It Makes Me Happy

A special shout-out to Titivil, who pointed his readers (including me) in the direction of this video, which has made me happier than just about anything else this week.

It only gets better and funnier on multiple viewings.

What Stood Out This Week - 2/17-2/23

Well, this primary election season just keeps going and going, doesn't it, dear B&E readers? Let's see What Stood Out This Week...

The Quitters

John Edwards hosted a secret meeting with Barack Obama. It was so secret the entire country heard about it on network television. John's still not endorsed anyone.

Mitt Romney must be considering unsuspending his campaign for presidency (and unendorsing John McCain), what with McCain's trouble this week (see below). Mitt wasn't actually in the news this week, but I like to remind people that Mitt lost. Heh. Plus, if Mitt changes his mind and picks up his campaign again, it would actually be perfectly in character for a formerly pro-choice, pro-gay, now anti-choice, anti-gay hate-monger. As Jon Stewart once said, Romney's "a fucking shape-shifter."

The Republicans

Oh, John McCain. You had a rough week, my friend. The New York Times reported that John may have had an inappropriate relationship with a lobbyist. Any kind of extramarital affair is only implied, with some of his aides wondering if something bigger was going on. And yet, that seemed to be the news. The important part of the story is that he may have done favors for the (blond, hot, younger) lobbyist. A man with a reputation for being anti-lobbyist did favors for a lobbyist. But for his campaign to focus their response on the "affair" part of the story is actually pretty brilliant. It distracts from the lobbyist influence part.

Apparently, a few folks have been hitting the New York Times for holding onto this story until now. I haven't read too much about that part of things, but back when McCain's campaign was a dead puppy, apparently the Times could've kicked it and didn't. Again, how pissed must Mitt be? Heh.

Huckabee's still around and running. He refused to comment on the McCain story beyond saying that McCain's a stand-up guy that he trusts. Is this guy running for Vice President now, or what?

That's all I can remember about the Pubes.

The Democrats

Barack Obama's winning streak continues. He's up to 11 contests in a row, I think, which may or may not include the Americans Abroad group, which is something I'd never heard of until this week.

As I wrote earlier in the week, if Obama had lost more than ten contests in a row, the Clinton campaign (and the entire Democratic Party) would've probably forced him to quit by now. As it is, Hillary soldiers on. She is, after all, a Clinton.

They debated, and Hillary got in a (scripted) zinger about "change you can Xerox," which served up a little applause and a smattering of boos. Maybe I don't understand the everyday person, but is accusing someone of plagiarism the way to victory? Don't they both have speech writers who come up with the words they say? Someone in the Hillary campaign came up with "change you can Xerox," and it was very unlikely Hillary. So I really don't understand why this is her approach to victory.

Meanwhile, the campaign itself is promoting her final moment in the debate (I got an email with the video from Terry McAuliffe, one of my least favorite Democrats of all time) in which she gets all soft and sincere about being honored to share the stage with Obama. I didn't watch the debate, but we seem to be getting into abusive spouse territory here. "You're a fucking idiot! I love you!"

Some speculate that her graciousness at the end is her way of hinting that her time as a candidate is almost over. She denies that, and I believe her. Of course she's forging on to Texas and Ohio.

Polls in those states have Obama catching up. She still has the lead, but that lead used to be bigger. And we've still got a full week of campaigning to go before those contests. So that won't get tiresome at all.

And that's What Stood Out This Week.

He's Got Confidence in his Manhood

Mets reliever, Ambiorix Burgos, had $270,000 worth of jewelry stolen from his hotel room in Port St. Lucie. Somehow he got all but $30,000 of it back. Ambiorix is a mediocre relief pitcher (possibly getting better), and I don't think he's making much more than the league minimum. So what the hell is he doing with more than a quarter of a million dollars worth of jewelry in the first place?

The Power of Being Clinton

Right, so Barack Obama has now won ten primary contests in a row. If he was running against anyone but Hillary Clinton--or if somehow roles were reversed--don't you suppose that there would be immense pressure from the Democratic Party for the fading candidate to drop out?

The Democrats have a presidency to win for Christ's sake. Enough already.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just tired of the Clintons.

