lookin

Sheldon Adelson has to get something for his $100 million. If not a president, then at least a war with Iran. Just one of today's editorials in his newspaper, Israel Hayom, ends like this: Meanwhile, on the 11th anniversary of the World Trade Center bombings, Hillary Clinton remains steadfast in her administration’s efforts “to do everything we can to bring Iran to a good-faith negotiation,” and in its attempts to prevent Israel from taking Tehran’s words and deeds seriously. With such useful idiots in its corner, Iran can laugh its way straight to the bomb. Let us hope that American voters, particularly Jews, do not serve the same purpose for Obama. "All in" is pretty apt for an 'ally' that calls our Secretary of State a 'useful idiot'. Next ol' Bibi will be angling for a Cabinet position.

While part of me would like this event to fade from memory, I realize that to become desensitized to such acts anywhere in the world is a descent I hope never to make. In fact, I hope this day of mourning will serve over time to build our resolve to put such inhuman acts behind us once and for all, and wherever we find them. No one should be honored for wantonly killing others. I think we damage our souls when we do.

Maybe it was just the uniform?

Looks like the artificial flavor lab is working overtime at Nabisco. There was an interesting segment on 60 Minutes last week about flavor chemists. One of the best in the business said the goal is to develop a flavor that leaves the consumer wanting more. When asked if he meant an addictive flavor, he agreed wholeheartedly. When asked if such addictive flavors might lead to overeating, he said he didn't think so.

I'll educate you, my pretty!

Every once in a while, say every century or so, I don't think it would hurt organized religions to sit down and take a good look at the things they think God has told them to do and figure out if the current list is still a pretty good reflection of how God wants them to live their lives. I wonder if circumcision would still make the cut, you should pardon the expression. There might even be one or two other things that could drop off the list. . . . On the other hand, they could also take a fresh look at some of the old standbys written with the finger of God, like "Thou Shalt Not Kill" which seems to have lost a lot of its luster in the last few millenia and might be due for a comeback. Maybe it's just me, but a guy who thumps his chest about the right to get his kid clipped and then goes upstairs and shtupps the nanny, or lobs a bomb at a school bus in the name of God, seems to have a screw loose somewhere.

Thanks all for the thoughtful responses. The New York Times poll is actually the FiveThirtyEight poll I mentioned above. They joined forces last year, one more reason I give some credence to it. From Nate Silver's NYT blog today: On Friday, we began to see reasonably clear signs that President Obama would receive some kind of bounce in the polls from the Democratic convention. Mr. Obama had another strong day in the polls on Saturday, making further gains in each of four national tracking polls. The question now is not whether Mr. Obama will get a bounce in the polls, but how substantial it will be. Some of the data, in fact, suggests that the conventions may have changed the composition of the race, making Mr. Obama a reasonably clear favorite as we enter the stretch run of the campaign. . . . In fact, Mr. Romney has never held a lead over Mr. Obama by any substantive margin in the polls. The Real Clear Politics average of polls put Mr. Romney ahead by a fraction of a percentage point at one point in October 2011, and he pulled into an exact tie at one point late in the week of his convention, after it was over, but he has never done better than that. That makes this an extremely odd election. You would figure that at some point over the past year, Mr. Romney would have pulled into the lead in the polls, given how close it has usually been. John McCain held occasional leads in 2008; John Kerry led for much of the summer in 2004; and Michael Dukakis had moments where he was well ahead of George H.W. Bush in the spring and summer of 1988. But Mr. Romney, if there have been moments when his polls were ever-so-slightly stronger or weaker, has never really had his moment in the sun. . . . Certainly, Mr. Romney will win his fair share of independent voters because of the economy — and if there are substantive signs of economic decline in October and November, probably enough to win him the election. But unless there is some change of course, it looks increasingly as though he lacks the appeal to the voting blocks that might allow him to win 51 percent of the vote rather than 49 percent. . . . I will acknowledge that there is the risk of jumping the gun with this analysis. Our forecast model began to see Mr. Romney’s subpar convention bounce as a bearish indicator for him early during his convention week. Now that Mr. Obama appears to be making gains when Mr. Romney did not, it has become more entrenched in seeing Mr. Obama as the favorite — enough so that it now gives him almost a 4-in-5 chance of victory. Taking the temperature of voters around the party conventions is tricky: it is a period when a lot of undecided voters start to tune in for the first time, but it is also associated with volatile polling. Every election is different, and no statistical method to analyze them is beyond reproach. But in the immediate term, it seems like the upside case for Mr. Romney is that Mr. Obama’s polls cool off quickly — and soon revert to where they were before the conventions, with Mr. Obama about two points ahead in the polling average. That’s certainly a very winnable election for Mr. Romney, but nevertheless one where he is the modest underdog. And Mr. Romney’s downside case is that Mr. Obama’s polling bounce will be a little stickier, and that Mr. Obama will already be fairly close to having achieved 50 percent of the vote with precious few undecided voters left in the race. That would make Mr. Romney a clear underdog — perhaps even one who needs some foreign policy or economic crisis to intervene to give him much of a chance at winning. One of the commenters remarked on just such a possible foreign policy crisis, mentioning Canada's closing of its Iranian embassy on Friday and the opening of a window of opportunity for Israel to attack Iran before our November election. I can't yet sink to that level of cynicism, although scoring my daily fix of optimism is not the cakewalk it once was.

