Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Lipstick Unabridged

[Back home now. Where are the mountains? And the buffalo? This will take some getting used to.] [If you see my cat Phoebe wearing antlers, you'll understand why.]

The Post editorial page condemns McCain for the "lipstick" flap, and notes that the comment by Obama wasn't directed at Palin. But this very important fact is more easily grasped if you read the entire quote from Obama:

"John McCain says he's about change, too. And so I guess his whole angle is, 'Watch out, George Bush. Except for economic policy, health-care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy and Karl Rove-style politics, we're going to really shake things up in Washington. That's not change. That's just calling some -- the same thing something different. But you know, you can't, you can put, uh, lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig."

To say that's a sexist slap at Palin is simply a lie.

(And, sure, no one's pure in politics, and the Obama camp was disingenuous some months ago in saying that McCain wanted 100 years of war in Iraq. I was there when McCain said it in Derry, N.H., and his meaning was also unambiguous: He said that if the fighting had stopped and we didn't have casualties we could stay just like we've stayed in South Korea and Japan. But that was months ago. We're getting into crunch time. There's enough difference between the candidates that no one needs to invent a phony issue. Or should we just let Karl Rove pick the next president?)

Maybe Obama and McCain should schedule an emergency town-hall gathering so that we can escape this silly-season phase in which the news is heavily mediated, manufactured, twisted and packaged. We need some unfiltered campaigning. (Remind me, what channel is C-Span?)

[Also, check out Marc Fisher on working moms flocking to Palin:

"In this hyperdemocratized society, the national conviction that anyone can succeed is morphing into a belief that experience and knowledge may almost be disqualifying credentials."]


Running through today's paper, there's a lot to read. Check out the interesting piece by John Kelly on the twisted steel from the WTC towers.

[more to come]

By Joel Achenbach  |  September 11, 2008; 8:59 AM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Hills Not Alive With Sound of Music
Next: Call Me the Breeze


I will be very glad when the silly season is over, and I pray that the person who will take the nation in the direction it needs to go will win. No doubt in my mind who that should be!

Posted by: slyness | September 11, 2008 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I had just reported to my new job on 9/10, and was sitting the HR office doing newbie paperwork when the first plane hit. Like most people, we didn't quite know what to think. After all, accidents happen. Of course, when subsequent events happened, we all just sort of quit doing what we were doing and watched TV or talked quietly.

The media folk all seem to be asking today, are we safer than we were then? Marginally, maybe. At least most first responders can communicate with each other better, and there are some better contingency plans. But in the larger scheme, probably not much. And we have so much expanded the government's intrusion into our private lives that we may never get back to "how it was".

Posted by: ebtnut | September 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Fisher seems to have figured out what's wrong with politics. I guess the idea is that the experts have to be supervised by spunky self-made people with common sense [a term that was very popular with the early Fundamentalists. Good way to puncture the pretensions of liberal scholars, I guess].

Posted by: Dave of the Coonties | September 11, 2008 9:28 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, the McCain camp overstated the issue, and it's not sexist.

But Sen. Obama knew exactly what he was saying, listen to the statement, and not that he pauses for effect after the lipstick bit. He's too good and too smart of a speaker to not calculate that.

But it's merely turning an idiom around, it's not some sort of underhanded dig. Though it may be a setup by the Obama camp, knowing that the McCain folks are hounding him on every issue to try and come out the victim, as he did in Hampton Roads.

Posted by: Truth | September 11, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I've seen the WTC steel at NIST. More than once, and once was enough.


Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

With regard to the "lipstick" kerfuffle, I think the Obama camp ought to take that new ad from McCain/Rove that features the Obama comment, and simply run it, then say "Folks, here's the full statement that Sen. Obama made, and it had nothing to do with anything except policy. Shame on Sen. McCain." I think the pundits are about right on this campaign--The Dems seemed to hope that McCain would run a campaign on policy and issues, and they have been reluctant to go in the mud. Well, it's high time they did. And they should start by saying that, while her family may be off limits, Gov. Palin is no more untouchable than any other VP candidate would have been. They have got to get out the basic tenants--both McCain and Palin are hard-core social conservatives. McCain is pretty much a trickle-down economics supporter. Palin has virtually no resume'. Meeting a few trade representatives does not a foreign policy expert make. It is time to take the gloves off, Dems.

Posted by: ebtnut | September 11, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Fisher is correct that this anti-intellectualism goes far beyond politics. It is a corrupting force in society, especially among the young. Because what message is this sending them?

I mean, we used to tell kids that if they work hard, do well in school, and strive for excellence they will be rewarded with respect. But now the message is that all high achievement will bring is disdain and ridicule.

Posted by: RD Padouk | September 11, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

What is the positive good of experience? I suppose the real good is that what happened in the past prepares a person to respond properly to future events. But what if future events do not mirror past ones, and past experience doesn't provide the framework for the best response to future events?

Nothing could have prepared us for the events of September 11, 2001. My career was in fire service planning and research, and I saw those events through that prism. The New York firefighters responded as they had been trained, and 323 of them died. Nothing we knew then could have prevented the thousands of deaths.

That's why experience is not the determining factor for me in the current election. I want our president to be a person with a highly intelligent, agile mind, who can see all facets of a situation, not just those that make him/her look good, and respond with calm and measured actions.

I just do not think John McCain can do that.

Posted by: slyness | September 11, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

The president ought to be the smartest person in the room, not the dumbest.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Yesterday, Dowd used the following line:

"She’s already shown that she can shoot the pig, put lipstick on it, bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan."

That's about three metaphors all mixed together. Perhaps we need to say that you can put lipstick on a pitbull but that doesn't make her qualified to be Veep.

Posted by: Mo MoDo | September 11, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Fisher's article also reminds me of the song "It's Still Rock and Roll to Me" by Billy Joel. Although I originally interpreted these lyrics as satire, I fear others have taken it to heart.

"Should I try to be a straight ´A´student?
If you are then you think too much. Don´t you know about the new fashion honey? All you need are looks and a whole lotta money."

Posted by: RD Padouk | September 11, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Good morning. Thanks to folks on the last Boodle for more 9/11 memories. While it is a day to remember, I am also relieved that people are moving past the paralyzing effect of the memories. I am attending an awards dinner this evening. I was initially startled to see it scheduled for today, but glad. In OKC we've had more experience than some in moving on from terrorist tragedy; we've moved from day-long overwhelming commemmorations on April 19th to brief respectful recognitions. As frostbitten shared, tragedy can be a catalyst for good. The rebuilding after the April 19 bombing here signaled a revitalization of that area and downtown generally.

I'm having trouble watching political coverage right now. I keep hoping someday it will be about substance instead of distraction, and people will vote their interest instead of their fears. Guess I'd better crawl under that desk with Kim & RD. I'll bring a cuddly rabbit (please note I did not say tasty).

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

Watch Fox. Vote Republican.

Posted by: surson | September 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Hey, If we're still going on about Accordians check this out:

Julieta Venegas from Tijuana sings about love

Posted by: omni | September 11, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Woman, without her, man is nothing.

Posted by: omni | September 11, 2008 10:19 AM | Report abuse

And thanks to moderate alien for the McCain rally report. It was great to have a detailed, personal description. I live vicariously through the Boodle.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

You probably already know this, but the Navy took a bit of the steel from the WTC and cast it into the forefoot of the USS New York, LPD-21

Posted by: Don from I-270 | September 11, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Participation in several blogs at several news sites creates a different perspective on America and the world post 9-11. The anger, invective, and rhetoric by mostly anonymous speakers has granted each their minutes of fame, an opportunity to froth and say things they would not readily say to their neighbors and co-workers. A view into the mind of the common man and woman, the great mass of humanity struggling to be heard, is not always pleasant or familial or welcoming. It is not a country club or corner tavern conversation. It is the found voice of angst, the sturm und drang of everyday life and strong opinion gone public under cover of a pseudonym. It is the sizzle of discontent looking for an anodyne, a totem that says "I'm like you, I'm with you, I care about you." Women and evangelicals flock to Palin as a sign of hope, just as the black community and social liberals have given their support to Obama as a sign of hope. At the end, on the dawn of November 4th, most of us will go to the polls and the American people will get the government it wants and deserves. What follows will be what follows.

Posted by: Shiloh | September 11, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Woman, with(out) her, man is nothing

Posted by: A radical feminist perspective... | September 11, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

I think the news you can use is Obama's hilarious remark on David Letterman's show last night. Letterman asked if there was a point in time when the Republicans all (all! - got a laugh) got together and decided Palin had been called a pig. Obama deconstructed the whole deal. He said, "Palin is the lipstick." Letterman gets interested, Obama continues: "Actually, by the logic of the metaphor, Palin is the lipstick, and John McCain's policies are the pig."

Posted by: Jumper | September 11, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Dear Radical Feminist: I'm sure you're proud as punch about your Sister, Sarah Palin. Good luck with your agenda.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Nope. I absolutely categorically refuse to admit or agree that for the last eight years I got the government I wanted and deserved. I didn't want this and I deserve a lot better. And if McCain/Palin wins in November I will once again have been compelled to accept a government I neither want nor deserve.