Heart

A moment of exposition for you non-NYC-dwelling B&E readers: One sees homeless people every day in New York City, on and off the subway. It's a semi-regular occurrence for one of those homeless people to be exceptionally stinky. Particularly potent cases can clear subway cars. That's a fact, not a judgment.

Today, on the platform at Grand Central sat two homeless men. One--or both--was particularly stinky in that way that clears space.

A hipster woman standing near me got that look--the look that says, "Where's that coming from?" She then did what I don't expect hipster ladies to do: She went over, gave each of them a dollar, and had a short chat with one of them. It wasn't forced, she wasn't making a show of it, and it wasn't remotely uncomfortable. I've seen hipsters (almost always men) strike up conversations with homeless people, and it's always seemed somehow... I don't know... false.

As the train arrived, she moseyed away from the homeless man to continue her commute. I noticed a button on her jacket: "I [heart] my cunt."

Oh, the Love. Yes, the Love

I was a bit busy this week, which kept me from writing a proper Valentine's Day post.

On February 14th...

PITCHERS AND CATCHERS REPORTED TO SPRING TRAINING! Let's go Mets! Save the team, Johan Santana!

Baseball, I've missed you. I love you so.

What Stood Out This Week - 2/10-2/16

The last few days were pretty active for our remaining candidates in this here primary season. So let's see What Stood Out This Week...

The Quitters

Mitt Romney - Mitt made himself relevant this week by endorsing John McCain. His two-hundred-or-so delegates are enough to put John over the top. That's probably just what Mitt had in mind when he started spending studio film budgets of his own cash to run for president.

John Edwards - So John was gonna meet with Hillary and then Obama. He met with Hillary, and then a "scheduling conflict" kept him and Obama from getting together. Rumors are flying that John's about to endorse Hillary. Insiders are saying that he's somewhat torn on the matter (heart goes to Obama, head goes to Hillary), and I think that if he wants a position (Attorney General!) in the next president's cabinet, he should just not endorse anyone and then work his ass off for the eventual nominee. As a fan of John's, I'll feel pretty disappointed if he comes out in support of Hillary.

The Republicans

Romney probably timed his support of McCain just right to make himself seem relevant for the Pubes. John had a rough time of things in the early part of the week, losing more southern states to Mike Huckabee. John came back to win the "Potomac Primary," but the Huckster made it close in Virginia.

McCain is still the nominee, but Huckabee won't quit. Maybe he's pushing to show that he's got enough support to be on the ticket as VP. Maybe he's just getting out there for the next run at the presidency. Who knows? But he shows no signs of stepping aside.

This will be my final mention of Ron Paul.

And I can't remember where I read this jewel of a rumor, but chew on this... A John McCain/Condoleezza Rice ticket. More war for oil, dear B&E readers.

The Democrats

It was a strong week for Barack Obama (or a tough week for Hillary Clinton, if you're a glass-is-half-empty sort of person). He's won eight contests in a row and has built up a formidable lead in delegates.

Wisconsin and Hawaii are up next for the Democrats, two more states expected to go Obama's way (beware of New Hampshire, voters!).

(Mike Gravel, I love you, but you no longer fit into my narrative of What Stood Out This Week. If you Stand Out, I'll give a Shout Out.)

The media love drama, so they're really enjoying calling Texas and Ohio (March 4) Hillary's Last Stand, It's Do Or Die for Hillary, Go Hard Or Go Home, etc., etc. I don't necessarily think they're wrong about that, but one can never underestimate a political candidate called Clinton.

No matter the final results of Texas and Ohio, because the Dems split their delegate count proportionally by vote, it's going to be very difficult for a) Hillary to re-take the lead based solely on the delegates who represent the people, and b) Obama to win enough delegates to clinch the nomination, thereby making these superdelegates irrelevant. (Someone asked, so I'm answering: We haven't heard about these superdelegates for a long time because someone has always run away with the nomination before they've been relevant.)

Anyway, if Hillary does poorly in Texas and Ohio, I think she'll lose much of her superdelegate support. If she does well, it really will come down to these superdelegates. And both candidates are lobbying hard in their own ways for them. Obama's asking his supporters to write emails to superdelegates. Hillary, Bill, and Chelsea are personally calling others.

