Bruce Elliot hung a nude portrait of his daughter in his Chicago bar. To cover his actions, he painted the face of Sarah Palin on the nude and added some Alaskan props. Surveying the completed work, which has all the aethestic qualities of a cheap paint-by-the-numbers set, he declared it “bizarrely fascinating.”
Despite their political differences, Elliott admits to a bit of a crush on the Alaska governor. He began painting her smile and trademark glasses, he said, before filling in the details: a gun, red high heels, polar bear rug, rugged Alaska landscape and a scared moose. His daughter, who looks a little like Palin and does a great impression of her, served as model for the governor’s body.
No doubt this will boost his beer sales, perhaps earn a few extra votes for McCain, and probably increase the number of people asking Elliot’s daughter for a date.
The online poll that accompanies the news report indicates that 35% of readers do not find Elliot’s actions offensive, which proves that feminism is an abject failure and calling something art can excuse any moral depravity. Tastelessness, of course, endures all things.
Redstate’s Francis Cianfrocca provides cogent financial commentary, the kind that cuts through the clutter and focuses on the big picture. I have been impressed at his track record for successfully predicting how the economy would react to specific events.
Today he awards an Oscar to Hank Paulson for Worst Salesmanship in Support of a Financial Rescue Plan:
I think you’d be hard-pressed to find one person out of twenty who understands that Paulson’s bailout plan is not a transfer of tax money from the middle class to the wealthy. It’s not the slightest surprise that more than half of Congress would find it impossible to vote for.
And another award to Nancy Pelosi, who
gets the Oscar for Most Disingenuous Performance by a Legislative Leader Not Running For President. She looked so stupid and incompetent in not getting the bailout approved by the House yesterday, that one suspects this was somehow her plan all along.
Now, he says, it may not matter what plan is passed, if any, because the time to do it was ten days ago. But if they do come up with another plan, they will have to do something meaningful to sell it to the public.
Of course, the time to do something about Freddie Mac passed long ago. Congress mandated ill-conceived loans, insisted that they continue in the face of mounting evidence of the problem, and now blames the people who did what they were required to do. Nancy Pelosi continues to push the fantasy version of events, denying any responsibility, and lambasting any Republican within earshot. So it should not be surprising that people have no confidence that Congress is about to do something to make the situation better rather than worse.
I remembered it in a dream last night. It was an oblong board on the wall above my bed that pictured a midnight sky with big stars. Mounted on some sort of pressboard, it had some sort of 1950’s-surface sticky enough to hold up cardboard figures of Peter Pan, Wendy, Michael, and John. I can’t remember whether these figures flew over the rooftops of London, or the islands of Never Land, but they were mine to arrange and play with, which I did endlessly (especially when I was supposed to be sleeping).
How startling to recall it after so many decades! Even while I dreamed, I was struck by how enchanting it had been. Gosh, I had played with those figures until they tattered and fell apart sometime in my pre-teen years.
Can children today, surrounded by blazing images of everything, enjoy the same creative stimulus from objects in their rooms? Specifically, I thought about the constantly changing screen-savers on computers and cell-phones. None of the images lingers long enough to mean anything.
For that matter, how does a child’s imagination respond to the stimulus of constantly changing digital photo-frames? While on the surface these gadgets seem like a wonderful invention, I suspect that the human mind responds far more creatively, if given a limited visual frame of reference. Isn’t that where the imagination begins?
Kissinger sets the record straight.Obama clearly overreached in Friday’s debate when he said Henry Kissinger supported his approach to negotiations with foreign leaders.Kissinger responded:
Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.
I’ve got a bracelet, too. . . .And, uh, give me just a minute while I look for the name that’s on it.
The Refs Dream They’re Being Worked: (via Kausfiles)
When McCain’s campaign attacks the press, he’s not “working the refs.” That implies McCain’s strategists still care how the “refs” make calls. I think it’s pretty clear they’re doing something else (and they’re perfectly happy if the refs keep making calls against them). … P.S.: Of course the MSM “refs” like to think McCain’s “working the refs,” because that implies they’re worth working–that their refereeing role is still all-important (as opposed to their role as, say, a totemic focus of political, class and cultural resentment!)
Taking plagiarism to new heights.Joe Biden has moved from plagiarizing speeches and articles to plagiarizing national policy, claiming that Gen. Petreaus was doing precisely what Obama and Biden directed him to do.
Prosecuting the rebuttal.KMOV reports: “The Barack Obama campaign is asking Missouri law enforcement to target anyone who lies or runs a misleading TV ad during the presidential campaign.”And the prosecutors vow to do just that – in clear violation of the First Amendment.Having already used their office to chill free speech, it’s time to prosecute the prosecutors.Brian Noggle says, “Prosecute me first.”Instapundit has a round-up.Gateway Pundit has more.
