There was apparently a bit at the end (which I didn't see myself) where McCain tries to come around the table to shake the moderator's hand, and they both go in the same direction around the table, and then both reverse themselves, and McCain makes a funny face to indicate that they're doing something dopey.

I like it when he has other positive leadership qualities too, though.

(Eh, that's excessive. McCain has positive leadership qualities. I worry that the negative ones would distinctly outweigh them, sure, but that's not the same thing.)

Obama: "Hmm, well, glad that's over... let's see, what's for dinner..."
McCain: "BLAAAAAAAARGH!"

Google News is silent so far. Does anyone know?

This looks like confirmation.

http://www.revolutionsf.com/bb/weblog_entry.php?e=1488

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINS.....*confused*

I can see how a photo can have been taken, and why it looks bad.

What I can't understand is an experienced politician using that particular facial expression, in any situation.

Are you sure it's kosher?

Rather, an extreme example of McCain's "tongue jut."

Like Nate Silver, I'd really like to play poker with him. Not only does he do the tongue jut thing when he's very pleased with himself, if you throw him off his game, McCain freezes completely. (That last link is to a video where McCain was gobsmacked for 19 full seconds last night. That was the decisive moment in the debate, as far as I'm concerned.)

Hulu has it up.

There's also the official site, http://www.mydebates.com/ but they seem to mung the links so I can't give you a specific pointer.

But that doesn't mean I would be sad if the phrase "McCain Resignation Tongue" entered the American political vocabulary.

Joe The Plumber? Not even registered to vote.

Yeah. What an ass-hat.

Wonderful.

*goes to make buttons*

Compared with what went on before, this was actually funny.

Dad: Do you know where I can get that paint that you can use to write on your car windows?

Me: Why?

Dad: So I can write McCain on my rear window.

Me: Why not just draw a huge swastika?

Dad: You know, you can be some kind of asshole when you want to be. (Said affectionately but with a hint of irritation.)

Yeah, that's how political conversations have gone between him and me since I first drew a breath.

Joe is registered to vote, but his name is spelled incorrectly in the database. He registered in 1992 and voted in his first primary (Republican) this year.

Of course, with the misspelling, he would be purged if the Republicans got their way.

I don't like the guy, but this isn't what it looks like.

Igor '08: You can *see* he's got his head screwed on right.

Igor '08: A steady pair of hands[1] at the helm.

[1] Hands may not technically belong to the candidate. Yet.

Igor '08: The office of the president has become precious to us.

Believe me, I wish it were otherwise.

In the Foobiverse, physically off-putting people are generally comic ethnics, noble cripples or villains. "McCain" is about as ethnic as haggis, so he better hope he's a noble cripple, the sort that gets to do stuff aside from sitting around being all noble and crippled and a credit to their kind of people. Otherwise he's stuck deep in Howard territory. Nobody wants to be a Howard.

Hobbes being followed by Calvin.

Which, come to think, nails McCain pretty well.

Your link isn't working; however, "Joe the Plumber" is also:

behind in paying his property taxes,

his father is a staunch Republican (who's given thousands to McCain's campaign), and

he's apparently related to the Keating family.

Oh, and he doesn't actually make $250,000, nor does he own a business that makes that much, nor is he in a position to purchase one that will.

IOW, he was a Republican plant for Obama to find (I was wondering why the McCain campaign found him so fast, and the cameras just 'happened' to catch the majority of his talk with Barrack) and to be used by McCain in later debates and ads.

President Palin

Just click around in the picture.

It is becoming pretty clear the guy was a plant.

His policies are reason enough.

Artemus Gordon: She's a breath of fresh ass.
James West: Pardon me?
Artemus Gordon: What?
James West: You said "ass."
Artemus Gordon: No, I didn't. I said, "It's nice having her on board, she's a breast of fresh air."
James West: Let's just get some shut ass.

The Secret Service also says that there was no "Kill him!" yelled about Obama at any time.

When did the Secret Service get involved in campaign politics?

There's 20% of this nation that is off the rails with hate and racism and it is the fault of the GOP, the RNC and the neoCONS, and their surrogates like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

There is no negotiation or compromise because they won't. Period.

Now I don't trust the Secret Service to even try and keep Obama safe.

Love, C.

Love, C.

As for the rest, including whether or not there is video evidence that contradicts their claim, I don't know enough to comment.

As for the rest, including whether or not there is video evidence that contradicts their claim, I don't know enough to comment.

"Priva-ate eyes, are wa-tchin' you, they see your EV-R'Y MOVE...."

*snrk*

Flyboy!

Side benefit of an Obama presidency: *handsome* guy behind the podium at all the speeches for the next four years. (I swing between thinking he's very good looking and just thinking he looks better than both John McCain and George Bush. Either way, it's a win.)

Looking at the post, I see mean, sneaky selective editing from Making Light, a blog I thought incapable of it.

When I see the exaggerated tics and barely (or poorly, take your pick) concealed anger of someone aspiring to be the POTUS, I am very concerned. One (okay, maybe two or three) demented presidents--enough, already. You see human playfulness and I see at least a few non-functioning neural synapses.