"Side effects are the next big hurdle," she said. Well, duh! PS: Anyone else think AdamSmith will check in, perhaps with a black widow story, before day's end?

Seems to be getting better understood that folks can have a pretty wide range of sexual attractions, especially if those folks are young males. Labels may be desired but not necessarily required, accurate, or constant. As far as where to go with this, my suggestion would be to let your friend decide where to go with this. He'll probably be better off exploring his sexuality in his own way, at his own pace. If you can be there for him as a resource, if he requests it, and as you have already offered, rather than as a guide, it might be more comfortable for both of you. It sounds like he has a number of people with a stake in his journey, and he is the only one who has a chance of keeping himself and his relationships in balance.

While I watched most of the Democratic convention highlights on PBS, I did tune in to CBS in time to hear Scott Pelley echo the standard refrain that the presidential election is neck and neck. One of the other commentators had asked the White House for their reaction to the close race, and their reaction was that they are paying more attention to the electoral votes than to the popular vote. That's what I've been looking at too, and the predictions there seem anything but close. In fact, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog is the one I check most days and he's giving Obama better than 75% odds. He has a very good track record and missed only one state in 2008. He also correctly predicted all thirty-five Senate races. Does anyone else look at the electoral college projections? Is Silver's blog a reasonable interpretation of what's going on? I know that a lot can happen in two months but, until a lot actually does happen, I'm feeling pretty good about Obama's chances. Anyone else?

NFL Players Association president Domonique Foxworth also supported Ayanbedejo and piled on Burns. “I don’t know if I can come up with a strong enough word, but his request was asinine,” Foxworth said

It was a good speech alright but, as he went through his rebuttals to the Republican claims, I kept wondering why is everyone acting like this is news? Of course, Obama inherited a mess that won't be fixed overnight; of course, Romney doesn't have a plan to create jobs or fix the deficit; of course, Obama didn't lift $700 billion out of Medicare benefits; of course Ryan took the same $700 billion in savings that he skewered Obama for; and of course the Republicans will stick it to what's left of the middle class. But why was this all such big news so late in the game? Only the Medicaid grab was something I hadn't really copped to before. And I'm not a political animal, merely someone who knows how to read. Don't get me wrong: I'm grateful that Clinton did it, and he did it as well as it could be done. It's just that I can't figure out why the Democrats waited until last night to get the message out effectively. I don't think the Democrats are brain dead, so maybe they thought this would be the ideal timing to get a clear message out through one of the best communicators around. But I would have loved to see Biden, Reid, and Pelosi already on the bases, and let Clinton bring in four runs rather than one. Still, I'm a happy fan, and one who is really looking forward to the debates. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that Obama will trounce Romney three out of three, we should be so lucky.

For me, as long as there's someone in my circle who finds a word objectionable - as one poster did - and I have it within my power to use a less offensive synonym - as I sometimes do - it doesn't seem absurd to do so. I think it shows respect for others. Of course, the amount of respect we choose to show for the feelings of others is an individual decision, and there are many shades of gray.