The "want and deserve" formulation is a venerable political analysis but only works where there is a significant majority, consensus, or even landslide among voters. That hasn't been the case since 2000 and it won't be the case this year either.

Now, I expect frostbitten to win with a clear majority, if not a landslide. Her constituents should get the government they want and I trust they are worthy of it.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Jumper, that's perfect, just perfect. Exactly what I was talking about, when I said I wanted a highly intelligent, agile mind in the Oval Office.

Posted by: slyness | September 11, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Hey Mudge! radical feminists support Obama too, y'know. Feminists have had to vote policy, not gender, for eighty years now. We're used to it.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

9/11 is part of why I'm up here in the boondocks. I hear CP's comments about October 2002 and all that.

Today looks nothing like 9/11 here. It's a nice light slate grey and I expect a stiff wind off the lake, and plenty of stuff in air, namely birds and mosquitoes.


Posted by: Wilbrod | September 11, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

It was a joke! A nasty one yes, but a joke, nevertheless.
What are you a repiglican?
Ow. Stop throwing brickbats. That was a joke too!

Sorry, I should've owned up to it. Just a funny nasty thought that popped in my head (and that Obama is an imp too; I'm sure he knew exactly what he was doing ;-)

I will now go and immerse myself in the SCC pool. Do I have to pay dues to get into that club?

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of which, here's a really excellent (and very angry) column from Salon that ought to be required reading. A lot of red meat in it. This woman really nails it:

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Jumper: thanks for the note about Obama on Letterman. I missed that (about all the TV I watch is Friday Night Fights). Don't know about anybody else, but really want the President to be smarter than me. I can find plenty of beer buddies on my own.

I looked up "Maverick" on Wikipedia. Samuel Augustus Maverick is the guy these mavericks are named for. Down at the end, it says this: "Maverick's stated reason for not branding his cattle was that he didn't want to inflict pain on them. Other ranchers however, suspected that his true motivation was that it allowed him to collect any unbranded cattle and claim them as his own."

Replicant ethics for sure. McThuselah really IS a Meverick.

Posted by: Cap'n Chucky | September 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I don't know who to ask, so I'll ask the Boodle:

I need to buy a wide angle lens to use on a camcorder. Is there any difference between lenses for camcorders and lenses for cameras? (It doesn't seem like there should be, but what do I know.) As long as it's the right width to screw on, can I get one being sold as a camera lens?

Posted by: bia | September 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for your post, frosti. I feel like I know you and the frostfamily much better.

On *the* 9/11 I had been at my current job for all of about 5 months.

The news of the first plane spread through the floors and many of my colleagues, on the phone and IM'ing with our contacts in the WTC, were stunned as everyone lost contact with the WTC, seemingly at the same time.

At the time we used the instant talk features on Nextels, and all you heard for about 10 minutes was one beep after another as people asked, "I was just on the phone with /name/ @ /financial institution/ and we got cut off and I can't get back to them. What about you?" Of course, that 10 minutes of bewildered questions ended when we learned about the second plane.

We were in a tallish building close to the airport ourselves, so it was a relief when all planes were grounded. CNN made the fine decision to forego their usual web GUI and go with plain text, allowing for easier access by more people, and that's where we found information.

For about 15 minutes, employees who wished to leave were told to go. Then nobody was allowed to leave and the news came out that we would be open the day after and the day after and business as usual was the theme . . . a clear expression of the commitment of America's financial community to continue in the face of terrorism. Not that I appreciated it that day. I just wanted to go home.


This article includes a link to the actual letters. _Ethics Adviser Warned Palin About Trooper Issue. _

"In the letter, written before Sen. John McCain picked the Alaska governor as his running mate, former U.S. Attorney Wevley Shea warned Gov. Palin that "the situation is now grave" and recommended that she and her husband, Todd Palin, apologize for "overreaching or perceived overreaching" for using her position to try to get Trooper Mike Wooten fired from the force."

Posted by: dbG | September 11, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for the Salon link, Mudge. I just sent it (I hope, you know me and technology) to a bunch of women of varying feminist stripe. I look forward to their reactions.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

As a science educator who visits schools in the backwaters of the American educational stream, I often face audiences with a substantial contingent of kids who have been taught that evolution is a fairy tale for people oblivious to God's plain written truth. They enjoy trying to challenge me on evolution, a subject that is not part of my brief, but which comes to mind in talking about astronomical time scales. By equating the observable facts of astronomy and physics with the observable facts of evolution, whose validity they deny totally, they attempt to win refuge from a requirement to learn anything at all. Up until now, I have shown deference to religious views, since it's a distraction from my real subject matter. I don't deny evolution, I just try to stay out of the sideshow.

The Creationist forces (and their Intelligent Design fellow travelers) want schools to undercut the believability of evolution by teaching the "debate", by treating "all theories" as equally acceptable alternatives. I'm sure this seems very attractive, because scientists try to respect the sensibilities of those who seem unable to learn from experience. Creationists today have never seen what the real debate looked like, and are unfamiliar with having lost, resoundingly, 100 years ago.

So, here's my question: should we take the gloves off? Go at it, hammer and tongs? Really address the extinct debate between evolutionary theory and creationism? Crush their puny little minds and obliterate their childish and infantile belief in a universe of trivial answers and magical thinking? Or would that be wrong?

Posted by: ScienceTim | September 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Tim, I find a real megalomania hiding right beneath the surface of that fundamentalist philosophy. If you ask if hummankind can plumb the vast reaches of the mind of the Creator, often as not you will get an assured "yes," which is not the answer a humble person might expect of another person.

Posted by: Jumper | September 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

Science Tim: The question is not if it would be wrong, it is whether it would be possible.

Posted by: km2b | September 11, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

This is a fantasy, of course. In reality, I would be violating a student's First Amendment rights to his own freedom of religion by engaging in such a debate, and I would be violating the other students' rights by inflicting the debate upon them. This is the line I plan to take, even if I get stuck into some district that has a supposed "equal-time" provision -- "Hey, kids! I am looking out for YOUR rights by not holding them up to ridicule. That's YOUR job!"

Posted by: ScienceTim | September 11, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

*Tim, to paraphrase many people:

You can take people to facts, but you can't make 'em think.


Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Professional experience, Scottynuke? or perhaps occupational hazard.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse


Six of one, half a dozen of the other...


Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Shall we assign each other character equivalencies? I got dibs on Adam, and I think Joel is Ed.

Posted by: Jumper | September 11, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

I try like h ell not to get into arguments. That seems a losing strategy as both sides only get pumped full of righteousness and no one listens, let alone thinks, anymore. I think my job is to try and connect a few dots, not hold a harsh mirror to ignorance or stupidity. If some in the room come to appreciate the beauty unearthed by exploration and, this is important, realize that it is a result of unbound curiosity, I consider my job done.

I use the word E word liberally. If heckled, I note firmly that nothing I have talked about would be possible without evolution, and that's that. No arguments allowed. If they want to argue, they may go outside and talk amongst themselves. I guess Jumper would call that fighting megalomania with megalomania, which is an excellent strategy--woefully underused by liberals even when we are undeniably correct; see ScienceTim's post about student's rights, for instance.

That being said, I've been known to scream in frustration in stomp out of rooms.

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and Mr. Mudge, what Ivansmom said.

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I feel somewhat Fleischman-like with a touch of Leonard Quinhagak.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Please, DNA Girl, just call me "Mudge."

Or "Your Eminence."

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Creationism or the theory of evolution is mutually exclusive when it comes to explaining the mystery of human life. Creationism however, requires the acceptance of God and recognizes the soul as a spiritual entity that seperates us humans from all animals. The mechanics of how this was done is the issue of debate. Whatever the truth is, at some point in time, somewhere, somehow, POOF, life came into existence and I'm not sure that science alone can explain it.

Posted by: moderate alien | September 11, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

Jumper: I think Sarah and Todd got written out of Northern Exposure -- too stereotypical, not believable.

Posted by: Cap'n Chucky | September 11, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Fundamentalism is pretty much by definition megalomaniacal: we all look JUST LIKE GOD; we're the last thing God's EVER GONNA MAKE; when we're all done messing the place up, God's gonna PACK IT ALL IN.

Humble, huh?

Posted by: Cap'n Chucky | September 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Did I kill the boodle, or is everybody at lunch?

Posted by: Cap'n Chucky | September 11, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

You can compare me with "Richard 'Rick' Pederson". I refuse to specify which properties make this parallel most appropriate, and which are least appropriate.

Posted by: ScienceTim | September 11, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Your wish is my command, Your Eminence.

And I'm referring to your rank and attainments, not that other thing.

From Merriam-Webster:
2: one that is eminent, prominent, or lofty: as a) an anatomical protuberance; b) a person of high rank or attainments.

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Boko999 | September 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

There is only one way creationism can jibe with current scientific thought, that I know of: the world was deliberately created with an appearance of great age. This can actually be an interesting line of thought, because the reductio ad absurdum of this is the possibility that we were created five minutes ago, with all our "memories" and "histories" created at that moment.