I was reading a dude in my perennial favorite The Nation who said (I paraphrase), "A popular Beltway joke is that the most dangerous place in DC is between Chuck Schumer and a bank of TV cameras. But a more dangerous place might actually be between someone named Clinton and elected office."

Superdelegates give an enormous advantage to the insider, and no one wants to piss off a politician named Clinton.

And yet, no one fears pissing off the electorate. If Obama ends up with a sizable lead in delegates only to lose because of the superdelegates, a large portion of the Democratic Party voters will be disenfranchised. Even if it's our "legitimate process" it will look like a stolen election. Our country has a long history of screwing the black man, and it would be impossible not to count this as yet another example. I hope the superdelegates aren't too stupid to see this.

Finally, just one other side note: The New York Times ran an article about how the reported, unofficial vote tally from New York's Super Tuesday election overestimated Clinton's victory. They've been finding some pretty significant discrepancies. For example, 118-0 in Clinton's favor in districts where you also see Obama signs in windows. As they're doing the official tally, these counts are corrected (118-116, for example). It seems clear that Clinton still won New York, but Obama supporters are hoping to pick up another delegate or two. It makes me wonder if we've ever actually had a fair election in this country.

That's What Stood Out This Week, B&E readers.

Jury Duty, Emphasis on Duty

I had jury duty this week. Queens works a little differently than the other boroughs (I think) in that everyone's on telephone standby. So beginning last Friday, I called in after 5:00 pm to see if I needed to report the following business day. I finally had to go to the jury room yesterday (Friday), on the last day I was eligible. Bummer, man.

Jury duty gives me mixed feelings. It's a time suck and tedious, but it's also a fascinating study of your fellow community members and a glimpse into the system (which I just accidentally typed as "symptom," a potentially interesting Freudian slip, if I'd had enough coffee to examine it).

This was Civil Court of Queens County out in Jamaica. Non-New Yorkers should be aware that Jamaica, Queens has little relation to the island of Jamaica, except perhaps that both are populated primarily with people of African descent. Jamaica, Queens (and there's just no other way to describe it) sucks. Especially once you venture off the main artery on which several court buildings reside, it's just not a place you want to be. Go to a Popeye's in another neighborhood if you've got a hankering for Popeye's.

Mostly you sit in the jury room with hundreds of other people who don't want to be there. In Jamaica they play movies. Over the course of the day I saw parts of Father of the Bride II, Sister Act, and Batman Returns. I'd say that this is an improvement to sitting through daytime TV, except that movies are actually harder to ignore. And even though Batman Returns is rather enjoyable, I was trying to use the time productively, and the movies sort of pissed me off.

Shortly before lunch, I got called as a potential juror. About 25 of us or so were to be interviewed by plaintiff and defense attorneys so that they could determine whether or not we'd be fair and impartial in deciding the outcome of a personal injury lawsuit.

The two lawyers embodied why lawyers have such a bad reputation in our country. The plaintiff was disorganized and (I'm sorry, but there's just no other way to put it) stupid. The defense was aggressive and smarmy. Both lawyers also wore the ugliest wedding rings I've ever seen. I could barely keep my eyes off of them, and I never did come to a decision about which one was uglier. I wonder what this says about me as a potential juror.

They drew names out of a wooden BINGO spinner, and I was the second person chosen. (They interview six at a time.) The plaintiff's attorney (who I will now call Repeat Questions, Esq.) asked each of us many questions, often more than twice each. His questions were unclear and vague, and I think he kept repeating them because our answers were only as clear as his questions. Repeat Questions, Esq. was asking us questions off of four different pieces of paper, like these were the questions some other attorneys had asked their potential jurors and had then provided Repeat Questions, Esq. with copies. By the time we broke for lunch he had gotten only through the first two of us.

After the lunch break it all continued. By this time the room was pretty hostile to Repeat Questions, Esq.