Watching split-screen clips of the debates, I was struck by McCain's inability to keep a straight face. Instead we see obviously fake, impatient smiles, the face of a man who can barely conceal his contempt. It's a face that says "Look at this asshole. Listen to this crazy crap he's coming out with. Labor leaders? Health care? Who is this guy, and why does he think he has any right to run against me?"

McCain's obvious attitude problem probably hurt him more than anything he actually said.

No, that image is not photoshopped.

But this image is.

On the subject of Obama looking good, check out this photo of him and his family... I mean, damn.

Alas, the internet does not appear to have provided yet.

uh, did you click on the link in faren's post?

On the flip side, you can't get away with that in a televised Presidential debate. (You could call this the Nixon principle.)

Before finding out that Joe the Plumscum was a Republithug shill, I merely though that McCain was demonstrating More Bad/Incompetent/"Faith-Based" Research. But now, it goes beyond that into the at least Gag Order Gorge Territory of intentional turpitude. Putting in a shill who is not a licensed plumber, has not got a licensed plumber's income, who's got a property lien for failure to pay taxes, who is anything but an unbiased random member of the public, is vile, it's fraudulent, it's demeaning, it's offensive, it's arrogant, it's lying... it's more high crimes and misdemeanors mentality expression--no it's not a high crime and it's not misdemeanor, but in the intent to mislead and derail, to misrepresent a partisan shill as "ordinary Joe" is utterly vile and despicable.

McCain, Palin, and their promoters are evil--not all might be intentionally evil, but the summation, is evil. They are arrogant, they are deceitful, they willfully mislead and disrespect... how can it not be evil? Then there's the implausible deniability regarding the calls for death. Palin claims her brother-in-law threatened to kill.... if there is any truth to that, I suspect it was the sort of thing said of "I'm going to kill that person!" said by someone who is annoyed at someone and, however, has no actual intention of committing murder or mayhem, it's an idiom that people use sometimes when irritated, but not normally on a bully pulpit....

(Tried to post this yesterday, but ran into a SQL database thing?)

BUT -- the picture is taken out of context. The man did a little self-deprecating schtick that reminded me that he is, whether or not I like him or anything he stands for, human.

I think we have reached a point where the demonization of people with whom we disagree is so common that we start to forget that they are just people. And, even worse (and I think this is far truer of those of us on the left, especially when we are well-educated), we start to consider ourselves better than the people we oppose.

I despise pretty much everything the Bush-McCain cadre and their supporters believe in. I will fight them as long as they are there to fight (or I am). But I am going to try as hard as I can not to engage in anything that demonizes or dehumanizes these people (or any others). There is far too much evidence of what happens when we start thinking of others as "less than" us -- something that has made Bush and Co.'s policies successful, IMO -- for me to not try to avoid that particular trap.

There is still something to be said for fighting fairly. I don't think posting this picture encourages that. And, from a practical standpoint, I think this kind of thing gives ammunition to those people who claim that liberals are all a bunch of big, fat liars who try to sway people with their evil wiles.

I'm not that old.

I was responding in particular to Rose's comment, which seemed to me to be almost justifying making fun of McCain because he's a nasty little fck.

And it has nothing to do with old white men -- it has to do with the kind of schadenfreudlich undertone -- and the fact that some people think it's ok to make fun cruelly. OK -- this isn't all that cruel, but OTOH, anti-Hillary folks took special delight in showing pix of her laughing and smiling, and those were moments that, caught in stills, made her a target for all kinds of nasty comments. There's a really interesting article here in The Atlantic if anybody's interested and didn't already see it via CT.

Anyway, I wasn't taking all the commenters to task, initially or now. I was calling Avram on it.

FWIW, I think most of the jokes here are pretty legit, because they are making fun of stuff McCain said, and his actions, hypocrisy, etc. But the picture Avram posted is not just making fun, but opens up a forum for what I think is a particularly unpleasant form of mockery that I think is below ML -- and I think that's been clear from the comment thread, pretty much.

But then I didn't watch the Borat movie, nor do I watch "funniest videos" shows, because I think they encourage the same sort of unpleasantness -- they encourage people to feel better about themselves at the expense of others. YMMV.

There is still something to be said for fighting fairly. I don't think posting this picture encourages that. And, from a practical standpoint, I think this kind of thing gives ammunition to those people who claim that liberals are all a bunch of big, fat liars who try to sway people with their evil wiles.

They don't need ammunition. They manufacture it. The false claims they make that the Ward Churchills, and the Harry Belafontes of the world must be publicly repudiated, with long paeans about how much we don't believe the least little thing they say, so the charges can be repeated; and the idea that these are movers and shakers of, "The Left" can be strengthened; and then the feasts of shrill-glee they get when someone like Sen. Durbin has the gall to speak the truth about something... No, they don't need us to hand them ammunition.