As I understand it, without researching as I write, there was some dialog on this a hundred years ago about whether it was God or Satan that was attempting to "fool us" about these things. If supernatural entities are twisting naturalists' minds, or planting erroneous evidence in fossils and geological strata, as well as causing images of faraway stars, in the form of waves of light, to spring into existence at the moment of creation, or the measurable speed of light is wrong in addition to the cycles of annual deposition of sediments and correlating tree-ring data, then all bets are off and it is exactly as likely we are all a simulation on some future Wolfram's computer, we are all dreams in the minds of bees, or 1 equals 2.

Posted by: Jumper | September 11, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Creationism, as you refer to it, wouldn't bother me one bit, moderate alien--that would make it a personal belief. My mother believes in god(s); I don't think she's stupid or ignorant.

Problem is, creationism by definition denies evolution.

Like that wise man can put lipstick on a....

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Mudge's salon link is worth the read for this part alone:
"Palin's femininity is one that is recognizable to most women: She's the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much. The kind of woman who, as Jessica Grose at Jezebel has eloquently noted, achieves her power by doing everything modern women believed they did not have to do: presenting herself as maternal and sexual, sucking up to men, evincing an absolute lack of native ambition, instead emphasizing her luck as the recipient of strong male support and approval. It works because these stances do not upset antiquated gender norms. So when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations but who falls short of the goal, Palin is there, tapped as a supposedly perfect substitute by powerful men who appreciate her charms."

I'll take Maggie O'Connell as my Northern Exposure ID.

Posted by: frostbitten | September 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Are you people BLIND CAVE FISH? Can't you see how a Hollandaise WORKS?!

Posted by: Jumper | September 11, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

Distantly on-kit, an interview with the creator of the Sarah Palin composited photo:

Years ago, I was talking to someone from my alma mater that I met again at work. During what was a cordial chat at lunch she looked at me in astonishment and asked, "You don't think we all descended from monkeys, do you?"

Regrettably, the conversation pre-dated the great Pastafarian FSM spoof.

Posted by: Fifty | September 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

A few years back, Harper's ran an article on evolution, the thrust of which, as I recall was ...

There are many scientific theories that have no more evidentiary support than evolution (which is to say, enough for most scientists to feel comfortable about). However, so-called fundamentalists have no problem with them. Why don't they want to debate the pros and cons of these theories, as well? Their supposed intellectual honesty is very narrowly applied! Also ... that other stuff is too hard. ;-)

The author also noted that if God created everything exactly as he wanted it, He musta been awfully arbitrary and capricious, since many, many of His creatures have become extinct.

I wish like mad that I could lay my hands on that piece, again. It was good. I read it drinking Pabst in a roadside biker bar near my house. Such men as were brave enough to sidle up and say, "Whatcha readin'?" sauntered off as soon as I told 'em. Haw!

Posted by: KPage | September 11, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Of course I've got digd on Holling Vincoeur. And it's not all to sleep with cutiepie Shelly the Bigamist.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | September 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The dott attended a NoVA magnet high school for biotech/environmental sciences yet there was still a sizable contingent of students whose parents didn't get the word that real science was being taught-or chose the school anyway and unleashed their children to proselytize among the nonbelievers. While as a teacher in the same school system I had to be affirming of every child, no matter what their beliefs, at home I was free, free, free. Thus the dott was able to skip a few SAT vocab cram sessions because we'd already discussed things like "lunatic fringe."

Posted by: frostbitten | September 11, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Ah, the Northern Exposure memories. It's all coming back to me, at least the first few seasons when I still watched TV. I always liked Ed and Adam. If I have to be gender-appropriate, I was very fond of Marilyn, but my near & dear would laugh themselves silly at the idea of me not talking. The other main female characters -Maggie, Shelly and Ruth Ann - are all unexpectedly tough in different ways and I'd admire something about each of them.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

here's my drive-by comment for today:

if gov. palin had been nominated by the 'democrat party', at this point rove's pit bulls would have ripped all the flesh from her shattered bones.

her unmarried teenage pregnant daughter would be held up by the rovians as an example of how the 'democrat party' is totally bereft of family values.

give me a break. they are all a bunch of morally diseased hypocrites. and they can take two running jumps....

Posted by: butlerguy | September 11, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

No argument from me, butlerguy.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey all - long time lurker first time poster here.

I wanted to touch on what ScienceTim said about evolution vs creationism. I think the major problem in this "debate" is that most people don't really think about what their beliefs about a God mean in regards to scientific issues. By this I mean that they don't a have a clear view of what a creator means. There are the biblical literalists who think the Earth is 6000 years old and God created Adam & Eve in the Garden. But these are a minority. More have this fuzzy view of God as Creator but less of a real hard view of how the creation occurred. They'll accept the Earth is old, but placing humans into the timeline becomes less clear. The Intelligent Design crowd takes advantage of this cause their "theory" is as fuzzy as can be.

Moderate alien is right the two aren't mutually exclusive. But most people see them as such. On the evolution side the Daniel Dennetts of the world don't help much.

As an example I'll call out my biblical literalist family who also have a picture book from the Hubble Space Telescope. I very much doubt they realize that most of the pictures in that are of things too distant or too old to fit into their 6000 year view of the world (actually I assume they think the world is 6000 years old; I'm afraid to ask). And the fact that I'm as astrophysicist doesn't seem to register either.

How to fix this? You'd need to find out just what creationism means for most people. It would also be nice if the sects of Christianity that are OK with evolution (mainline protestants and Catholics) gave their adherents a better schooling in just what a Creator means for them.

Posted by: astromom | September 11, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

It's difficult not to assign Joel the role of Joel. Especially if the Blogosaurus is the whale that swallowed him. Or we see him as the central character around whom the others revolve. But as shaman-in-training, and the good heart, Ed works so well. (Although kurasawaguy has a huge claim on Ed.) This leaves us with an embarassing problem: Who here is Joel Fleischman?

Posted by: Jumper-Adam | September 11, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

And they have much, much hate for the monkeys. They do not ever say they are not descended from fish.

Posted by: Paavo | September 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

DNA Girl's link led me to another that explains quite well how creationism and evolution are able to coexist in my mind.

The term theistic evolution
has been coined to refer to beliefs in creation which are more compatible with the scientific view of evolution and the age of the Earth. Alternately, there are other religious people who support creation, but in terms of allegorical interpretations of Genesis.

Some of my in-laws belong in the "either/or" camp, so I pretty much avoid the topic with them.

Posted by: Raysmom | September 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

moderate alien, I have to disagree with you. You are taking a basically metaphorical view of Biblical Creation narratives (giant disconnect #1: Genesis contains two mutually exclusive creation narratives). That is intellectually valid, and about 75% or more of the world's Jews would agree with you (note: they had the Bible and learned it and taught it and read it for hundreds of years before Jesus showed up as one of them -- grant them a little deference on Biblical scholarship). I could not cite a number for the fraction of the world's Christians and Muslims (all of whom recognize the same Book of Genesis) who read Genesis as metaphorical. The problem is not that you appreciate the value of metaphor, but that you feel that self-identified Creationists also appreciate metaphor.

We run into trouble with "Young Earth Creationists", who maintain that the second of the two Creation stories is a literal and complete description for the origin of all species, while ignoring the first of the two Creation stories as not relevant (that would be the one with the successive daily creation of living things, including man and woman formed simultaneously along with animals). Creationism, per se, thus takes as its basic assumptions: (1) the entire Earth was created recently (5000-6000 years; some quibbling is permissible); (2) all species were created simultaneously (well, with a couple days' difference), in "essentially" modern form. All fossil evidence, evidence from radioactive decay, archaeological evidence, and astronomical observational evidence is discounted, according to whatever argument is most convenient to achieve a quick resolution.

The multitude of disproofs of nearly every aspect of this narrative has led to a second strain, "Intelligent Design." ID accepts a universe that is ancient, but still refuses the idea of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution. It accomplishes this feat by the specious estimation of the probability that random primordial chemicals ultimately would assemble themselves into the form of Janine Turner (see Northern Exposure discussion), from which they deduce the "logical necessity" that the evolution of species is the result of a more or less constant tweaking by "a Designer" with the intent of creating the delectable Ms. Turner. This is a statistical fallacy known as "assuming the outcome", which assumes that the particular quirky outcome of a process is the only possible outcome of that process. Analogously, imagine dropping a loose rope on the floor. The probability that the rope would form the particular figure that it forms on the floor is vanishingly low -- even one loop different, and it's a different figure. However, the probability that it would form *some* complex figure is extremely high -- almost (but not quite) 100%. There is a finite but extremely small probability that a loose rope dropped on the floor would collapse into a neat and tidy skein. ID is the equivalent of observing the random rope dropped on the floor and declaring that it is the neat and tidy skein and that its utter improbability is evidence of a "Designer."