Wilhelm I, a/k/a Kartätschenprinz (the prince of grapeshot), earned his nickname by using cannon to put down a revolution in 1848.But you can become a prince of grapeshot in your right with just a few bartending supplies.
Following these simple steps to make The Strafer’s “Grapeshot”:
Fill tall, deep, and wide glass with ice.
Fill half-way with gin (vodka might do).
Fill remainder with half tonic, half ruby red grapefruit juice.
Fill to the brim (overflowing is allowed, but wasteful).
Drink with a straw – it’s easier on the upper lip, which must otherwise serve as a resting platform for ice cubes.
As a final step, consider yourself fortunate to be experiencing this rather benign form of grapeshot rather than the other kind:
Grapeshot is a type of anti-personnel ammunition used in cannons. Instead of solid shot, a mass of loosely packed metal slugs is loaded into a canvas bag. Grapeshot can also be improvised from chainlinks, shards of glass, rocks, etc. When assembled, the balls resemble a cluster of grapes (hence the name). On firing, the balls spread out from the muzzle at high velocity, giving an effect similar to a shotgun, but scaled up to cannon size.
Grapeshot was devastatingly effective against massed infantry at short range. It was used to savage massed infantry charges quickly. Cannons would fire solid shot to attack enemy artillery and troops at longer range (although the shrapnel round was invented to increase the effect of grapeshot at a distance) and switch to grape when they or nearby troops were charged.
Mackubin Owens has an important piece in the Wall Street Journal concerning the primacy of civilian leadership of the military: “Our Generals Almost Cost Us Iraq.”
It’s the ignorant civilians who cavalierly reject the sober advice of military professionals.At least that seems to be the argument that many in the media, and specifically Bob Woodward, make to show that Bush mishandled the war.
Although the conventional narrative about the Iraq war is wrong, its persistence has contributed to the most serious crisis in civil-military relations since the Civil War. According to Mr. Woodward’s account, the uniformed military not only opposed the surge, insisting that their advice be followed; it then subsequently worked to undermine the president once he decided on another strategy.
In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. “foot-dragging,” “slow-rolling” and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership — the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid’s successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president’s policy.
If Mr. Woodward’s account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln’s war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president’s policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic.
One of the persistent complaints I hear about Bush is that he refuses to listen.That particular criticism of course usually means only that he refuses to agree with the critic.
The generals may have important advice to give, but there is no point in criticizing a civilian leader for rejecting that advice without showing that it had bad consequences.The surge has been successful.Bush rejected a bad policy advanced by the military in favor of a better one, and we should be glad he did.
And any flag officers who attempted to thwart the president’s policy should be dismissed.
Alcee Hastings was a federal judge until he was impeached for bribery and perjury and removed from office by the U.S. Senate.The citizens of the 23rd Congressional District of Florida, knowing all of this and perhaps mistaking impeachment as an honor, elected Hastings as their Congressman.
But, it’s comforting to know there are still some standards.“Toting guns and stripping moose” will disqualify you for office – even if perjury and bribery won’t. From CNN:
Rep. Alcee Hastingstold an audience of Jewish Democrats Wednesday that they should be wary of Republican VP nominee Sarah Palin because “anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks.So, you just think this through,” Hastings added as the room erupted in laughter and applause.
Let’s face it.There is no way a Republican could say anything this foul and still have a career.Then again . . . There aren’t any impeached Republican judges currently serving in the US House.
No Room in the Inn.David Pryce-Jones writes in the Corner at National Review:
Corporal Tomas Stringer is a Welshman (hence the spelling of his Christian name). A paratrooper, he’s serving in Afghanistan, and he has one arm in plaster because he’d broken his wrist jumping from a truck when a roadside bomb went off. Back in Britain to recuperate, he was helping organize the funeral of a friend killed in action. He’s made a reservation at the Metro Hotel in Woking, a quiet and somewhat suburban town in Surrey, where incidentally in the nineteenth century the first mosque in Britain was built. Corporal Stringer arrived at the Metro in civilian clothes, but when he checked in the reception desk turned him away because company policy did not allow Armed Forces personnel to stay at the hotel. It was already late and Stringer therefore spent the night in his car. The hotel is owned by American Amusements Limited, a company based in Woking but, it seems, under British management.