When I look at how much they pay the Michelle Malkins, and the Ann Coulters and the Glenn Becks, when I see them invite the Hagees, and the Dobsons and the Limbaughs to the halls of power, and then tell me I can't dare to compare the things the Limbaughs and the Coulters and the Malkins and the Becks are just entertainers; and no one listens to them, so what they say doesn't matter...

Well, I'm not going to tie my hands behind my back. The man entered a very public race, he went onto a national stage and, in a highly scrutinized venue, chose to do something ridiculous. Oops. The people who will hate me for laughing at it... well they need to lighten up. It's just a joke, right? I am tired of having that double standard used to beat me. If they want to see their guy treated with kid glove deference... they can damned well start by doing it to the other sides guys.

Because being called a traitor, and told people need to kill me, and my friends, and "liberal judges" and the like, it's not funny. And no one, I mean no one, whom any of them will listen to, will tell them they need to stop PAYING people to say shit like that.

So honestly... I don't care that it's a cheap shot. If that speaks ill of me, well I'm tired. 25 years of being on the defensive have made me cranky, and being blamed for being cranky (which is what it feels you are doing), well I'm not accept it. They didn't make me do it, but they sure as hell made it pretty plain that taking the high ground (Al Gore was "too stiff", "invented the internet": Kerry "flip-flopped", "shirked in Viet-nam" [hell, they wore band-aids with purple hearts, and Bob Dole lied about how you earn one; but I digress], Kerry's haircuts... all of the Clinton investigations) isn't going to do it; and no matter how civilised I may manage to be, I am not always a nice person. So long as I don't cross the line so far my friends have to tell me that was not only not nice, but truly wrong, I can live with that aspect of myself.

Someone, in the heart of their party, believes the "Goldberg Doctrine" that the only way to beat a bully is to punch him in the nose.

As punches in the nose go, this is pretty mild.

It was very easy to let yourself hate the man (and some of the Ministers) when you heard their smoothly twisted mendacities. I struggle even now to despise, abhor and refute when I can their policies, their works and their ideology, and revile the consequences without abusing them as people. For example, John W Howard once called himself George W Bush's “deputy” in the Pacific. This was thereafter derided as us being a “deputy sheriff” (said with Gunsmoke twang), which is neither what he said, nor, I hope, meant.

A sig I developed from Dune says “The greatest victory your enemy can have is to make you a mirror of himself.”  When I read the recently-linked-here comments over at Right Wing Nut House (If elected, Obama will be my President), they could be mirrored by quite a few Left Wing comments, swapping the names and some of the issues. I often do feel what they're expressing, if from another viewpoint entirely. And that worries me.

In other words, neither Avram nor Making Light is responsible for the photo's existence, and (reading the comments) most of us have just been laughing at a silly picture.

It is a silly picture. There are silly pictures of Obama out there, too, and I think that most of the ML posters are quite aware of that.

There was that story in a Groff Conklin anthology decades ago, entitled, "Basic Right."

Two people playing in what's supposed to be the same game, using different sets of rules, favors the game player who has fewer/less strict rule. Punishment for "cheating" particularly if the situation is one of dealing with a lying, vicious, malevolent set of hypocrites, shouldn't be banned, and neither should commensurate response to provocation.

All of your complaints are valid -- so why take the cheap shot that makes the shooter look little and mean spirited? Take the shot to the solar plexus. There is enough true crap out there about McCain and Palin that should be used. I'm not talking about McCain's peccadillos, but about real stuff. Is The Village Voice right in its allegations about Palin's house, frex? and ... the Palin ethics report? No one is doing anything with that, and it's a real, actual issue that bears on whether she should be VP -- not to mention a heartbeat away from the top exec! Cheap shots are exactly that -- cheap. And sometimes they end up costing more than you think.

Mary Frances @#100 -- and your point is? Because you know, one of my students used a mildly homophobic expression in class the other day -- an expression that is extremely common. And when I called the student on it, the response was, "I don't have anything against gay people -- it's just a joke. I bet a lot of people here thought it was funny." And a lot did. Didn't make it ok.

Paula Lieberman @#102 -- the first rule that you state, and its more common converse, pretty much precludes commensurate response, unless your own rules say it's ok. But that would mean that you're both playing by the same rules. Me, I'd rather keep playing by the rules of civilized, well-mannered folk. But then, I always did prefer hanging out with the nerdy smart kids to trying to fit in with the bitchy girls who couldn't quite make it as cheerleaders or the stars of the school play.

He thinks he's being funny, he's actually being ridiculous. He thinks it is a fleeting moment that everyone will forget, but he's actually doing something memorable as being bad/stupid. He thinks he's being folksy, funny and showing he's an "ordinary person", but he's actually being undignified and unprofessional. He thinks being unprofessional and unintellectual is good, when in fact, his unprofessional and unintellectual nature makes him look a fool to Obama's calm, professional and thoughtful nature.

I look at this picture, and it's worth a thousand words. That's it. That's what we've been talking about - that the Republican cutesy, common, unintellectual guy-I'd-drink-a-beer-with attitude is contemptible, and Obama's alternative of calm, intellectual professionalism is admirable.