I sat on the jury of a civil trial about six years ago. We found for the defense. (The jury agreed that the woman probably had a case, but her lawyer hadn't done a good job of proving it. So we felt bad but we did our duty as the law required.) Repeat Questions, Esq. didn't ask me specifically about the case (maybe he wasn't allowed), but he asked if money damages were awarded in the case. I said no. He never asked if it was because we found for the defense, but based on the repeat questions Repeat Questions, Esq. asked me, I'd guess that he thought I was somehow in favor of tort reform.

This is where it started getting ridiculous. He'd mention (repeatedly) the idea of tort reform. Honestly, I think the vast majority of the room didn't know what tort reform was (the women on either side of me didn't). But he didn't actually ask me what I thought of tort reform. I'm against it, which I think he'd have liked. Instead he asked, after mentioning tort reform, if I had a problem awarding money damages based on the merits of the case. I said no each time. Then he'd ask someone else a repeat question, only to turn back to me and say, "So we've mentioned a little about tort reform..."

I was practically begging him to ask me my opinion of tort reform, but in spite of Repeat Questions, Esq.'s repeat questions, he never did.

Every time the lawyers left the room to confer, people would turn to me and say, "What is it with you and tort reform?" "I have no idea. He's not even asking if I'm for or against it."

It was exceptionally frustrating, and all I could think was that the plaintiff was truly screwed. Through stupidity and tediousness, Repeat Questions, Esq. was alienating his potential jurors. When Repeat Questions, Esq. finally finished with the first six (a couple of hours later, and I'm not exaggerating), the defense attorney (Smarmy Aggressor, Esq.) took over.

Now I'm under the impression that they're not allowed to argue their cases in front of us during jury selection during which a judge is not present, but Smarmy Aggressor, Esq. spent most of his time disputing the claims of Repeat Questions, Esq. He even disagreed with Repeat Questions, Esq.'s interpretation of the blindfolded lady holding the scales of justice outside the building.

Finally, Smarmy Aggressor asked each of us leading questions to which there was only one right answer (e.g. "You can do that, right?") and spent a little time buttering each of us up.

On my turn, for example, he said, "Your wife is a music therapist, right?"
"Yes."
"Have you seen her at work?"
"Sure. Actually, I'm not sure." (Sessions are, after all, confidential and private.)
"They do amazing--AMAZING!--work. I have a disabled son, and his music therapist has worked MIRACLES! with him."

Sounds nice, right? The problem is that I can't quite capture Smarmy Aggressor, Esq.'s tone. It was smarmy and aggressive. So I quietly agreed with him that yes, the missus does amazing work.

"You really have to--HAVE TO!--watch her work some time."
"OK." (I didn't mention that sessions are confidential and private.)

A moment of levity during Smarmy Aggressor, Esq.'s questioning: He was trying to make sure that the jury wouldn't be prejudiced against a medical expert who was being paid to take the stand. "If you understand that the medical expert is being paid for his TIME! and not his OPINION!--being paid for his OPINION! is WRONG!--would you have a problem with his testimony?"

The woman sitting next to me, a fellow Sunnysider to whom the question was not directed, muttered, "Is he getting more than forty bucks a day?" (That's the daily juror's payment, in case you don't get it.) Smarmy Aggressor, Esq. laughed, although he did it in a bit of a smarmy and aggressive way.

Once they were done interviewing the first six of us, they went into the hallway to converse. They're each allowed three dismissals without explanation. So if a Klan member is suing the insurance company for damages suffered to his burning cross, the Klan member's attorney can dismiss the black juror and doesn't have to say that it's because he's black. This gives the lawyers some latitude to follow their instincts and prejudices.

When they returned, they pulled my juror card (and one other) out of the paper clips on their clipboard and dismissed me. "What'd I do?" I asked. They didn't answer. I'm guessing it had to do with tort reform, not that I was ever once asked about actual tort reform. I took my stuff and went back down to the jury room to await the next potential trial.

And it never came. It was about 4:00 pm at this point on the Friday before a holiday weekend, and the next time my name was called it was to dismiss me from jury duty for the next six years. I called in for four days, served one day, and that's my duty.

Heh, I said duty.