Posted by: ScienceTim | September 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand why Creationists who deny the theory of evolution based on their idea that God created the world don't understand that what they're doing is not giving God credit for such a cool way to create the world.

Do they not think He's capable of such a miracle? Isn't it more miraculous to create something out of nothing by making it unfold, bit by bit over millions of years, than it is to say "Poof! There you are!"?

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Caught this while watching the Boodle's six o'clock:

Baku snubs Cheney
To quote Kommersant, "Moscow and Ankara are consolidating their position in the Caucasus, thus weakening Washington's influence there." The signs are already there. When Cheney visited Baku last week on Wednesday on a mission single-mindedly aimed at isolating Russia in the region, he came across a few rude surprises.

The Azeris made a departure from their traditional hospitality to visiting US leaders by accorded a low-level airport reception for Cheney. Further, Cheney was kept cooling his heels for an entire day until Aliyev finally received him. This was despite what Cheney always thought was his special personal chemistry with the Azeri leader dating to his Halliburton days. (Aliyev used to head the Azeri state-run oil company SOCRAM.)

Cheney ended up spending an entire day visiting the US Embassy in Baku and conversing with sundry American oil executives working in Azerbaijan. Finally, when Aliyev received him late in the evening, Cheney discovered to his discomfiture that Azerbaijan was in no mood to gang up against Russia.

Cheney conveyed the George W Bush administration's solemn pledge to support the US's allies in the region against Russia's "revanchism". He stated Washington's determination in the current situation to punish Russia at any cost by pushing the Nabucco gas pipeline project. But Aliyev made it clear he did not want to be drawn into a row with Moscow. Cheney was greatly upset and made his displeasure known by refusing to attend the Azeri state banquet in his honor. Soon after the conversation with Cheney, Aliyev spoke to Medvedev on phone.

Full article:

Posted by: Brag | September 11, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

What TBG said.

Posted by: Raysmom | September 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Attacking Palin on her fundamentalist views is a fools errands. Better to pin down McCain on whether he agrees with her creationist views. That way he either has to repudiate her nonsense or look craven and silly agreeing with her.

Posted by: yellojkt | September 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Hi Astromom--welcome to the Boodle. Now I have another mom to get me confused :)

Posted by: Brag | September 11, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Howdy and welcome to astromom! Another astrophysicist!* How many other blogs which are non-exclusive to science topics and long on humor can boast multiple astro-type folk?

I think you are all right about ID/creationism vs. sanity (differing descriptions but the same general exposition), but especially like yellojkt's practical suggestion. How far is McCain willing to go?

*Full disclaimer: By "another" I do not mean to imply that I myself am an astrophysicist, or indeed any kind of physicist, or even a generally pointy-sciency type.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

RIP to comic mystery novelist Gregory MacDonald, 71, author of the "Fletch" series of novels that spawned the movies. Cancer.

Some of us cognoscenti, however, believe MacDonald's relatively smaller "Flynn" series of novels are better than the Fletch series, and that Flynn is a better character.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Drugs, sex, kick-backs, football tickets. How do I join the Mineral Management Service?

Posted by: yellojkt | September 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

TBG, I think 100 million years, or what the heck, 100 billion years as far as God is concerned is about the same as POOF.

There is one thing that both the creationist and evolutionist both agree on though, - our bodies were formed from the dirt of the earth.

Posted by: moderate alien | September 11, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Actually, I *don't* think they agree about the "dirt" theory, MA. Unless you accept it as a vast metaphor, in which case it is meaningless and pointless. If you want to be a little more literal, then the prevailing theory seems to be life got started in the primordial soup of chemicals in the ocean. Ain't no dirt, metaphorical or otherwise, involved.

Also, what TBG said. That 'un always beat the hell outta me, too.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the welcome. I want to say the Achenblog is my favorite web hangout. You guys have such rational discussions. With the election in full swing I find very few places are left with rational discourse.

Posted by: astromom | September 11, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Good point, TBG! I'm baking to take into a meeting tomorrow (we're all on edge, sugar appears to help everyone else), so I'm going to christen your theory the Miracle Bar Theory of Evolution if you don't mind.

Everything stacked up and ready to go!

Posted by: dbG | September 11, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

And welcome, astromom!

Posted by: dbG | September 11, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

It's because we're all on medication, astromom.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Sigh. That's the MAGIC Bar Theory of Evolution (or Creation). I always think it's Miracle Bar, but it's not.

Posted by: dbG | September 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Report abuse

The Creationism problem is the belief that the bible is literal. When the boy was young, I told him that stars were how god (or the divine, or the force, or whatever) made heavy elements, and he thought it was cool he was made of star stuff. If you believe in a creator, that force used evolution to produce the world. That's a hard sell in our area, they don't cotton to the idea that god wrote more than one text, and that he made the universe first.

About 5 years ago I picked up a copy of Reality Isn't What It Used to Be by Walter Anderson at a marvelous bookstore in Raleigh-Durham. Must have been for a college course; it was one of many stacks of books on the floor and the cover caught my eye. A slow read, but the main theme was the change in the perception of the world. From the early medieval world to the renaissance; from Newtonian physics to quantum physics, and on through other areas. After I read that book, I started seeing current events in a different light. Not just red and blue. It made a lot more sense that the ‘blue' areas had higher education or interaction with other viewpoints (cosmopolitan cities instead of towns).

Anderson made the point that in the modern world you must choose to be an absolutist since you know there are other ways of looking at the world. If you make that choice, you have to zealously defend it at all times; you cannot let other viewpoints in. Just acknowledging their existence is threatening to your underlying, unspoken assumption about the world. I always thought that people were insecure and unsure of their beliefs if they did not want to consider any others (the same way people who aren't sure of their wealth and social position need to flaunt it) and never thought about it as an entire conceptual system under threat. The fundamentalists and the jihadists started to make sense in a bizarre fashion.

Which is why I'm not sure you can change the mindset, at least not directly. It probably has to "evolve".

Posted by: km2b | September 11, 2008 2:00 PM | Report abuse

A soaring hawk is speaking.
the fawn triplets still have their spots.
from an old rotten stump,a chipmunk is peeking.
the acorns that have fallen,they look like little dots.

Leaves float down,twisting and fluttering before they hit the ground.
the woodpecker knocking,finding food in his favorite tree.
i walk through the woods and look what i have found.
new life on a wildflower,how can this be?

When i stop and think about the meaning of this day,of loveones that are missed.
i sometimes think of the horror,confusion and the fear.
it would be easy to sink into depression,sink into the abyss.
it would be easy to be angry and even shed a tear.

But i'd like to think about happiness,family and friends,of children and games still to be played.
of nature and beauty and of simple pleasure.
to be in harmony and wonder of all that god has made.
to find that special thing in life and make it your own special treasure.

As we stop to think,to think of this day.
take a moment,to honor those who are gone.
a moment of silence or maybe just to pray.
it is ok to be sad,but we must carry on.

As we progress from summer to fall
with some leaves already changing,natures progression,i sometimes have to ponder.
back to the hawk,he soars out of sight,but i can still hear his call.
over on a rock cliff,stretching to the sky,he stopped to rest,just look over yonder.

Just my little contribution to this day.

Have a Great day everyone

Posted by: greenwithenvy | September 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

The Fletch books were much funnier and cleverer than the rather slapstick Chevy Chase movie. That said, I still sleep in mortal fear of the mattress police.

Posted by: yellojkt | September 11, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Mmmm, slightly salty water! Ahgarggle...

Posted by: Unohu | September 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the pome, greenwithenvy.

I read the Roger Cohen NYT piece on what's happened since 9/11 and although I wanted to laugh (at the style and tone) it ended up making me want to cry. Gosh darn talented writers. Gosh darn facts from which to make hay. I swear this administration spent the last seven years spinning gold into straw.

I liked Fletch but I like Flynn better. And, over time, I liked Gregory MacDonald better than John MacDonald (probly spelled one or both wrong). John was too misongynistic for me.

Posted by: Ivansmom | September 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

McCain's been Barackroll'd!

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

I was just taking a running stock on the bunkers med cabinet, Mudge it seems you are a few days behind. Naughty boy. Take your pills!

Posted by: Kerric | September 11, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Jumper | September 11, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Thank you gwe.
This is for you:

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Welcome, Unohu. I believe you are our first Native American Boodler. Let me guess: Sioux? Chippewa?

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 2:35 PM | Report abuse

A fellow cognoscenti Flynn lover! Be still, my <3 (hereinafter, BSM<3).

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

And welcome Astromom.
This is for you:

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Na na na na na!

Lipstick on a pig!

Lipstick on a pig!

Na na na na na!

I'm John McCain and I'm the moron who approved this stupid commercial.

Posted by: John McCain | September 11, 2008 2:43 PM | Report abuse

And this is for TBG:

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the pome, GWE. So appropriate for the day.

Welcome, km2b. Are you a Tar Heel?

You folks know better than to get me started on creationism. TBG expressed my sentiments. Surely God has the infinite patience to allow the earth and its creatures become what they are.

