheapest insurance they could find was $2000 a month with a $10k deductible. I could go on, but you all get the point.

Fuck Republicans, fuck pseudocrats, fuck anyone opposed to universal health care, and doublefuck Potatohead McCain.

A summary of CSI Miami for people who, like me, don’t watch it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceHnUrUAbho

The Weebl & Bob version for people who, like me, prefer it:
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/wab/CSI/

At any rate, any way you wanna look at it, McCainiac is scary.

As I said, there are many many more valid reasons to oppose McCain. His misshapen and lumpy face is the least of them.

I think my favorite part is at the end when Wallace says he still loves the show and the F&Fers whine at Wallace about how it’s “an odd way of showing it.” Petulance, thy name is wingnut pundit!

The book [The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet, by ­Daniel J. Solove] isn’t much concerned with privacy advocates’ usual bête noire, the surveillance state. Instead, Solove focuses on a more down-to-earth set of concerns. Nowadays, thanks to ­Marshall McLuhan, we’re accustomed to talking about the “global village.” But traditionally, in villages, everybody knew everybody else’s business; personal privacy and anonymity are social constructs that achieved their current legitimacy when increasing numbers of people started moving to cities in the 18th and 19th centuries. Nonetheless, privacy remains simply, as Columbia University professor emeritus of public law Alan F. Westin has phrased it, “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others.” That claim had far less authority in the smaller communities in which most people once lived, and those communities had greater power to enforce social norms by enhancing or destroying reputations. In 1910, writer John Jay ­Chapman ­testified eloquently to the extent of that power: “If a man can resist the influences of his townsfolk, if he can cut free from the tyranny of neighborhood gossip, the world has no terrors for him; there is no second inquisition.”

From Mark Williams, “The Talk of the Town: You; Rethinking privacy in an immodest age,” MIT Technology Review, November/December 2007

Ultimately, it got ugly and very, very stupid.

And look at that head! It has nothing to do with his skin and everything to do with the sack-shaped lumpy thing with eyes and a mouth.

But I apologize to McCain for calling him a suet pudding. That’s insulting to puddings.

Second of all, a contest to see who’s the fugliest wacko-wingnut blogger would be hotly contested, and while BaconBits would definitely be a finalist, I would like to believe we’re above judging people based on their physical appearances. For example, the person upthread who suggested John McCain’s head looks like a sack of steamed pudding should be admonished that the man has had skin cancer, so cut him some slack. Besides, the fact that his face looks like a huge dollop of shaving cream shouldn’t overshadow the many many legitimate reasons to oppose his candidacy for president.

Thirdly, has anyone pointed out yet that the things Rev. Wright said have a certain element of, what is it, oh yeah, VALIDITY to them? The cowed crowd tolerates an emperor with no clothes but fears the audacity of anyone who points it out.

(Not that Boutros Boutros-Ghali was, but then, who am I to probe the mysteries of his mind?)

Is Bush the worst U.S. president ever?
Historians might argue over ranking, but there’s no doubt he has been an unmitigated disaster
SCOTT APPLEWHITE/AP

Historians will argue over whether George W. Bush is the worst president the United States has ever endured. But that is not the point. Five years after Bush’s ill-starred invasion of Iraq, three years after Hurricane Katrina and seven months into the unravelling of the U.S. financial system, the point is that the 43rd president of the United States – regardless of his ranking in the pantheon – is a unique and unmitigated disaster.

……

He clearly has a native cunning that stands him well in the game of politics. But at a deeper level, there seems to be something missing – a neural disconnect in his brain that at crucial moments causes him to be divorced from the constraints of rational thought. How else to explain the abrupt turnarounds such as his 2003 decision to disband the entire Iraqi army (a decision that fuelled the subsequent insurgency) just a few weeks after agreeing that these forces should be kept intact?

In some public events, he seems fully at ease. But in others – particularly his infrequent, televised press conferences – he seems to be observing events from another dimension.

Among U.S. historians, it has become great sport to rank the country’s presidents. Bush vies with many for the title of absolute worst – from Ulysses S. Grant, who oversaw a post-Civil War era so corrupt it was known as Grant’s Barbecue, to Richard Nixon of Watergate fame, to Herbert Hoover, the hapless president in charge during the stock market crash of 1929.

But Grant, Hoover and even Nixon did not do as much damage worldwide. Americans may still be debating Bush’s legacy. I suspect the rest of the world has made up its mind.

Yep.