It wouldn't be funny if it was merely a joking moment caught at a bad angle. It's funny because it is evocative of a larger truth. Which is what good comedy is - and why Stewart, Colbert and Letterman have managed to pull off as much good political work as much of the mainstream media.

However, I also don't think your analogy @103 is really quite justified. This was a silly picture of a specific man acting silly. The joke didn't quite come off the way he meant it, partly because he wasn't think in terms of the "freeze frame" potential, I suspect--but we were still responding to a, well, bad joke, I guess: by laughing at the "comedian" rather than with him. I really don't see the laughter as especially cruel or derisive. It could be, but I honestly don't think it was, in this instance, based on the comments above. Certainly not like making a gratuitous comment about an individual or group of people who hadn't just done something silly in front of several million people.

The "it's only a joke" response is one I find particularly abhorrent, and I honestly didn't mean that (though I can see why you might have thought I did). Again, my apologies for not being clearer.

A curtsey and sweep of the chapeau to Charlie Stross for the pointer.

Everyone can laugh with a clear conscience.

Love, C.

And it's because I don't think it's a cheap shot. I think it's an unwittingly apt shot.

The problem with the, "shot to the solar plexus" is that the solar plexi we want to hit aren't McCain, and the Press, it's the people who are looking at him. I've done solid shots on him (for years, because I thought his pandering to Bush, and forsaking Kerry when the Swift Boat Boys and the Republican Party were making a mockery of devoted service, to Kerry's fellows, and the nation, during Viet-Nam, was shameful, and then when he gave Bush more than he asked for on torture, and pretended it was "a compromise" and he was shocked, shocked to discover there was gambling going on in this establisment Bush was going to claim even more than McCain gave him [that he looks to lose his "winnings bothers me not at all, but I digress).

Part of what the campaign has been about is how much of Bush McCain want's to reprise. This makes McCain look a shambling zombie. It's coarse, but it's about issues. Is he too old? Is he too much like the man he wants to replace.

And, it hits the people who have been immune to solid doses of reason with an image (that thousand words) which might make them think about the facts/questions I (and Patrick, Teresa, julia, and all the others, here and away) have been talking about for years.

If those shots you think we should be sticking to were capable of doing the job, all on their own... this race would be a blow-out, instead of merely an Electoral Vote landslide.

Oddly enough, some of the, almost reflexive, defensiveness I decry in the mainstream politicos and pundits happened here. The accusation that we/I were resorting to cheap shots, below the belt; and unfair put me on the back foot. I took to excusing myself for something I didn't really think needed excusing.

Humor is a valid tool, and it's fair.

I wasn't remarking on the photo at all, just responding to your statment:

"watching this segment at the end made it easier to remember both how easy we find it to demonize people AND how important it is to remember that people may be likeable and still not the ones you want to run the country."

With my experience of the debate, which was to go from intellectual disagreement and mild personal sympathy for McCain to seething hatred. Not caused by demonizing the man, but by watching his public performance of his beliefs.

BTW, my name is Rosa, not Rose.

By way of a bit of humor in your politics:
Seen in the NYT:

“So when he left Joe’s neighborhood in Toledo,” Ms. Palin said, “our opponent didn’t look real happy. Seems that the staged photo op there got ruined by a real person’s question.”

Ms. Palin, as has become her custom, did not take questions from the crowd or reporters.

When the other person has already Done Unto You things which are nasty, vile, demeaning, insulting, deprecatory, self-defense, with responses to e.g. libel, and slander; come into the equation. McCain and Palin and their supporters are involved in egregious smear, innuendo, guilt by remote association, false witness testimony, and Big Lie campaigns.

McCain has already been "done unto" with massive vilenesses by McCain, Palin, and their associates. That calls for commensurate response to deal with the promulgation and memes of "adverse environment" which are what the Republithugs are engaging in.

They have a massive disinformation campaign going are, at least one Republican Party apparatchik with a direct line into the the White House four years ago was prosecuted with and then convicted of and served prison time, for election interference via running a phone jamming operation, in New Hampshire. There was systematic vote fraud in Ohio. There were the firings of US federal prosecutors who were Republicans, who refused to either or both pursue trumped up charges of vote fraud promotion against Democratic Party politicians, and/or drop investigation into Republican officials.

The corruption is shot throughout the matrix of the Republican Party, pandering to
o religious extremists intolerant of rights of anyone else to have freedom of religion and follow their own conscience/the tenets of their faiths in matters where the extremists demand that their faith's beliefs be the law of the land as regarding creation of the universe, medical procedures, reproductive control, diet....
o fascists
o demanding the dismantling of equal opportunity and equal access programs and regulations designed to attempt to provide equal opportunity regardless of race, creed, gender, etc., and limit "discrimination" to situations where there is a real requirement involved, as opposed to "requirements" being generated specifically to lock people out of opportunity....
o robber barons, the modern variety, and would-be robber barons
o those who aren't in marginal economic, social, health, etc., situation.