I watched it on PBS (KQED, San Francisco) and noticed the same thing. Most of the camera shots were close-ups so I couldn't tell if the convention floor itself was packed with minorities or if the camera operators made it a point to focus on attendees of color. My guess is that it was some of both. (Veterans were another group that was highly visible.) It seemed the intent was to show that the white 'majority' represented a declining group in the U. S., which it is, although the pictures coming from the convention floor appeared to exaggerate the trend. Personally, I welcomed this view of our country. I didn't see it as racist as much as presenting a country made up of lots of different folks and perhaps fast-forwarding us to the mix of ethnicities we might see a few decades from now. It looked like a much more interesting place to live in than one made up primarily of white folks. I thought it provided a clear distinction between the Democratic and Republican views of the country. I flipped over to CBS a couple of times, enough to learn that they didn't show Patrick Deval's speech. He's Mitt Romney's successor as Governor of Massachusetts, and largely responsible for implementing the State's universal health care program. His speech is definitely worth a read, in my opinion. Also, not sure if CBS covered Julian Castro's twin brother Joaquin introducing him. Color me shallow, but there's a pair of cuties I could easily enjoy seeing more of.

FourAces, it never crossed my mind that you meant to be offensive and this thread confirms your good intentions. I think, though, that most any word that puts all members of an ethnic group into a single box based on a stereotype runs the risk of offending someone. To my mind, Asians are individuals and no doubt would like to be treated as such. Words that lump them all together overlook that individuality and may prove offensive. At least, that's how I've come to look at it. When I was growing up, I heard the word 'kraut' used to refer to Germans and I believe at one time it was intended to be highly offensive. Same for 'potato eaters' to mean the Irish. So I tend to avoid words like that. Besides, I'm half German and really dislike sauerkraut. Although my Irish half does indeed love me my potatoes. Reminds me of a running joke with an old friend that any sentence that begins with the phrase "You people" is not likely to have a happy ending.

Mindboggling, isn't it? I think we take a terrible risk when we vote for any party or individual that doesn't have a great deal of compassion. It's well more than half of my own voting decision. Anyone who thinks a government that doesn't actively look out for all of its citizens won't turn its back on him one day is living a pipe dream.

Get back here!

Perhaps he was admiring your sense of style.

Gratified to see the nuanced thoughtfulness in this thread. It seems so unusual these days, at least in this country. Of course the law will be black and white and I think the ethical actions of an adult toward a child, or any person with less power, are often best framed in black and white. But thought, analysis, and discussion have never been well-served by pretending that gray does not exist. When we look for the best answers and the best outcomes, I think we should use all the experience, insight and brainpower we can muster.

Doomsday hell And global fights Can now be done With bits and bytes

I'll sure miss you, Tomcal. I now wish I'd have commented on every one of your posts that I've enjoyed so much, as you'd have seen hundreds more thumbs up. Very best wishes in your continued adventures.

I'm very sorry this happened to your niece and to you and your family. You'll probably get good advice from the doctor involved and perhaps from a counsellor who is experienced in dealing with these situations. The only thing I would suggest in addition is to try to let your niece get back to being a little girl as quickly as possible. Certain things will have to be done, such as the hospital visit that you have planned. Hopefully, it will be handled with a minimum of fuss, bright lights, and drama. Perhaps your sister will think it's a good idea for your niece to see a counsellor. But I think there's sometimes a risk that your niece will be made to feel like an object with people poking and prodding her physically and emotionally. What's done is done, and she will need support, but there's no reason for that support to be invasive and intrusive. If your niece is made to feel like an oddity, and a victim, the trauma could be unnecessarily compounded. As her uncle, maybe the best thing you can do is hold your sister's hand and help keep her calm, and then take your niece out for ice cream. She's a child, and that's what she wants to be. If you can help her get back to that as soon as possible and help her start laughing and playing again, I think you'll be the best uncle ever.

I'd love to see somebody get pissed off enough to blow past Apple with even better technology. It will happen one day. Why not one day soon?

Perhaps with the flashing of the royal fundament that ship has already sailed. Good thing the lighting was subdued enough to blur out any regal dingleberries.