Posted by: slyness | September 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

*can't-quite-summon-full-Grover-waves-on-such-a-sollem-day-but-nevertheless-warm-and-welcoming waves to astromom*


Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

I'd watch it with the smartaleckiness, unohu; sea creatures were smitten too.

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Got no time to boodle, but here's a link that a friend just sent to me:

Scares the you-know-what outta me.

Flying out the electronic door..........

Posted by: firsttimeblogger | September 11, 2008 2:57 PM | Report abuse

The monkeys get all the hate from the creationists but it’s us (US!) that made the earth's atmosphere mouth-breathable for them!

Posted by: blue-green algae | September 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I'm sorry I'm coming in late to the creationism discussion.

moderate alien, as Mudge points out, life probably started in the primordial oceans (though some believe the possibility of the "starseed" theory, by which life may have arrived on Earth via comets or meteors). I feel compelled to point out here that nucleosynthesis - the creation of elements heavier than hydrogen, helium and their isotopes - have occurred through stellar *evolution* as a byproduct of the nuclear reactions in stars. The carbon on which all Earthly life is based, the iron in your blood and the calcium in your bones were forged in the hearts of ancient alien stars billions of years ago; stars that lived, died, and scattered their precious bodies to the interstellar winds to seed more stars, more solar systems, in an ancient evolutionary process that predates the sun and life on Earth.


Posted by: bc | September 11, 2008 3:05 PM | Report abuse

...and we are forever in your debt, pond scum. (I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.)

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Say there, astromom, care to drop any clues to a fellow astrophysics-type to figure out where you might be situated? Have I run into you at Balticon?

Posted by: ScienceTim | September 11, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Referring, of course, to the 2:58, not bc, who bears no resemblance whatsoever to pond scum. Or lake scum. Or red tide, for that matter.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

I think they hate us more for Head

Posted by: Micky, Mike, Peter, Davy | September 11, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I subscribe to a modified panspermia theory known as "refusology." In this formulation, the seeds of all evolved life arose from certain organic materials that were jettisoned from a passing space cruiser.

Gotta admit it answers some profound philosophical questions.

Posted by: RD Padouk | September 11, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Joe Biden's handle remains unknown, though he has joked he's so boring it could just be plain old "Joe."

Posted by: omni | September 11, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Teilhard de Chardin wrote this about matter (for RD and BC and the others who groove on cosmic dust motes, etc.)
BEGIN quote
‘Blessed be you, mighty matter, irresistible march of evolution, reality ever newborn; you who, by constantly shattering our mental categories, force us to go ever further and further in our pursuit of the truth.

‘Blessed be you, universal matter, immeasurable time, boundless ether, triple abyss of stars and atoms and generations: you who by overflowing and dissolving our narrow standards or measurement reveal to us the dimensions of God.

END QUOTE, from The Hymn of the Universe, written in (old) Jersey, France in 1919.

Thanks for the pome, GWE.
Frosti, your story elevates us all.

Posted by: College Parkian | September 11, 2008 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately not a Tar Heel. Drat. We were at Duke with the boy for TIPS. Our idea of family fun was (and still is) going to bookstores seeking bargain books. Started that on trips to GPs when boy was 7 or so. He could read in motel and we could get a little more sleep before driving. By the time we were at Duke, we had to find better bookstores, the boy wanted books to help him in math science competitions.

Posted by: km2b | September 11, 2008 3:46 PM | Report abuse

ScienceTim - I think we may be in the same building (when I'm not working from home). :) I started at GSFC about a year ago. I don't think we've ever met; I run with the high-energy crowd.

Posted by: astromom | September 11, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

A 9/11 quiz. How much do we remember?

8/10 for me.

Posted by: yellojkt | September 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Also 8/10. I don't think I wanted to score that well...

Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey, astromom, stop by sometime. I'm in 166. I know some high-energists.

Posted by: ScienceTim | September 11, 2008 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Kewl, km2b. Did the boy enjoy Duke and TIPS? The Geekdottir qualified but we didn't send her to any programs. They were beyond our financial capabilities at the time, especially the Duke ones. She survived and flourished anyway.

Did you go to the Book Exchange in Durham? What a wonderful place. I used to go with buddies and come out with an armload for less than $20...and this was when I was a poor studently type! It makes me sad that now that I'm old and have bifocals it's hard to read titles in low light and not at eye level.

Posted by: slyness | September 11, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

*Tim, let me know if you meet astromom for a beverage after work across the street.


Posted by: bc | September 11, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it just about time for another Mega-BPH reminder?

*glancing towards the other side of the Potomac 'cuz I don't have the text handy*


Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I've been to the Book Exchange. They do have a great selection. Regulator Bookshop is another great Durham place to get books.

Posted by: yellojkt | September 11, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse



The International Mega Boodle Porching Hour (IMBPH) will be held on Saturday, October 4, 2008, at Buffalo Billiards at 1330 19th Street in NW Washington, DC.

We'll be in the Victorian Room from 5-8 p.m. (at least that's the formal part of the event), with food and drink service available.

More news to follow, including a regular BPH on Friday evening at the normal BPH location (McCormack & Schmicks, 1652 K Street downtown, a few blocks from the Mega BPH location, and the Washington Post's main offices), guests (if any actually accept our invitations), other activities (if anyone isn't too full of food and drink), and clothing options (bc is considering the 'all leather, but as little as possible' option).

Lurkers are welcome.

We look forward to seeing you there.


Yr Hmbl Int’l Mega BPH Planning Committee

We now return you to your Regularly Scheduled Boodling."

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Obama on Letterman transcript

Posted by: Jumper | September 11, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't wanna steal TBG's thunder, but this afternoon the planning committee got a look at TBG's design for the MBPH T-shirt...

(That part TBG wouldn't tell ya about, but I will.)

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: Curmudge0n | September 11, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Those puppies will be collectors' items. They'll be on sale on eBay, like, 10 years from now and going for $600.

You'll be able to buy cheap knock-offs in Hong Kong for $25.

Posted by: Curmudgein | September 11, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Colin Farrell will wanna wear one on the Jimmy Kimmel Show.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Weingarten will be soooooooooooooooooooo jealous.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

I knew Greg McDonald. He Dedicated Fletch Too to me and someone else. He did warn me he was stealing the idea for the book from me.

Posted by: Brag | September 11, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

7/10 on the 9/11 quiz (that looks odd). The ones I got right were mostly on substantive questions with a few trivia items. Two of the three I got wrong were pure trivia.

Posted by: ScienceTim | September 11, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Someone on another blog quoted this from a NYT blog:

Jesus was a community organizer.
Pontious Pilot was a governor.

Posted by: rhy | September 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Tim, did you get the name of the elementary school and the head of the 9/11 commission wrong, too?

Posted by: Raysmom | September 11, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

8 out of 10
The rugby team members and the elementary school were my errors.

Posted by: Pacifica | September 11, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

I'll put 5 bucks on the hypothesis that the first self replicatingg molecules lined up between sheets of mica.
I suppose I should get a hedge.

Posted by: Boko999 | September 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

While Joel makes some good points, he completely overlooks the fact of the complicity of the press in these matters.

If reporters refused to play along with this kind of non-story, they would cease to be used - and I mean both the stories and the reporters.

Posted by: Pagun | September 11, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Jumper, Good interview on Letterman! Loved it.

Shrieking, you mean you aren't *really* Holling Vincoeur? I always visualized you as him, for some reason.

And Joel has always been Joel to me. He and Ed do have a LOT in common, they're nearly parallel characters. Joel is always under pressure and both a workaholic and talkaholic, while Ed barely seems to get anything much done.

Joel makes sense as Joel. It may be the curse of the name.

Marilyn Whirlwind should embody many lurkers or occasional commenters here.

Me? Not that many women characters to choose from on Northern Exposure. I've always liked Marilyn the most.

Joel one day goes on a rant about having nothing to do, and he accosts Marilyn. "How can you just sit there like that?"

Marilyn says, "I think about things."
Joel "Like what?"

Marilyn says "Sometimes I think about paperclips... and the color blue."

"Blue? You think about blue?"

"Well, you asked" (One of her rare chuckles.)

And if that doesn't sum up the boodle, what does?

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 11, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Amen to Pagun's 5:39 PM! If the press would ignore the noise it wouldn't be so darned loud!

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I got big plans to pee on fifteen thousand acres of land and make them all mine, baby.
Yes, I've been caught handling shoes inappropriately, and I never have problems finding pretty girls. They flock to me, see.

Just call me Maurice Minnfield.

Posted by: Wilbrodog | September 11, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

I call dibs on the moose that you saw in the opening scene.

Just keep you know who far, far away.

Posted by: RD Padouk | September 11, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Nice poem, gwe.

Mudge, that comment about the dumbest person in the room made me laugh out loud, really loud. You missed your calling.

I am not touching the creationist(sp) conversation. Staying away, besides I think everyone here pretty much know where I stand on the subject.