Rosa @#109 -- oops! sorry.

Terry Karney -- I don't believe in "unwittingly apt". To you, it might represent those things, but only in the sense that lots of candid pictures do the same thing -- and that's part of the problem. Hillary Clinton caught mid-laugh looks to many people like a harridan -- and a mad one at that! And I didn't think it funny when her opponents used such pictures to suggest that they were 'unwittingly apt'. I don't disagree that humour is a valid tool. I think satire is a wonderful thing. I think Tina Fey is doing a great job -- as are Colbert and Stewart. But this isn't humour, in my book. And frankly, if you think that a picture like this is going to do anything but piss off those same people who think it's unfair to publish an unretouched picture of Sarah Palin, then you really haven't been paying attention. In fact, if you think that reason plays much part at all, you have not been paying attention. The kind of reasoning you're talking about presupposes that people want the same sort of outcome and believe that the same sorts of things are good and bad. It also presupposes that you're right, and that reasoning means convincing others that you are. It denies them the right to their opinions. The people you're talking about don't necessarily value or want the same things you do. Yes, they want things better, but their better is not our better (because I do happen to agree that Liberal ideals are better).

Mary Frances @ #105 -- Thanks! That's a lot clearer. And you know, I would buy that bit about laughing with the comedian if it were a shot that seemed less geared to point out all the things that Terry Karney mentioned. He looks old, he's stooped, he's got his arms out like Frankenstein's monster ... (and that last part does bother me because even though I hate how much he milks his time in VietNam, he was injured there, then tortured, and he is disabled). But I doubt it was McCain's plan to look like that. The picture it *ought* to be is McCain doing that cartoon-y lean backwards while bouncing on his heels with little dust clouds puffing up on each bounce. *That* was what was happening. at the time, I did laugh -- because live, it was funny and he meant it to be. But I'm not sure it's exactly the same thing when a person can go through stills and take the one that makes a person look really bad to people who don't have the original context in mind.

However, senses of humor vary, and I've been told several times over the years that I have a fairly peculiar one. I still get the giggles over that dorky photo of Obama in the swimsuit, for example--but it doesn't strike me as a reason to vote for or against him, and I don't believe that a freeze-frame shot of McCain would be a reason to vote for or against him, either. Not for me, at least.

That said, I basically agree with you about the dangers of going too far in making fun of an opponent, for all sorts of reasons--becoming the enemy's mirror, among others. I just didn't read this particular posting or thread as reaching anywhere near that level of nastiness. Especially--maybe--since Avram also provided a link to the full-motion version (or had provided it by the time I saw this posting).

I hope that makes sense. If it doesn't, please blame the hour--it's been a long day . . .

Oh, I've been paying attention, but I don't give a damn.

See, those people who froth at the mouth over Newsweek's Palin cover, there are exactly two things I can do that would make them happy: (1) I can vote for McCain, or (2) I can kill myself. Since I'm not willing to do either of those two things, they're going to be pissed at anything I do.

Have you not noticed that these people manufacture controversies? Have you not noticed that they lie about Obama's religion, about his birth certificate, about his family? Have you not noticed that they lied about McCain's family in 2000, when he was Bush's rival? That they lied about Gore in 2000, and about Kerry in '04?

If you don't like the picture, fine, don't like it. But don't try to convince me that I should have refrained from posting it in order to avoid pissing off people who are going to be pissed off regardless.

You think that's dirty pool.

What I see is people telling the Dems what they have to do to win... and it boils down to having to worry about pissing the Republicans off. Well I don't care so much any more. If that means I've been "polarised" so be it. I don't hate the people who support Republicans (for all that I am deeply disturbed by what I hear/see as being their motives/understandings), but I sure as blazed don't think Brooks, Frum, etc. are really being honest when they tell the Dems what they need to do to be "taken seriously, and have a real shot at winning" is A, B, and C. These are not people who want the Dems to win, so why in the name of all that's holy should I listen to them.

I am certain we are irreconilable on this. I don't know that my utter disgust for McCain doesn't make me more willing to mock him, but honestly, that I am willing to leave it at mockery is a huge point in my favor... because honestly, tar and feathers are too good for him, IMO, given what he has done to the reputation of the nation, and the safety of those in uniform. If I were to be captured, for any reason... my fate is guaranteed to be no better than his was; and it's his fault. And he's proud of that, he defends what he did. Mockery is the least of things he deserves.

For those who feel that all men are silly, both those we like and those we don't like, it confirms that. For those who feel that Republicans are cthuloid entities, it confirms that. For those who feel that ML is full of weenies, it confirms that.

I think it's good to point out that ML is not the be all and end all, but I don't think this post leads naturally to that conclusion.

"Beware! Beware! Beware! The bolt of Tash falls from above!"

"Does it ever get caught on a hook half-way?" asked Corin.

"Shame, Corin," said the King. "Never taunt a man save when he is stronger than you: then, as you please."

