|
|
| home | email gus | email sarah | email valerie | photos | flickr photos |
|
2.24.2010
Riverboat
12.25.2009
Blow your horn
9.30.2009
Ohio Is a Piano
THIS IS THE MOST AWESOME OF ALL AWESOME THINGS. Sent to me by my cousins in Portland (who are partially responsible for this): Ohio is a Piano. Here's the backend and explanation.
9.23.2009
Sydney Dust Strom
9.05.2009
Setting the Stage
5.27.2009
Repeat Offender
I was away from my desk for much of yesterday, so even though my boss excitedly told me that Obama would be announcing his nominee for the Supreme Court yesterday morning, I still didn't see it until later that afternoon. Judge Sotomayor's name is vaguely familiar to me (I think perhaps I've read one of her decisions somewhere, but I can't say where), but beyond that and what the NBC Evening News last night and Morning Edition on NPR this morning had to say about her, that's the extent of my knowledge of the nominee.
And then I sat down for lunch here and thought I'd at least skim through the news while I ate my soup. This was the first story on the MSNBC ticker on MSN:
There is obviously more in the link; I've only highlighted the first couple of paragraphs. But it's the headline and the insinuation in those early paragraphs that have my back up. To suggest, as reporters Shailagh Murray and Michael D. Shear do, that Republicans face a choice of either opposing Sotomayor and "alienat[ing] both Latino and women voters" or conceding Sotomayor's confirmation and staying in those voters' good graces, is, I feel, both a naive and bipolar view of politics in general and this nomination in particular. It's also more than a little offensive -- and I say that as a Democrat. It assumes that identity politics -- your race, gender, creed, what have you -- is far more important than, say, a judge's positions or temperament. It assumes that any nominee who is the member of a minority should or may enjoy some special protection in that nomination process as a result. It assumes that voters themselves are stupid, and are unable to distinguish between a legitimate question regarding a nominee's record or ideas and their basic identity -- and thereby willing to punish anyone who dares question their nominee. It is, in short, an offensive and undemocratic notion. And it's in the Washington Post, stated almost as if it were the Conventional Wisdom of the political class -- which is odd, since nowhere in the entire piece does it quote anyone who suggests that the GOP will feel the wrath of women or Hispanic voters if they oppose the nomination. The closest they get is Chuck Schumer, warning the GOP to oppose Sotomayor "at their peril" but never really saying why that's so. So that's my complaint for the day. It seems like it's the same things we talk about year after year: can we, for once, have a discussion about politics and law without someone polarizing the positions into two camps and then treating it like it was Wrestlemania XIV? 5.24.2009
Waiting at the Shake Shoppe
5.21.2009
Riverwatch
5.11.2009
Wake Up With the King
Or, as I told Val, "because when I'm buying Burger King (TM) brand Onion Rings or Ketchup & Fries potato snacks, the first thing I worry about is how much transfats are in the bag, and not that I'm buying ONION RINGS IN A BAG."
4.14.2009
A Smile for a Rainy Day
It is pouring in Columbus and I am worried about my grandmother. This made me smile in spite of that:
Obviously from the giant Cornhole All-Stars graphic, we’re bringing the game of Cornhole to the iPhone. I’ll quickly throw in that this is anything but an ordinary game of Cornhole.... Much more, including development notes and concept art, at Graphic Conversation. Labels: cornhole, ohio, video games 3.30.2009
Dusty
Ye gods, this place needs cleaning. I think maybe it's time to scrap the old design and start fresh. Thoughts?
3.27.2009
Carl and Nora, Sittin' In a Tree
2.21.2009
Jackets down low!
2.20.2009
That's a big Amish donut, yeah
2.03.2009
Carl's Song of the Day - January 2009
|
|
|
|
||