I'm Surprised by Some of Obama's Posters

Barack Obama should perhaps begin exploring a broader range of visuals, but I don't mind telling you that I'm rather tickled his messaging is so B&E focused. And yet each poster speaks to the qualities that makes a good president.

This one, for example, keeps it simple, but I appreciate the respect. See? He's not bigoted!


My, oh, my, Obama. Truer words were never said. See? He's got impeccable taste!


And even while on the campaign trail, Barack has had a chance to keep up with recent postings. See? He can multi-task!


I'm still reeling from last year's spectacular Mets meltdown, but Obama gives me hope for the upcoming season. See? Optimism!


Those little hedgehogs in the UK have clearly made an impression on Barack. See? He's got heart and cares about the environment!


If Obama wins the election, I'm hoping we'll see a little less from the Dickheads. See? He can stand his ground when he has to!


Yes, sir. Yes. Sir. See? Yessir.

Who's He Competing Against Again?

During that ugly South Carolina primary, people began to wonder whether Barack Obama was competing against Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. The answer, of course, is both.

For the presidency, Obama is running against Hillary. We don't know yet whether he will be victorious.

Obama's victory over the former president, however, is complete. Last night, Obama won the Grammy for Best Spoken Word album for his recording of The Audacity of Hope, defeating Bill Clinton's own recording of his most recent publication Giving.

And as we all know the Grammy's are totally legit and not at all full of crap, to which Milli Vanilli's Grammy sweep from a few years back can attest.

What Stood Out This Week - 2/3-2/9

We survived Super Tuesday, dear B&E readers, but who didn't? Let's see What Stood Out This Week...

The Quitter

Mitt Romney - Mormon Mitt is out. Turns out that Mitt's height, good hair, and stunning looks couldn't cover up that the man's an asshole. He poured a hundred billion (or so) of his own dollars into a campaign to win over the voters, but all he did was prove to them, once and for all, that he's a loathsome, hateful man. His quit speech was just as assholic as the man himself. Do yourself a favor and head on over to the Daily Show website to watch Jon Stewart respond to Mitt's speech. It's such a ridiculous quit speech that it needs no commentary, but Jon does a nice job of adding his two cents when it could use it and just letting Mitt yammer on when he's already self-satirizing.

The Republicans

So where does this leave the Pubes?

John McCain was the obvious big winner from Super Tuesday, although Huckabee swept the bat-shit crazy vote. It truly was a joyful experience watching Romney get second and third place in state after state over the course of the evening (or silver and bronze medals as he liked to say).

What's really awesome about the results is that the closer the Pubes get to a genuine nominee the less harmony there is in the Party. The Radical Right hates McCain. You got the Rushes and the Coulters saying they'd campaign for Hillary over John.

What's less awesome about the results is that John McCain has the reputation for being a "reasonable Republican," because of a couple of minor disagreements he's had with the Radical Right over the years. In other words, he's probably the most electable candidate the Pubes have on a national level. Great, so a McCain presidency would make some of the campaign finance laws a little stricter, and our already traumatized, over-worked, over-stretched troops would move permanently to Iraq and invade Iran.

Ron Paul's still running, by the way, in case anyone cares.

The Democrats

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pretty much split the vote on Super Tuesday. Hillary squeaked out ahead in the overall popular vote, and Barack won slightly more delegates (although the numbers there still aren't finalized) and a few more states.

I found myself feeling sort of down on Wednesday. I had hoped that Obama would do better, particularly in California. But it's a remarkably even race at the moment. And even though the campaign has been occasionally ugly, Democrats in general remain united and poised and harmonious.

The policy differences between Obama and Clinton are, let's face it, mostly cosmetic. The biggest difference is their history with the Iraq War. Neither is as liberal as I'd like (but then, no one ever is). Because they are so substantively similar, I'm now supporting the personality I like best. Yes, even though I've spoken out against voting for this idea of "electability," that's exactly what I did on Tuesday (not that it made a difference in New York).

I think Obama is more electable than Hillary. Fair or not, Hillary is a lightning rod of divisiveness for the Right. People are irrational about their hatred for Hillary. Obama, as a relatively clean slate, will appeal to voters Hillary won't. Obama's got the charisma Hillary dreams of. Obama's not so dumb that he won't stack his administration with all that experience people say he lacks. Obama has the potential to inspire. Isn't that one of the most important qualities in a leader?