I know that we haven't won this thing, but it does feel—to me—like kicking a man when he's down. And that makes me squirm.

What you are lamenting as unethical and demeaning on the part of the cohorts who oppose and laugh at the mcplns and their plans for continuing and making even more extreme the last 8 years of lies and pillaging, shredding of the Constitution and our civil liberties -- while, of course lying that they are allied with the neoCON and dominionist agenda -- is known in the trade as "The Emperor's New Clothes."

We are laughing because more and more and more people are seeing that the proud emperor parading before us isn't wearing anything.

Love, C.

Reports are showing up where electronic voter machines are used for early voting of Obama tripping to mcCain, just for starters. Voters themselves noticed this and have called it in. There are NO reports of mcCain votes tripping over to Obama.

Love, C.

Y ll hv bn wtng fr s lng t bsh rnd th Rpblcns tht whn th chnc rss, y rn rnd n crcls nd p n th rg lk n vr cffntd pdl.

Thn, whn y d gt t mk jk, y ht blw th blt - mkng mny thnk tht Dms dn't knw hw t fght. Tht smhw thy'r pl, wtry yd gks wh r stll md bcs thy ddn't g t th prm, thy st t hm nd wtchd Str Trk nd rd sck ssmv.

t's chp sht. Y gys nd t t t p nd tk nthr whck t t.

The lack of complaints about votes being switched from McCain to Obama is easily explained. In order to complain, someone would have to try to vote for McCain, they'd have to be able to tell the machine recorded Obama instead, and they'd have to care. It's not impossible, but it's sufficiently improbable.

After years of being accused of being un-American, terrorist sympathizers, perverts, corrupt, anti-progress, and generally worthless, after all that, now we're being told that we can't indulge in one bit of basically harmless mockery, because that would be "below the belt." Well I think that advice came from somewhere below the belt too.

That sounds like a violent way to play golf.

"ftr yrs f bng ccsd f bng n-mrcn, trrrst smpthzrs, prvrts, crrpt, nt-prgrss, nd gnrll wrthlss"

Tht phrs rght thr brs m t - Dms nd lbs lwys sm t b whn, n mttr wht thy'r dscssng. Cwb p.

Is that the sequel to Brokeback Mountain?

Cwb p sn't th sql t Brkbck Mntn. (Hr's hpng tht flm nvr ctll cms nt xstnc, th frst ws bd ngh)

t's bscll nthr tk n mn p.

Rapidly heading for a bingo, I think.

Thinking this is funny enough to share... is below the belt.

Taking reasonable offense at being called said traitorous failure is whiny...

Bitching that running an unimproved photo of the candidate isn't.

Thinking someone who's never posted before, and is using trollish behavior out to be called out for it (some silly nonsense about acountability, and judging people on what they do) is cheap, and unfair.

Coming in from nowhere, and telling the regulars they need to respect your opinion because (honest Injun) you've been a regular lurker for a long time is reasonable and just.

Now that I know where you stand.... lets jest say your dogs don't hunt. Man up and admit you're being an ass.

Then I might have some respect for your subsequent opinions, but while you are weaseling and whining about how unfair it is all these, "liberal" are judging you by your actions, I'll be sitting over here, poking such fun as my conscience permits, at the weaklings who can't take a joke.

The last sentence (about taking jokes) was an intentional use of the Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, defense.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine if I was, in fact, joking when I insulting Motorcycle Mike. I was not levelling those accusations at anyone else in the thread. I disagree with Earl, and ADM, but I don't doubt their sincerity,nor that they are making honest arguments; in good faith. I am not mocking their sentiments.

I just didn't think a disclaimer, in the post itself, was a good idea, as it would steal from such impact as the bare reading was meant to convey.

Yr wrtng s cnvltd nd vrl wrght.

hv nt bn whnng. Mrl pntng t tht th bck nd frth n ths brd s typcl f th lbrl clp trp tht gs n whnvr ny ss s pt n th tbl.

G pk yrslf.

What are you trying to achieve, here? Are you trying to convince anyone of anything, or are you just being a twit? Because if you were actually interested in doing anything other than stirring shit, and if you actually have read this blog in the past, you would have done things differently.

I'm calling you are a troll because you are trolling. You're using "you people" arguments, over-generalizing, and sneering. You know fine well that persuasion in the face of opposing viewpoints doesn't work when you go about it that way.

Quit it. If you have something to say, say it in a fashion that contributes to the conversation. If not, you're typing with a 21.5*-letter keyboard.

-----
* and, as they say, sometimes y

Th cmmnt ws md tht sng th pctr f McCn ws chp sht n th prt f Mkng Lght.

Ppl rctd, mny syng tht, t pt t smply "h, t's ky whn th Rpbs d t, bt w'r nt llwd."

Thr ws ls dbt vr wht's fnn.

rd ll f ths psts nd md my bsrvtns: tht smtms strtyps hv bt f trth n thm - lbrls r vr snstv bldng hrts.

ttcks fllwd. nd rspndd.