About the kit. I saw a little of Letterman, but did not hear the words. I think it is silly, the whole lipstick thing. It just seems to me that the Repubs are trying to scare the Dems into not criticizing Palin, you know like hands off. She's running with McCain so we can criticize her. It doesn't matter if she's wearing a bra or a skirt. She's on the ticket, and we can dish her, like we dish McCain. Sometimes it feels like the media folks have lost what little mind they have, not you JA. It feels like they're grabbing at straws so much of the time. Of course, we're part of the equation too.

And I agree with your mother, RD. I don't need Palin to tell me what women can do. I'm a woman too. Been there, done that. I was doing it while she was dreaming it. I don't hunt because I like animals. As a child I was forced to participate in hog killing. We had to string that bad boy up, and gut him or her, and commence with the slicing. Never liked it.

And frosty, I really enjoyed your comment about your daughter. I'm glad you have good memories of that.

Time to rest. Have a good evening, folks.
Ivansmom, is the Boy doing okay?

Loomis, check in if you can so we won't worry about you. Do you have to evacuate? Be safe.

Night, boodle. Sweet dreams.

Posted by: cassandra s | September 11, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Nice poem, gwe.

Mudge, that comment about the dumbest person in the room made me laugh out loud, really loud. You missed your calling.

I am not touching the creationist(sp) conversation. Staying away, besides I think everyone here pretty much know where I stand on the subject.

About the kit. I saw a little of Letterman, but did not hear the words. I think it is silly, the whole lipstick thing. It just seems to me that the Repubs are trying to scare the Dems into not criticizing Palin, you know like hands off. She's running with McCain so we can criticize her. It doesn't matter if she's wearing a bra or a skirt. She's on the ticket, and we can dish her, like we dish McCain. Sometimes it feels like the media folks have lost what little mind they have, not you JA. It feels like they're grabbing at straws so much of the time. Of course, we're part of the equation too.

And I agree with your mother, RD. I don't need Palin to tell me what women can do. I'm a woman too. Been there, done that. I was doing it while she was dreaming it. I don't hunt because I like animals. As a child I was forced to participate in hog killing. We had to string that bad boy up, and gut him or her, and commence with the slicing. Never liked it.

And frosty, I really enjoyed your comment about your daughter. I'm glad you have good memories of that.

Time to rest. Have a good evening, folks.
Ivansmom, is the Boy doing okay?

Loomis, check in if you can so we won't worry about you. Do you have to evacuate? Be safe.

Night, boodle. Sweet dreams.

Posted by: cassandra s | September 11, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Is it really the press's job to determine which statements by a major candidate to ignore and which to report? Isn't the fact that a major candidate is publicly and loudly making a fuss about something a story in and of itself?

I'm just a wee bit worried about a press that would decide for us which public statements McCain or Obama might make are worthwhile and which are not. Seems to me that this is our job.

Of course, I also expect the press to be free to comment on these statements as well.

You, know, like Joel just did.

Posted by: RD Padouk | September 11, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

Ugh. The pants lawsuit is headed for appeal...

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

Almost forgot..

Hello, astromom and all the new folks that have joined us today. Don't be a stranger, come back. I think Mudge's description pretty much tells the story here.

Posted by: cassandra s | September 11, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

No... I don't think every silly statement needs to be treated like news.

But what IS news is when a candidate criticizes the other for saying the exact same thing he'd said earlier.

The "news" of the McCain campaign's criticism of the lipstick comment should have been reported along with the video of McCain using the EXACT SAME EXPRESSION to refer to Hillary Clinton's health care plan.

Why is it only Jon Stewart who does this?

The news isn't that Obama was being sexist. The news is that the Republicans are being silly and petty about it.

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

TBG re: pants appeal

Yes, after a lot of hemming and hawing I see there's an appeal. I thought that thing was zipped up as well. The damages claimed have now been focussed on out-of-pocket expenses, though.

Posted by: SonofCarl | September 11, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Because only Jon Stewart has that TV archivist genius who can immediately remember where/when he's heard politicans say stupid things before, TBG.

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 11, 2008 6:44 PM | Report abuse

*sotto voce*

The rest of us just fall asleep after rolling our eyes, see....

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 11, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

This campaign should be called the months of the nitwits. For a country that likes to call their prez as leader of the (take your pick) free world, western world, they sure pick nitwits to occupy the office. Neither one of the present candidates comes close to being a statesman. McCain is simply a badly wired Frankenstein.

Posted by: Brag | September 11, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

Seen the ABC interview teasers? Great Sarah. Just great. Let's let Georgia join NATO so that we can maximize our chances of being sucked into a war with Russia.

She's Cheney in heels.

Posted by: RD Padouk | September 11, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

Ike sure is shaping up to be a dangerous storm.This one is scaring me even more then Gustav.The satellite photos seems to show Ike covering almost the entire gulf. I hope everyone in it's path takes the proper precautions.

I don't Like Ike

Posted by: greenwithenvy | September 11, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I like this view of what's going on on this side of the pond, from the other side:

Posted by: slyness | September 11, 2008 7:40 PM | Report abuse

The way I see it, all the media has to do is what they're *supposed* to do -- publish the freakin' truth. If they can't verify something, don't publish it or at the very least, make damn sure the audience *knows* it's unverified.

Another thing they have to do is call a lie a lie -- enough of this "distortion" and "exaggeration" and "blurring" and "half-truth" crap. If it ain't the truth, it's a lie -- and that includes lies of omission.

And as badly as ad revenue is needed, the media needs to show a little restraint and responsibility when it comes to political ads. With "vetting" being such a hot topic lately, you'd think they'd do a little more thorough vetting of political ads than to simply make sure the checks accompanying them are signed and clear the bank.

They can't be so stupid as to think the ads they carry don't affect their overall reputation as a news organization, can they?

Oh, wait... never mind.

Posted by: martooni | September 11, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

May I ask you who you consider the quinessential statesman, Brag? I'm curious.

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 11, 2008 7:46 PM | Report abuse

RDP, it's even worse than that...

If that's original thought on Gov. Palin's part...

can't even finish that sentence. Not today.

Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 7:48 PM | Report abuse


I don't really need to point out you just advocated censorship, do I?

Posted by: Scottynuke | September 11, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

scotty... not censorship... truth in advertising.

A car dealer can't run an ad for a $1.00 car when the car actually costs $50K. It's against the law.

I'm just saying the same should apply to political ads.

Posted by: martooni | September 11, 2008 8:09 PM | Report abuse

I was just over reading the Capital Weather Gang blog comments, under their item about Ike. You can't tell the bitterness from the posing from the sock puppetry. And it's about weather! Deadly dangerous weather! And all this $@^&* bickering! Oh man...

So, Brag, was Talleyrand (for example) a great statesman? I don't know much about what evil things he might or might not have done, but it's amazing how he survived multiple revolutions. Plus, I like the quote, "It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake." Don't know what he was talking about, but that's a nice quote for Iraq.

Posted by: Woofin | September 11, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I liked that Chardin quote, CP
You get this:

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

specks in a fall sky
had such intent to destroy
sirens were silenced
'tis said what goes up comes down
pray the reverse is true too

Posted by: Anonymous | September 11, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Well Scotty, should they decide to go to war with Russia, they might at least take some very valuable tips from history - avoid winter!

Have I ever mentioned how much I dislike saber rattling.

On a much better topic, Frosti had a busy day and just saw your post about your daughter when I got home - thank you for posting that - very touching.

Posted by: dmd | September 11, 2008 8:32 PM | Report abuse

1. More like Bush in heels.
2. Great Salon link.
3. I am partial to the mica sheets stickiness thing myself.

Posted by: Out I-81 | September 11, 2008 8:41 PM | Report abuse

The Mega BPH T-shirt design is HERE!

I'm still getting price quotes, but I think the cost will be somewhere in the $10-$15 range.

If you are going to want a shirt, please click on the survey link and let me know how many you will want. I'll post instructions for payment when I know how much they'll cost.


Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 9:05 PM | Report abuse

Just talked to my brother in Houston. He's at a hurricane party. He's not in the evacuation zone, but my uncle is. Not that uncle has yet to evacuate (neither has my sister-in-laws family); he's waiting to see what tomorrow brings. Of course they've been through these things before.

Posted by: astromom | September 11, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

DNAGirl -- you have the SF oeuvre down pat. Thanks for that,

The creation-evolution impasse shares with other philosophical difficulties the differing frames of

knowing based on sensate experience and
believing based on what is typically a deeply interior experience.

Sure do appreciate our haiku-ist. The mystery is part of the charm.

Posted by: College Parkian | September 11, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, anonymous, that is a lovely and appropriate poem for the day.

Posted by: slyness | September 11, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

I am glad that I did manage to watch the Sarah Palin interview snippets on the news tonight.

I will be most interested in other peoples reaction to her.

I just off the phone with my mother, who recounted a lunch meeting she went to with AAUW, youngest attendee approx 60, many of whom have strong concerns with Ms. Sarah.