Obama can compete in the states that Hillary would write-off in a general election. Obama has dominated the primaries where Republicans generally win. Take Kansas, for example. According to my mother (who's never wrong or confused about anything), more than 37,000 people turned up for the Kansas Democratic caucus. In 2004, that number was 1,300. Obama won with more than 70% of the vote.

Here's something else: Obama has a greater potential of restoring our image overseas. Let's not forget that the first Clinton administration was arrogant, too, if not nearly as arrogant as the current administration. I don't remember where I saw this, but I admit that it's a stolen thought: The White House isn't a fucking time share. New blood in the White House will show the world that we're looking forward, that we do want change (as cynical as I may be about what that means), that we want to erase our disastrous past.

This is probably as close to an endorsement of Barack Obama as I'll get. I wish he was more progressive, but when the policy differences between the last two (viable) candidates are so minor, you gotta go with the charisma. I believe Obama can beat McCain. I don't believe Hillary can.

Unfortunately, the election will probably come down to the super-delegates, which is shockingly un-democratic.

Oh, and Mike Gravel soldiers on, too, although he's even less visible than Ron Paul.

CNN: Bringing God and Dog Together Through Poopie

A most generous bald fella, knowing my fascination and love of all things God- and weenie-dog-related, was kind enough to send me this most fantastic news report from CNN.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. Leavings is my new favorite word.

Report from the Polling Station

PS 150 is a fantastic place to vote. It's a Queens neighborhood, so of course it's totally diverse, loaded with translators and old people manning the various booths.

The woman in charge had shiny falsies, severed bangs, and a silvering mullet, everything you would expect from a life-long Queens resident who volunteers to work the local polling station.

When the missus and I presented ourselves, Bangs announced, "You'll have to fill out an affidavit ballot. Some Republican broke our booth. Oh, are you Republican or Democrat?"

"Democrats," we both exclaimed.

We were escorted to a table so that we could fill out our affidavit ballots "secretly." There's a part of the affidavit that says, "You MUST check one of the boxes below," to explain your reason for using the paper ballot instead of the lever machine. There was no option for "broken booth." At this point I was losing confidence in the process.

A Korean immigrant leaned over to my ballot like a kid cheating in class who really doesn't care if anyone sees him cheating. I hadn't yet filled out my ballot. He pointed at his, a vote for Hillary, and said, "OK?"

He had checked it. The paper ballot should be filled in like an SAT bubble sheet. I pointed at the example, and said, "Like this." He corrected it. Then he showed it to the missus, "OK?" He hadn't voted for the delegates. She explained.

Now, the missus and I are honest people. It would've been very easy to let him screw up his ballot and have it discounted, especially since he was supporting a candidate I'm not particularly excited about. But we didn't. We helped him honestly. But it does make me wonder how often people get hosed that way.

By the time we filled out our ballot and returned to our District 32 booth, it was working again. Somehow I trust the lever machine (even a sometimes broken one) than the confusion around the paper ballot affidavit. I'm fairly convinced it would've ultimately ended up chucked.

So Bangs tore our ballots up and we voted in the booth. The SCHUNCK! of the lever machines is very satisfying, and I will miss it indeed once New York updates its system, something required of the state because of the Help America Vote Act.

Go, Democracy!

Vote!

Tomorrow is Super Tuesday, B&E readers. Don't let your excitement over the Giants' Super Bowl victory and subsequent Super Tuesday ticker-tape parade cause you to forget to participate in our democracy.

I love voting, and if I've explained why before you'll have to forgive me.

Shortly after my eighteenth birthday, I went to vote in my first primary in Kansas. While I was there, one of our neighbors walked in: Mrs. Landon. She had no first name; she was merely Mrs. Landon, widow of Alf Landon, the biggest loser (to FDR in '36) in presidential history (and former Governor of Kansas, too, of course). Alf and Mrs. Landon had a daughter, one Nancy Kassebaum who was a moderately reasonable Republican Senator from Kansas from '78 until '96.