My vw: Th pctr sn't ll tht fnn, nt bcs t's f McCn, bt bcs t's sght gg tht lss mpct f th prsn dsn't s hw t ccrrd.

s tht ntrllsh ngh fr vrn? nd ws tht n ttmpt t flrtng frm Xphr?

Michael Motorcycle, AKA:

• JJ Fozz


• The Lift


• Fiji


• BronxWarrior


• Nacho Chuck

and indeed all others posting from 216.230.110.66, you are banned from Making Light.

You bastard. I trusted you. I liked you. I defended you, welcomed you, persuaded everyone to forgive you your initial awkwardnesses. I even warned you privately instead of outing you when you socked us the first time. I am more than disappointed.

Do not darken our threads again, in any guise, under any name.

No, it's even more blatantly trollish, actually. "I'll type slowly because I know most of you can't read that fast" makes whatever else you say in your post worthless, even the bits that are vaguely civil.

And was that an attempt at flirting from Xopher?

Attempting to make me vomit is yet another trollery. Et sht nd d, y scmbg.

abi, I'm sure you're on this, but as I write his posts in this thread still have their vowels. I don't think they need to, do you?

Why do people use sock puppets, anyway? I'm quite comfortable saying I found the use of that picture problematic, without hiding who I am.

abi, you're a very impressive moderator.

Surely that's "never darken our vowels again"?

Love, C.

I'm sorry he took advantage of you abi. That was a shitheel thing to do, far worse than any abuse he tried to heap on me.

So IP addies should never match.

To add to Constance' point, there's an old adage that "tyranny fears only ridicule". Satire and parody are often the only weapons available to those who would fight against authoritarianism. And, make no mistake, McCain is an authoritarian, and needs to be fought.

Besides which, it's nice that the US has finally started to move out of the "No-Parody" Zone, where it was impossible to create parodies of the people in power more absurd than they themselves were. I can laugh at that picture without having to feel like I'm laughing at country being flayed on a table.

But of course, if we start going HULK SMASH every time a newbie doesn't know every one of our community customs, we'll deserve the bad reputation we'll get—and that's what jackholes like Mchl Mtrccl are trying to do to us when they come and play these games. So I'll try to be nice, but it's going to be that much harder, thanks to him.

Rejoice, creepazoid. You scored off us. I hope you walk in front of a bus.

But back to the original topic... it's all beyond me now, as I went in to the county auditor's office this morning and cast an early ballot. I wonder what it will feel like to have a president that I voted for.

Seriously, I didn't mean that the voting machine errors are not a problem. One of the ways people are disenfranchised is by providing lousy machines with lousy support, and not enough of them, and in polling places that are hard to reach. Excessive lousiness should be a warning flag, and should receive strict scrutiny. The state may need to be forced to provide more and better equipment, keep the polls open longer, and pay for manual recounts.

If there are more nefarious things going on with voting machines, it's not going to be so obvious as pushing one candidate's button and another candidate's button gets the check mark. It's going to be more like there's a huge Bradley effect and everyone's going to act surprised and sorrowed and they thought it was a thing of the past.

If not, you're typing with a 21.5*-letter keyboard.

* and, as they say, sometimes y

I do like how you put that.

Post #140 wasn't too shabby, either.

#149, Constance -

Even though his second paragraph is purely making fun (as he explained at 156), I think that TomB's first paragraph at #123 may actually explain why there are few complaints about switching from McCain to Obama.

If the screens are all arranged with the candidates listed in alphabetical order and the errors result (as Tom suggested) from voters hitting the screen higher than they meant to, then a vote for Obama will read as a vote for McCain, because McCain will be above Obama. A vote for McCain that is mis-struck in the same way simply won't register (because there's no name above his) and the voter will realize what went wrong and try again.

This assumes that the list is alphabetical by last name and not by party, and further assumes that most screens are tilted to induce a too-high strike rather than variable mis-strikes. I'm not at all sure how valid those assumptions are.

I would encourage everyone to be welcoming to newcomers, even if this particular one has disappointed us sorely. Do it because you would want to be welcomed into a new community, do it because it's the right thing, or do it because it's a form of defiance against his incivility*. Whatever your reason, please do treat more newcomers with the patience and forbearance that we showed him.

-----
* Actually, I think that JJ Fozz did what he did not because he was deliberately destructive, but because he was weak. Sneering and cynicism gets more reaction with less effort than his level of prose did. I think he wanted the attention too much to keep to what he knew to be the right line of behavior.

In short, now that the ire has subsided, I pity him more than anything else. And if that is, in its own way, belittling and insulting, I'm sorry, but that's what he's earned.

He could have tried puns.

As for what you said about the next newcomers...
But of course.
The Golden Rule may not always serve us well, but we haven't given up on it.

But I believe this is a serious problem.

Recently the ATM at our bank were redesigned and very badly so, meaning one makes a lot of mistakes, but because of the design, not because one doesn't know what one is doing.

The difference is that you see your error immediately and can correct it. Voting machines -- well, who knows? As we also all know, these machines can easily be manipulated from offsite.