Posted by: Pacifica | September 11, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Frosti, I found your post this morning hopeful and uplifting. My best to your daughter. Welcome astromom and anyone else I’ve forgotten (it’s been crazy at work and not much less so at home, so I’m a bit more scattered than usual). I’ve turned the tv off and refuse to read anything online that mentions the campaign. I just need to step back for a day or two and think of normal things. For instance, my morning glories are finally going crazy with blossoms, they make me smile.

Posted by: Bad Sneakers | September 11, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

Pacifica... it's good to see you here today! Hope all is well. How have you been?

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 9:25 PM | Report abuse

Oh.. and those of you who may want a Mega BPH T-shirt but won't be attending, I may ask you to include a couple of extra dollars for shipping.

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

Morning Glories!!! Worth the wait. New posters and old posters:all is right with the boodle.

Now, I am on kit: read what C&ENews says about lipstick here:

I checked the three tubes of lipstick in the house for their names:

Rum raisin (too dark save for Christmas or New Year's Eve)
Whisper pink
Destination Paris

Posted by: College Parkian | September 11, 2008 9:35 PM | Report abuse

For a while, my lovely government agency managed to block WaPo, which meant I couln't join you all while you were busy. I had to wait until I got home to catch up.

This week, I discovered WaPo is back available at work. Yippee.

I am fine, have been busy with house freshening projects. Tomorrow my new stove will be delivered, first time in three years I will have had a working oven.

Posted by: Pacifica | September 11, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

So.. what time tomorrow should we show up for dinner, Pacifica?


Glad you're back.

Toodles, Boodle. G'night.

Posted by: TBG | September 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

So...with a new stove and oven, I guessing faxing you a housewarming would be redundant, huh, Pacifica?

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 11, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse


It doesn't keep them from trying:

The car dealers that is. Lying politicians get away with it easier because the true cost is hidden.

Posted by: yellojkt | September 11, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

I've never liked the nasty taste of lipstick nor how drying it can be.

Lip gloss, now that's the true lipstick of the north.

Mind you, putting lip gloss on a moose just doesn't have the same swing...

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 11, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Enjoyed the UK Times article and sincerely hope they're right. Also the Salon piece which nailed my gut instinct as well. The frantic pull to the right reminds me of a paper I did for a comparative religion class on Millenialism in college. I came to the conclusion it was a defense reaction to too much change. Looking for duex ex machina, or for Gort to come out of the saucer and make us behave. Lipstick on a robot anybody?

Posted by: km2b | September 11, 2008 9:58 PM | Report abuse

'welcome CP.

And your note reminded me to appreciate our talented, housebroken haikuetcdog (say that phonetically :-), who makes me laugh often.

Posted by: DNA Girl | September 11, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

"Here's a fact that may surprise you: Candidates have a legal right to lie to voters just about as much as they want."

Read the rest from here:

Posted by: frostbitten | September 11, 2008 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I think that "putting lip gloss on a moose" is even better, actually.

Posted by: Bob S. | September 11, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Sometime way back when 'mudge recommended the Rebecca Traister piece in Salon, which I enjoyed quite a lot. I do, however, have to quibble with her assertion that "... while it may chafe to hear Rudy Giuliani and John McCain hold forth on the injustice of gender bias, what really burns is that we never heard a peep or squawk or gurgle of this nature from anyone in the Democratic Party during the entire 100 years Hillary Clinton was running for president..."

There were plenty of folks in the Democratic Party who peeped & squawked plenty. I'll concede that her Democratic primary opponents weren't the loudest of those voices, but it's blatantly dishonest to claim that there weren't a pile o'Dems crying foul with regularity.

Posted by: Bob S. | September 11, 2008 10:42 PM | Report abuse

I mean, it would have been really neato & keen if "the guys" running against her had been willing to take a little time out of their campaigns to defeat Sen. Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States, and spent a little time dressing down the media for their unfairly biased coverage of the opponent: "Hey, even though we honestly believe that we are more qualified to be President than Sen. Clinton, you should stop picking on her just because she's a girl. C'mon, fight like she's a man!"

But I think that might be asking a bit more than most political adversaries are likely to be able to give.

Posted by: Bob S. | September 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Report abuse

The only way to enforce truth-telling on the part of politicians is by using the ballot box. It is neither the privilege nor the right of the media to deny access to an organization that has met standard policies for publication of their advertising. Considerable latitude is legally granted to political speech, which is why "Swift-Boat Veterans for 'Truth'" was able to get away with saying demonstrably false things in their ads. If the law lets them publish it, and it is not within the editorial purview of the media operation, what legal right do they have to refuse the check and refuse to grant the air time? In fact, radio and TV are REQUIRED to broadcast political advertising, without discrimination. That includes discriminating on the basis of accuracy, honesty, and political worthiness.

Posted by: PlainTim | September 11, 2008 11:07 PM | Report abuse

Tim - In fact, they are required not only to accept the ads, but to give them rates comparable to the most favorable rates given to other advertisers (who have bought more and more often, and sometimes have to be bumped for the temporary political ads). This does not warm the hearts of the sales departments at the lucky few radio/TV stations which already have fairly steady ad sales!

Posted by: Bob S. | September 11, 2008 11:17 PM | Report abuse

"... bought more [ads], and [bought them] more often, ..."

Posted by: Bob S. | September 11, 2008 11:21 PM | Report abuse

Much welcome, DNAgirl.
Not feeling too poetic though.
Long day with short fun.


Grumpy grey cloud day
Birds scatter as we approach
None that I may chase.


Lazy bee awakens
"Go, fro, up, down, sit, wait, No!"
Hurry wears dog out.


Dinner bowl empty.
Wasn't it *burp* full just now?
Some more porridge, please?

Bedtime+ 30.

Someone left light on.
Rutting season's loud next door.
Should I sing along?

Posted by: Wilbrodog | September 11, 2008 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Wow, I'm Achenbloggin" in the same time frame with Bob S! I usually think of clever ripostes to his posts about 12 hours too late. Wouldn't you know that right now I can't think of any clever ripostes!
Suffice it to say that Bob S always makes me laugh!

You're absolutely right, Woofin and I liked km2b's 9:58.

All that being said, I'd like to say hello to rainforest!

I'm going to the Outer Banks of North Carolina with several of my girlfriends this weekend. All but one (she's relentlessly apolitical) are very Republican and ALWAYS want to convert me, so I'm going to go the *put my fingers in my ears and singsong, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you"* route. Wish me luck!

Posted by: Kim | September 11, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Mudge, I will accept spiritual housewarming wishes and gifts. Faxing virtual new kitchen towels is welcome.

I will soon be the proud parent of a 30 inch, stain-less steel, gas, 5 burner, 2 oven, includes extra-large self-cleaning convection oven.

We have a new floor. The kitchen has been repainted. Cabinets are next. And I was watching Frosti’s discussion on kitchen counters, sinks.

My Formica is not old enough to have those cool space designs, but is circa 1960 pink fleck – ugly.

Posted by: Pacifica | September 11, 2008 11:57 PM | Report abuse

Just because I have to:

I think that the whole evolution debate hinges upon a few fundamental misconceptions, but I don't think that they'll ever be cleared up. [WARNING: I'm a holder of some pretty deeply iconoclastic philosophical views on these things. My views are not in any way to be taken as speaking for anyone/anything else in the entire universe, although I think that the universe is missing the point if it doesn't agree with me.]

One of the problems is the entire concept of "species". It's convenient for naming stuff as we see it around us at present, but has nothing much to do with the world as it actually exists in a four dimensional space. [For the moment {that's a little joke also!!} I'll mercifully stay away from bringing other dimensions into the discussion] I don't look much like a tadpole currently, but at some point I looked quite a lot like one. It's bizarre to hear/read arguments against evolution based on observations of dynamic appearances & behavior. Duh? Just because dramatic changes in populations of large animals & plants don't happen at human-observable timescales doesn't falsify the fact that dramatic body changes occur (between & within generations of similar critters) all of the time. What kinda head-in-sandity does it take to deny the possibility that every now & then these changes spread around, particularly in changing environments?

Next up is the arbitrary & artificial distinction between life & "not life". Some systems are stable in lots of circumstances, some in almost none, and others in a number somewhere in the middle. I think that a system which is stable in a low number of circumstances, but is able to adjust slightly and remain stable in some other low number of circumstances, is more-or-less what we call "life". Well, whoopie for us! But it ain't necessarily so. We humans happen to have a great gift for grouping, dichotomizing & naming things. But we're sometimes not so good at recognizing that just because we've grouped and named a thing, doesn't mean that the thing must submit. The finger that points at the moon is not, in fact, the moon. I think a virus is alive, you think not, someone else wants to let Schroedinger's cat decide. Whatever. The thing is whatever the thing is. Our silly notions of "life" have nothing whatsoever to do with the way the universe works, and everything to do with the way the insides of our heads work.

And buying into this whole concept of "God" as a precursor to anything is a task worthy of God itself. Hey, I'm quite willing to stipulate the existence of a matriarchal/patriarchal/pastiarchal omniscient and omnipotent God that invented and currently monitors this universe, but only as the result of an evolutionary process. Starting there: While I'm awestruck by His/Her/Its power compared to my own, I'm still more struck by the power of evolution to allow for the creation of such a being.