So anyway, Mrs. Landon walked in to vote, escorted by her daughter Nancy. It gave the whole experience a heft that I'll probably never forget. This woman was freakin' old, and nothing would keep her from the polls. And there was my Senator, too, not that I ever once voted for her.

But yes, I do love to vote.

And how about that Super Bowl? Man, was that a great game or what?

Groundhogs - Pennsylvania vs. New York

Yesterday was Groundhog Day.

Punxatawney Phil resides in Punxatawney, Pennsylvania. That cowardly groundhog came out of his tree stump or whatever, saw his shadow, and ran back into this tree stump or whatever. Six more weeks of winter, says that crying douchebag.

Staten Island Chuck resides in Staten Island, New York. Chuck came out of his shrub or whatever, didn't see shit, popped open a cool Coors 16-ouncer, smoked a couple of Kents, and said, "Bring on the warm weather, bitches."

Phil had a movie made about him. Chuck was too busy shooting up heroin to care.

Phil has apparently been right about 35% of the time, while Chuck has about a 70% accuracy rate. This is, of course, according to a New York news crew.

I'm going with Chuck, pictured here eating a PCP-laced carrot stick.

What Stood Out This Week - 1/27-2/2

We're getting into primary election crunch time, and with two major early primaries (one for Dems and one for Pubes) it was yet another busy, busy seven days, dear B&E readers. Let's see What Stood Out This Week...

The Quitters

Rudy Giuliani - Having staked his candidacy on Florida, Floridians responded, awarding him a bronze for a distant third place, just a point or two above Mike Huckabee. The voters got to know Rudy and discovered that, sure enough, he's completely unlikable. He immediately turned around and endorsed John McCain. His reward will be the cushy Secretary of Dickhead position in the cabinet, should McCain win the presidency.

John Edwards - John Edwards came in third in the South Carolina Democratic primary. He said, "Onward!" until three days later when he placed first in media interest of dropouts, soundly defeating the "Feh" heard in response to Rudy's announcement. (Rudy was like, "Guys? Hello? I'm out. Hello? 9/11?") Edwards' issue this campaign has been poverty, and he was the only person talking about it. Who gives a shit about the vast personal wealth, the giant house, and the $600 haircut? The man truly cares about poverty issues.

I found myself surprisingly disappointed by Edwards' withdrawal. Because I felt like he didn't have a shot at the nomination I must've been guarding myself, but I'm saddened by his new absence, and the Democratic Party will be lessened without his voice. Because they want his delegates, both of the other major candidates (sorry, Mike Gravel, you're just not quite major) have heaped praise upon him and have promised to take up his cause. If Edwards gets more than lip service from those two, then his campaign has been worthwhile indeed. He's yet to endorse anyone.

Edwards' quitting had one other effect on me: I'm un-undecided.

The Democrats

So that leaves us with two Democratic candidates (again, sorry, Mike Gravel). Barack Obama decidedly won the South Carolina primary, after an ugly week of back-and-forths between both Clintons and Obama. He followed up his victory with one hell of a good goddamned speech (and I completely agree with Titivil's assessment).

Hillary and Barack both seemed to realize that the ugly campaigning wasn't helping either of them. Their post-South Carolina debate this week was so tame the only media coverage I saw was a NY Times article discussing how they seemed to be trying to out-nice each other. Dullsville, from a media point-of-view.

Really, this week they've just been campaigning like hell in preparation for Super Tuesday (that's this Tuesday, B&E readers, so if the list includes your state, don't forget to vote!).

Barack's buying TV in New York (that's Hillary's backyard, Barack! Oh, shit!), and the ads are OK, I guess. They feature him giving speeches, which as already stated is a particular gift of Barack's. I haven't seen any Hillary ads yet, although I've heard she's buying some. She should really trounce Barack in New York, and it would be quite telling if she doesn't.

Republicans

John McCain won Florida, defeating Mitt Romney (man, I love it when that guy gets 2nd place after spending a shitload of his own money), followed by Bye-bye Rudy and Mike Aw-Shucksabee.