Love, C.

Yesterday a dead black bear cub was dumped on the campus of North Carolina University with two Obama signs on his body.

30 sets of tires were slashed at an Obama rally.

A Minnesota congresswoman called for an investigation as to which senators and reps are 'real Americans.'

A voter hung Obama in effigy from a tree in his front yard.

Giuliani hysterically demands investigation into Obama's drug use.

Ridicule is the last weapon of the dispossessed. Which is why fascists and tyrants always end up making it a death penalty offense.

Love, C.

30 sets of tires were slashed at an Obama rally.

A Minnesota congresswoman called for an investigation as to which senators and reps are 'real Americans.'

A voter hung Obama in effigy from a tree in his front yard.

Giuliani hysterically demands investigation into Obama's drug use.

All kind of smacks of desperation to me.

Doing my sweet best to keep the schadenfreude under control, but it gets difficult at times.

I think you did the right thing. For my part... perhaps I've spent too much time coping with people with that kind of behaviour, but I was a bit surprised it took him so long to blow up. (See Spock's comments about civilized behaviour at the end of Mirror, Mirror.) Colour me cynical. I'd rather that you'd have been right and me wrong.

20.5-letter keyboard, surely?

Also, after she exposed her McCarthyite ambitions, her opponent (who has the politically unhelpful name Elwyn Tinklenberg) has raised almost $1 million (the report I saw last night said $800,000) and now has a chance of actually beating her.

The risk of violence from desperation is a lot less hopeful. But Ms. Bachmann is not really part of the pattern.

When TCM ran a documentary about Chaplin's The Great Dictator, someone who had worked for Hitler said that the latter didn't pay much attention to Chaplin. I find that as believable as Dubya admitting on live TV that he is an incompetent.

I think you missed my comment to Bruce Cohen. You and some of the others also clearly have a different idea of humour than I do. I see a huge difference between satire and parody (e.g., The Great Dictator), which are subversive and do threaten their targets' hold on power, and mockery, which is what you get when you have a freeze-frame of a picture taken from a bad camera angle that seems to accentuate McCain's physical impairments and have nothing to do with his beliefs or abilities. The one is funny and arguably one of the greatest benefits (and proofs) of living in a free society. The other is just mean-spirited.

Besides, you and some of the others can trot out as many, "but McCain's people are mean, so this is ok and funny, and oh, we're still so much better than they are," arguments that you like --

where I come from, two wrongs don't make a right.

McCain's done a lot more than two wrongs. Trying to weasel out of his own law on campaign finance reform is a wrong. Supporting Bush's war is a wrong. Supporting torture is a wrong. Staffing his campaign with lobbyists is a wrong. Pandering to the religious right is a wrong. And so on, sadly.

Posting a mocking picture really doesn't rank with the kinds of wrongs that McCain represents. It isn't like McCain double-parked or forgot to floss and zing we come back at him with a hard punch below the belt.

It is true that this particular image is not up to the standard of Chaplin in The Great Dictator. Not only that, all my posts really suck compared to Mark Twain's. So? Should we all shut ourselves up in despair at our inadequacy?

You appear to have missed my point. It's not about humor. It's about a weapon available to the far less powerful to wield against the prodigiously powerful who are peeing on the less powerful.

These people have been waging class war against people like me for decades. They've been making themselves more powerful all along, and taking away from people like me all along my freedom of movement, my freedom to work, my freedom for leading a healthy life, my freedom to protest what they are doing to me.

I repeat -- this isn't about humor as entertainment. It's about humor as a weapon for people who don't have much else.

It's a very powerful weapon, which is why the neoCONs strategy for a very long time was mockery -- laughing at -- people like me, and barely or not at all veiling the threats against me for punishment as they saw fit.

It's a very powerful weapons because it was the people like Olberman and Colbert who first began using it to show the world that we, at least, saw they had no clothes. And it was the beginning of the turning of the tide -- that and the failure of their levees. Too bad that it took so long. If it hadn't maybe millions in Iraq would still be alive, not to mention the people trapped and drowned in New Orleans.

Again, it's not about humor. It's about humor as part of an arsenal.

There's a reason bards and minstrels were so powerful in ancient cultures. There's a reason praisesinger and satirists still have power in some African cultures. This is part of the spectrum that intelligence uses against those who are too powerful for their own good, and particularly too powerful for my own good.

Love, C.

ADM, I don't see that this picture "seems to accentuate McCain's physical impairments" or even reminds most people about them. I just see someone acting silly, and that silliness (mostly the facial expression) reminds me of the way a child will follow people and make faces and stalking motions behind their backs.

I don't see it as "silly," I see it as childish, stupid, and spiteful... especially stupid and spiteful because McCain is no neophyte politician in a first clueless wonder term. He's been in the media sight for years, starting with return from southeast Asia, then went on campaign for political office.... spiteful, nasty, offensiveness.. he knows about media treatment of politicians, and why should he get special soft touch hands off consideration?!