Church of England Apologizes to Darwin.Cranmer comments:
Apparently, the apology is ‘for misunderstanding his theory of evolution’. Apart from the fact that the Church has historically ‘misunderstood’ far more important things, the Church of England did not actually ‘misunderstand’ Darwin’s theory at all, not least because (as always) it was divided on the issue. The bishops understood completely the significance of the nexus of the theory (and theory it remains) - that man is the progeny of apes. It really is so simple that even a bishop in the Church of England can comprehend it. Looking at the similarity between Mr Darwin and Dr Williams, it may indeed be adduced that they have a common hairy ancestor. But believers were and are divided into those who perceive this theory to be anti-Scripture and profoundly evil, and those for whom it is but another possible explanation of how God created, totally consistent with Scripture.
Cranmer adds:
Some scientists dismiss the gesture as ‘ludicrous’; Mr Darwin’s descendants describe it as ‘pointless’, and Ann Widdecombe wonders why the Italians aren’t apologising for Pontius Pilate.
Framing Palin.Here’s a new blog by an anonymous Hollywood director.He describes the technique for making people seem small and how it was applied to Charles Gibson’s interview of Sarah Palin.
At the Broward Democratic Party’s monthly meeting Tuesday night, it started right at the beginning — with the invocation, delivered by Mike Moskowitz, the state committeeman for the county.
He called for a “blessing on the elk and moose in Alaska who have been decimated by Sarah Barracuda” and included a prayer that Palin doesn’t turn her sights on the squirrels in Washington, D.C.
“We pray that her journey takes her across the bridge to nowhere,” he said.
As they say at Kraalspace: “Great plan - get the Almighty’s attention, and then treat him to a comic monologue!”
I have read Ladies Home Journal since I was a child, eagerly awaiting the magical arrival of my mother’s magazines.Young people today can’t imagine how exciting “magazine days” were in lower-middle class homes like ours: the glossy covers, the fresh advice, and the articles that expanded women’s horizons, particular women like my mom who had so little opportunity for education or travel in her life.
Maybe that’s why I still look at magazine covers with a searching eye.Of course, so many covers are plastered with mind-dulling titles promising to produce a model’s body in six weeks, deliver Olympian sex skills, or bash someone’s private life.Still, I pay attention to them, especially those I subscribe to.
Thus, I nearly fell over when I received my October 2008 Ladies Home Journal. On the right-hand side, right below the journal’s title, I read: “Election 2008—How to Vote with your Heart.” What was Editor Diane Salvatore thinking? Why was she placing such a backwards-moving statement on her journal’s cover?Did she forget momentarily that women were denied the vote throughout history in large part because of an assumption they would use their emotions rather than their reasoning as a basis for voting?
Since these magazines sit at checkout counters, millions of people glance at this cover and see Ladies Home Journalespousing that we women use volatile and fallible emotions [a.k.a heart] to make our voting decisions.No matter what the ensuing article contained (and it took a different tack), the cover caption is damaging.
Ironically, Ladies Home Journal has been celebrating its 125th Anniversary by showcasing just how consciously the magazine has encouraged women’s achievements and “liberation.”Maybe the cover editors and the feature writers should have some latte and sort these things out in advance?
Or maybe, since Salvatore appears to be such an ardent supporter of Barack Obama, she is counting on women leaving their cognitive skills at home when they pull the lever?
It’s hard to think of anything more stupid than wearing your pants below your buttocks, but the notion that the Constitution gives you a right to wear your pants below your buttocks comes close.
Palm Beach County Judge Paul Moyle has found that right in the Constitution. Apparently, it’s just a question of fashion, so long as nothing emanates from the penumbra of your boxers.
I wonder what the judge would do if lawyers appearing in his court opted for this form of dress. Could he hold them in contempt for exercising their constitutional right, or would he find that some time and place restrictions are permissible? Would he permit it, giving the same deference to the lawyers that he gives to anti-social juveniles, or would he demand a measure of decency that he thinks the rest of us don’t deserve?
Defending Western Culture and traditions through a rational discussion of the arts (emphasis on durable music) with unavoidable references to politics, religion, law, ranching, and the quest for a good martini.
Professor Carol now offers a complete self-study course covering 300 years of music.
This romp through music history (and many other historical topics) combines 13 hours of DVD video with a 3-disc listening set from Naxos and a 236-page course book.
From the birth of opera to the Leipzig coffeehouses frequented by Bach and Schumann, from the Orthodox cathedrals of Moscow to Tin Pan Alley, from scientific discoveries to bloody revolutions, spooky dramas and shoe styles, Carol chronicles it all with her unique commentary.
figures of Peter Pan, Wendy, Michael, and John. I can’t remember whether these figures flew over the rooftops of London, or the islands of Never Land, but they were mine to arrange and play with, which I did endlessly (especially when I was supposed to be sleeping).
ith just a few bartending supplies.
It’s hard to think of anything more stupid than wearing your pants below your buttocks, but the 
