You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

October 03, 2012

Apotheosis of Insignficance

By: John Caruso

Who will win tonight's debate: black Romney or white Romney? Unwitting kabuki fans everywhere are feverish with anticipation.

Posted at October 3, 2012 04:52 PM


The White Romney, IMHO, will win, as a Black Romney is CONSTITUTIONALLY worth only 3/5 of a White Romney. (article I sec.2 U.S. Constitution)
I'm feverish, alright, but it could be a cold coming on or the plague.
Its been snowing off and on here today, consequently I plan to spend the evening by a warm fire and an even warmer bottle of rum. Mitt's chances(and indeed Obama's) of winning a speech on "The Highway To Hell" seem to have lost their luster for some reason. Personally, if I wanted to watch two dogs fuck each other, I could just stand outside in the yard.
Neither one has a clue, let alone a plan, to help this nation, to solve even one problem. MANY Americans have proposed good ideas on how to help this nation, but ALL these two see is the money shine.
SEE IT ON TV, tonight, Folks and remember, THAT'S all ya git in America in 2012.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at October 3, 2012 07:57 PM

You need to learn to read, MM: the division isn't between black and white, it's between free and slave ("all other persons"). Since slavery was abolished a century and a half ago, this provision no longer is in force.

Usually what people get wrong is thinking that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution, but the 3/5 clause is popular too.

Posted by: Duncan at October 3, 2012 10:55 PM

@Duncan - maybe not, but "promoting the general welfare" and "secur[ing] the blessings of liberty" are.

Posted by: Pepe at October 3, 2012 11:05 PM

Which one is which?

Posted by: cemmcs at October 4, 2012 07:24 AM

Good analysis by Robert Parry

The instant analysis after the first presidential debate — even on liberal-leaning MSNBC — was that Mitt Romney was the decisive “winner.” But Romney not only ducked the specifics of his plans but looked sneaky and nervous in doing so, writes Robert Parry.

Posted by: mistah charley, ph.d. at October 4, 2012 10:37 AM

Pepe: that's true, so people should just quote those bits. It doesn't really matter much, but liberals love to mock the ignorance of conservatives, which means they need to be accurate themselves.

There's a creepy meme going around Facebook this morning representing the debate as a boxing match. But really it's more like pro wrestling. The contestants pretend they're mortal enemies and learn to fake eye-gouging and body slams, but after it's over they play golf together.

Posted by: Duncan at October 4, 2012 12:38 PM

cemmcs shoots and scores!

Parry thought his President's face paint was particularly striking last night, but that's not exactly a shocker given how impressed he's always been with Obama's wonderful new clothes.

Posted by: John Caruso at October 4, 2012 12:49 PM

Duncan: But what about The Indians and
The Women Folk?

Posted by: Mike Meyer at October 4, 2012 12:57 PM

Cute post. This one strikes me as pretty insightful:

Posted by: godoggo at October 4, 2012 07:11 PM

“I prioritize my vagina over drones.” — Imani Gandy, Raw Story blogger Angry Black Lady

Posted by: Hoo Ha at October 4, 2012 09:02 PM

Spoken like a true Democrat.

Posted by: John Caruso at October 4, 2012 09:58 PM

Zing! I actually got a zingy comeback I could use, but... anyway, she still wrote a good post.

Posted by: godoggo at October 4, 2012 11:50 PM

Anyway, I appreciate some of the substantive things you've written in the past, such as on the Palestinians. Obviously I'm beyond persuading as far as the American 2-party thing is concerned, though, even if this were an attempt to persuade anyone.

Posted by: godoggo at October 5, 2012 11:09 AM

@godoggo, the operative word there is 'my' as in 'i got mine'

Posted by: almostinfamous at October 6, 2012 10:46 PM

You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need.
You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street,
You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed.
And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight,
You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking.

And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.

- Dogs: Pink Floyd, Animals 1972

The most revealing and honest portrayal of what kind of person Mitt Romney is was when he answered Jim Lehrer's question about which programs he would cut.

He took the question like any business prick...he wouldn't answer it honestly or reasonably, he used it to stab Jim Lehrer right in the face for asking it.

Anything the government collects taxes for that is consistent with their agenda, the Republicans favor. They are only against government that does something other than provide direct benefits to them. Mitt knows that, everyone knows that, so Jim Lehrer should know that. And everyone should also know that Mitt can't and won't say what he intends to cut, because voters won't like any of it.

So Mitt, with the easy smile, put the knife in. Mentioning PBS was a direct, personal "F-you" to Jim Lehrer. I'm sure the subject of PBS had only come into Romney's mind right at that moment because he was looking straight at Jim Lehrer and instantly recognized that the best way to emasculate him was to threaten his livelihood, live on National television. It's Mitt's natural instinct. "I like Big Bird," said Mitt about PBS, with a grin on his face, and then without conscience, remorse or feeling, with barely contained glee, actually - he said that he would kill PBS. Meaning YOU, Jim.

Exactly the sort of response one would expect from a business asshole who made his fortune by taking over companies with their own money, siphoning out a profit for himself and then not losing a wink of sleep if those companies collapse as a result.

It was an unvarnished, perfect picture of Mitt Romney's character laid bare for all to see. In the context of the BS contest that is the Presidential debate, this was the only truthful moment for Romney during the entire evening and it was one that actually matters. And sadly, it seems like the only thing people seized upon was the fact that the PBS budget is so small it would barely make a dent in fixing the deficit. Mitt Romney didn't mention PBS because it was a serious answer, he mentioned it because he's a souless and calculating shell of a human being who wanted to put Jim Lehrer back in his place.

Posted by: Scott at October 7, 2012 01:49 AM

...he's a souless and calculating shell of a human being...

Oh, no doubt about that. In fact Romney's such a soulless and calculating shell of a human being that he might even joke about the drone strikes he's using to vaporize hundreds of innocent people. I'm sure none of us want such a remorseless monster in the White House.

Posted by: John Caruso at October 7, 2012 02:25 AM

Scott/ John Caruso: Hard to find good help these dayz, ain't it.
When dealing with The Devil, ya git one Hell of a deal, every time.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at October 7, 2012 01:15 PM

Mike Meyer: What about 'em?

Posted by: Duncan at October 7, 2012 02:02 PM

Duncan: Are they "Whole People" now or some part of the 3/5ths "Other Persons"?
As a blue eyed blond male, I've never had any doubt where I stood.

Posted by: Mike Meyer at October 7, 2012 08:47 PM

worse of two evils:

Posted by: godoggo at October 10, 2012 12:51 AM

Classic Juan Cole: Romney's hypothetical five wars are worse than his personal god's actual six wars (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia—not even counting covert warfare against Iran, among other things). And of course the absurd extrapolation that allows him to ascribe "five wars" to a Republican candidate doesn't need to be applied to the actual Democratic president who's been actively waging war for four years, often with Cole's enthusiastic support.

From that linked article:

If those on the left were listening, they didn’t seem to care. The left, which had loudly condemned George W. Bush for waterboarding and due process violations at Guantánamo, was relatively quiet when the Obama administration, acting as judge and executioner, ordered more than 250 drone strikes in Pakistan since 2009, during which at least 1,400 lives were lost.

The difference that matters most between Obama and Romney is that liberal partisans will spend their last ounce of strength rationalizing rather than opposing the same atrocities—military or otherwise—depending on which of the two is committing them.

Posted by: John Caruso at October 10, 2012 12:50 PM