McCain's now a clear front-runner, and unlike the Democratic side, this is causing less harmony. Mitt's saying McCain can't be trusted to be a true conservative (not that Mitt's ever been a true anything - except maybe a Mormon), and Huckabee is going through Super Tuesday at least, asking the faithful to get behind his candidacy.

Mitt's attending Mormon leader funerals and putting another $35,000,000 into his own campaign (OK, so maybe there's a part of me that wishes I could flush money down the toilet at the rate Mitt can), and hoping for the best on Super Tuesday. I think McCain's probably gonna wipe the floor with them on Tuesday.

Huckabee has begun to be marginalized by the media, but my workplace enjoyed a viewing of this ad with Chuch Norris. It demonstrates a sense of humor not found in most presidential contenders. It's almost too bad he's bat-shit crazy. He sure is likable that Huckabee. So is Chuck. And check out those pearly whites. Man, those are some shiny veneers. For my money, the best bit is the "Chuck Norris approved!" moment at the end.

Independents?

So here's the million-dollar question: If McCain wins the nomination as I predict, will the Christian right run a third party candidate?

And here's another little tidbit...

You might be surprised to learn that I'm on Ralph Nader's email list (I'm on a LOT of lists). Nader had endorsed John Edwards, something no one was announcing too loudly. So John's now out. On Wednesday, Nader launched a 2008 exploratory committee website.

I'm an enormous fan of Ralph Nader's work. Without him we wouldn't have safety belts in cars, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Freedom of Information Act, and many, many other outcomes from the work of a life-long consumer advocate.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I voted for Nader in 1996 (Clinton had proven himself to be too conservative for my tastes) and 2000 (Gore had sewn up New York, and at the time Gore was playing to the middle, something he no longer does). Nader's 2000 campaign is wrongly maligned with losing the election to Gore. If Gore had run even a mediocre campaign, with or without Nader, Bush never would've gone to the White House. And lest we forget, Gore did actually win that election.

Now I fear that Nader is marginalizing himself. His legacy is becoming about running for president instead of about doing what he's always done best. His reasons for running are hard to argue with: he's not wrong that corporate America has a stranglehold on our electoral process. But I fail to see how running for president is the best way to fight that beast.

I love you Ralph. Please don't run again.

Lubing up the Economy and Screwing It

Yes, dear B&E readers, it remains a good time to be in the oil business.

Yesterday Shell announced that 2007 was its best year ever, with more than $27.6 billion in profits. CEO Jeroen van der Veer said in his understated (read: Dutch) way that these results were "satisfactory." Trade unionists in Britain called the amount "obscene," and suggested that perhaps they pay a windfall tax.

Not to be outdone, on Friday ExxonMobil said, "You don't know obscene," and announced the most profitable quarter and year of any U.S. company in the history of the entire world. That's $11.66 billion in one quarter, friends, and more than $40.6 billion for the year.

Proving the Bush administration theory that we all benefit when the free market is given free reign to make as much money as possible (and the people who profit most from these corporations are given generous tax breaks), payrolls are dropping and the economy is in a tailspin. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. That disproves the theory. My mistake.

And I'm sure that getting a windfall tax passed in a government owned by Big Oil (and Big Industry in general) will be no problem at all. None. Nothing will ever be easier. Especially if no one ever proposes the idea.

In related news, most of you are already aware of an old B&E posting of mine, which named former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson Dickhead of the Week. Yes, it remains a popular destination for new readers, most of whom anonymously invite me to have sex with myself for misspelling Mobil or for being jealous or for being a prick.

I'd like to draw your attention, then, to a comment that arrived today, which I quote in its entirety:

I would like to say to Rex Tillerson and the people who are defending him what about the exxon-valdez oil spill? I am a wife of a fisherman and i think it is about time they quit being greedy pigs and pay what is owed us after reading there profit shares i want to puke BOYCOTT EXXON MOBILE
Randa

Well put, Randa, and I would like to thank you for reminding all B&E readers that ExxonMobil has still not paid a single penny of what they owe for the Exxon-Valdez oil spill. That spill was back in 1989. Unconscionable.

ExxonMobil: Redefining "Dickhead."