Given the rest of the mind-boggling complexity of life, accepting that species probably mutate into other species seems like pretty small potatoes on the "leap of faith" scale to me, but people gotta cling bitterly to whatever moose is wearing their brand of lipstick, I reckon!

Posted by: Bob S. | September 12, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Kim - I was in "composing bizarre rant" mode, and didn't see your (far, FAR too kind!) comment. Good to see ya!

Posted by: Bob S. | September 12, 2008 12:28 AM | Report abuse

Kim, I have some good friends of the Republican persuasion. Usually we just stay away from politics. I was pleasantly surprised last time I visited my evangelical friend (2005, as Katrina was unfolding), that she was extremely anti-Bush. It warmed my heart.

Pacifica, I'll knit you some dishcloths! A kitchen remodel is a wonderful thing when it's done. Nice to see you again.

Hope Bayou Self is hunkering down in the Houston area. Thought the storm was going to fizzle out, but it seems to have regained strength.

Watched the candidates on the community service forum - pretty good discussion. Wish the campaign would be more like that.

Posted by: mostlylurking | September 12, 2008 1:11 AM | Report abuse

And welcome, astromom! Another astrophysicist - so cool. And welcome, other new Boodlers, and long time no see Boodlers. What did mudge say earlier - we're all on meds? So true.

Posted by: mostlylurking | September 12, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

So there's a WaPo homepage link entitled:
"Rule Changes Would Give FBI Agents Extensive New Powers"

I'm not sure what the Bureau had in mind, but x-ray vision and super-hearing would probably come in handy from time to time, as would as that bouncing-bullets-off-the-chest thing.

Posted by: Bob S. | September 12, 2008 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Hi, Bob - I never know what to say in response to your comments. By this time of night, my brain is mush - and you're all fired up.

I wanted to mention that there's a new CD of Eva Cassidy's coming out -
I'm going to have to check that out.

Posted by: mostlylurking | September 12, 2008 1:43 AM | Report abuse

Bob S., well said.

I don't get how people can embrace the miracle of an entire baby coming from a single cell, and not really "get" that this same miracle occurs for all multicellular life using very similiar recipes.

If people can believe that conception occurs how the books say it, and that a tiny ovum that can only be seen with a microscope is indeed a future relative, that's a bigger leap than believing in evolution.

At least we can see the continuum of similarity (although we seem to fix more on differences the more similar something is to us) everywhere in nature with the naked eye.

We never do see the contiuum between an ovum, an embryo, a fetus, and a baby unless we're exposed to diagrams, drawings, and jarfuls of embryos. We have to GO FIND the connection. All we really do see is how the mother acts and the belly getting bigger until one day a baby pops out.

Ironic isn't it? The Chain of Being and some early evolution ideas were already developed long before we had any actual idea about the first stage of how babies developed from sex. We believed in spontaneous generation until a few centuries ago.

Maybe that's why REAL sex ed is so scary. It reduces genesis to biology.

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 12, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and this breaking news - Obama will be on SNL this Saturday.

Posted by: mostlylurking | September 12, 2008 1:55 AM | Report abuse

As long as he doesn't have to say "sock it to me", mostly.

Posted by: Wilbrod | September 12, 2008 2:04 AM | Report abuse

Thanks for sharing your story, frostbitten.

Hi Kim. Hope you have a great weekend.

On 9/12 morning, I loaded NYT and saw what happened to the twin tower. It was unbelievable. I kept waiting for some kind of giant creature to show up on the screen, but it didn’t. It wasn’t a science fiction movie.

I've never tried putting lipstick on animals. But when I was a home alone kid, I used my sisters’ lipsticks to go over the lips of movie stars whose pictures my sister had pinned on the wall. I started with one picture. When I didn’t get any scolding (they hadn’t notice), it did the others. Then I got screamed at.

Posted by: rainforest | September 12, 2008 2:30 AM | Report abuse

Any bets on how many times "moose", "pig" and/or "lipstick" come up?

Actually, I'm foreseeing mentions of "rouge" and "mascara", "elk" and "cow" as stand-ins for those more volatile terms.

Posted by: Bob S. | September 12, 2008 2:33 AM | Report abuse

rainforest - You know what they say about putting lipstick on sacred cows...

Posted by: Bob S. | September 12, 2008 2:48 AM | Report abuse

Meyerson. Priceless.

Posted by: dbG | September 12, 2008 4:25 AM | Report abuse

Like others here, I don't wear lipstick often, although I do wear lipgloss every day.

I wonder what "pitbull" color would be? Anyone taking bets that one will appear soon?

Posted by: dbG | September 12, 2008 4:35 AM | Report abuse

'Morning, Boodle.

Got one of those late-night calls that scare the carp out of parents. Middle Dottir called at 11:30 to report the townhouse adjacent to hers "blew up," and there was a big fire. She and her husband got their four kids out OK, and SIL grabbed their emergency "go!" box, and were on the sidewalk watching the firemen. The fire was out, but they weren't being allowed back in. She asked if they could come here for a few weeks until they get re-settled. I, of course, said yes (what else can any parent say in situations like this?).

She called back to report progress: they were letting them back into their apartment, after all. The damage wasn't very severe in their unit, but four adjacent units down the line were "gone." They were staying at a friend's house overnight, but would be back in their place tomorrow [today]. Feel sorry for the four families who were displaced -- but glad dottir and family weren't one of them.

Nothing like a little midnight adrenaline panic to give one a good night's sleep.

OK, let's get these jalopies in the air. Brag, you up there flying recon over the Evil Aerodrome of Doom? We'll be on your wing shortly.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | September 12, 2008 6:15 AM | Report abuse

Gooood morning, everybody, and happy Friday!

The news around here is that drought is easing. Rainfall is actually above normal; of course, groundwater is not recovering quickly, so we're not out of the woods yet. But it's a relief.

Mudge, whew! I'm glad to hear that the dottir and fam are okay. If they have smoke or water damage, tell them not to wash stuff but get a restoration company in.

Bob S., I like your take on evolutionary processes.

Onward into the day! It will be a busy one for me. Gotta meet the Third Dottir at Costco to purchase supplies for Sunday party, then be home at 1 to meet the exterminator.

Our baby boys will be dedicated in church on Sunday, and the whole family will come here for lunch. It will be fun (after I get teary-eyed in the service), and it's a great excuse to get the house clean.

Posted by: slyness | September 12, 2008 7:06 AM | Report abuse

Morning all.. I've surreptitiously joined the Dawn Patrol as this is my month to drive the carpool to school. But it usually takes me so long to backboodle when I get back that by the time I'm done it's no longer dawn.

Did anyone hear Palin say to her son's unit that they were going off to "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."


Posted by: TBG | September 12, 2008 7:27 AM | Report abuse

'toon, yes you were, although PlainTim already said why better than I could.

If you want to restrict politicians to speaking only objective truth, it's gonna get WAY quiet on Captiol Hill.

Oh, it IS TGIF, innit?? *faxin' a few extra hatches to the Houston area for some extra battening*

And "Bush in heels" is sounding more and more appropriate, although we might have to add a "circa 2002" caveat:

*SIGHHHHHHHH anna-kinda-pro-forma Grover waves*

Posted by: Scottynuke | September 12, 2008 7:37 AM | Report abuse

New kit!

Posted by: dbG | September 12, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

New Kit!

Looks like the boss will lash himself to a tree soon.

Posted by: shrieking denizen | September 12, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

Not quite lipstick but her cousin, nail polish: brought to you by the Dawn Patrol Pome Service

I Shall Paint My Nails Red
by Carole Satyamurti (b. 1939)

Because a bit of colour is a public service.

Because I am proud of my hands.

Because it will remind me I'm a woman.

Because I will look like a survivor.

Because I can admire them in traffic jams.

Because my daughter will say ugh.

Because my lover will be surprised.

Because it is quicker than dyeing my hair.

Because it is a ten-minute moratorium.

Because it is reversible.

Posted by: College Parkian | September 12, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

That's all well and good. We could say it was taken out of context and have it be a silly Obama misstatement. But the problem is that Obama beat Hillary with just this type of tactic where anything she said was taken out of context and played over and over again to defeat her. For example, when she said RFK didn't get killed until June, it was a purely historical statement. But it was used by the biased press to say Hillary wanted Obama shot. It took away from the news cycles after she trounced him in the primaries, and helped Obama win. Bill Clinton also said Jesse Jackson won his SC primary and that was taken out of context to say President Clinton was a racist. It changed the whole course of the primary elections. So if you want to cut Obama some slack, you should have cut Hillary some slack and since the biased press did not, I see it as that Obama was actually calling McCain the pig in his metaphor and Palin was the lipstick. Either way, I think the smooth operator, Barack Obama, knew exactly who he was giving a back handed slap to. I will never support him. And he should be criticized for his remark. You can try to defend him all you want, but it's Obama who is the hog to me.

Posted by: bettym47 | September 16, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company