The Blogging Blondes. Much to my complete surprise, I know them.
July 8, 2008 09:19 PM
Well, one of them anyway.
I got a text from a mutual friend yesterday, all "you have to turn on the homer right now!" So I did. Since it was the radio, it took me a minute to figure it out. Especially because the blogging blonde was not blonde the last time I saw her. She looked better brunette, but I have to say, the new color suits her personality better.
I think the most amusing thing is, they aren't even blogging.
Local News, and the idiot's guide to beating the heat
Yes, take a cool shower, wear a hat, and of course, DON'T bathe your baby in alcohol. Good to know. Good to know.
Local WASP Curtis Sittenfeld to Publish "Thinly Veiled Novel" About Laura Bush
July 7, 2008 02:21 PM
How thinly veiled? This thinly veiled:
A kind, bookish only child born in the 1940s, Alice learned the virtues of politeness early on from her stolid parents and small Wisconsin hometown. But a tragic accident when she was seventeen shattered her identity and made her understand the fragility of life and the tenuousness of luck. So more than a decade later, when she met boisterous, charismatic Charlie Blackwell, she hardly gave him a second look: She was serious and thoughtful, and he would rather crack a joke than offer a real insight; he was the wealthy son of a bastion family of the Republican party, and she was a school librarian and registered Democrat. Comfortable in her quiet and unassuming life, she felt inured to his charms. And then, much to her surprise, Alice fell for Charlie.
Radar has more scoop, and it's even worse than you might expect:
On the heels of two best-selling books, (Prep, The Man of My Dreams), young, Iowa-trained [ed. Cincinnati-bred, her sister was in my class at Seven Hills, her dad Paul, is a principal at Baird] author Curtis Sittenfeld is about to release her most controversial book yet—a thinly veiled novel based on Laura Bush's life that is sure to send the White House into a fury.
According to Radar, the book describes "Alice's" trip to get an abortion administered by her grandmother's lesbian lover. Since it's a "novel," you see, it doesn't have to be true.
Here's another repulsive tidbit: It also describes "Alice" having sex with the brother of the boy she killed. Now Laura Bush was in a teenage car accident that took the life of a friend of hers. But of course, there's no evidence she had a relationship with the dead friend's brother, much less did this:
[H]e pushed me back against the mattress, straddled me, and leaned forward to roll his face between my breasts, pressing them against his cheeks and licking my nipples, his stubble rubbing not unpleasantly against my skin, and the more he grabbed and thrashed, the more the grabbing and thrashing seemed to stir rather than satisfy his desire. He pulled off my pants and underwear at the same time—I was wearing blue jeans, and he had to unbutton and unzip them first—and then I was naked except for my socks, which were white with lace trim. He tugged me upward and flipped me over, and when he said, 'No, you have to be on your knees,' it was the first time either of us had spoken in several minutes.
As far as thinly veiled novels go, I'd say this is clearly in the despicable camp. It least Kitty Kelly used real names when she was making shit up, Curtis.
I expect the Seven Hills alumni mag will produce a fawning review. I saw that because my expectations of my alma mater are so pathetically low. Perhaps the book will be too awful, even for their standards. But I doubt it.
UPDATE: Yes, I realize that for some inexplicable, blogospheric reason, you can't comment on this post. I don't know why. Sorry.
McCain shakes up campaign to reassure base...
July 2, 2008 01:28 PM
...trouble is, he's still confused about what his base is. From Politico:
One source familiar with the inner workings of McCain's campaign said that the move came after a sluggish ramp-up to the general and number of unforced errors had left the candidate, senior staff and elected officials unhappy with the state of the campaign.
"This will help reassure the chattering class in D.C.," said the source.
Oh good. That'll get him elected. I'm waiting for the chattering class in D.C. to start going door-to-door or working phone banks for McCain any minute now. Especially here in Southern Ohio, where he sorely needs the help. Not many locals are signing up, I can assure you. Let's fly in those chattering D.C. people. Heck, they've been reassured. All it takes to win Ohio is reassured chattering D.C. people.
Friday Fun: "Family of Faggot Fans Fly the Flag."
June 27, 2008 08:31 AM
People in the old country shur do talk funny. The BBC reports:
The Doody family hopes to raise profile of faggots.
Apparently it's a culinary delight made from pork liver and pork. Yum! Mr. Doody says:
"The great British faggot is full of flavour and a great belly warmer at this time of year."
He must be so proud of his family, winning a "competition organised by faggot producer Mr Brain's Faggots." Who wouldn't be?
Oooo, here's an idea... Mr. Brain's Faggots should see if they can't get their product to be the official food of the Church of England. Think of the cross-marketing potential!
McCain 12 points behind; only 58% of the conservative base is supporting him
June 24, 2008 09:41 PM
That's per an L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll. Apparently he's relying on the old "they'll have nowhere else to go" myth. Because he sure isn't trying to appeal to the base himself. I was at a Young Republicans meeting last night, and the poor guy from the McCain campaign tried to make a pitch for help. He couldn't have been more ignored by the party regulars. They just aren't interested.
I felt sorry for the poor kid, even as I briefly thought about pointing out to him that his candidate shouldn't be turning to us for help until his candidate stops stabbing us in the back (the global warming tour being the latest example of this). But I didn't say anything. It's not his fault.
His boss may learn. But it may come too late. There is no way a Republican can win if he's only getting 58% of the conservative vote. We're the ones who do all the work to get the candidates elected. Have you ever seen a moderate work a phone bank? Go door to door? No. Not in their nature.
And he just can't write off that many votes. 10% yes. Maybe even 30%. But 58%? The math just doesn't work.
Will Smith appeals to original intent to get us to rally 'round Obama
June 23, 2008 04:59 PM
No seriously, he really did. Here he is being interviewed by Matt Lauer on the Today show (which after this interview they should just go ahead and rename "Dumb and Dumber"):
LAUER: Do you think people can't get behind America led by John McCain?
SMITH: You know I just, there, there are, there are certain ideas that I believe Barack stands for that are fundamental that the forefathers of this country wrote down on paper that we're all supposed to pay attention to, we're not supposed to ignore it and do what we want to do 'cause we have different ideas. And I believe just at his core the, that those ideas just they, they just come of his pores. And I'm, I'm excited to support him.
Yep, that's it. Obama will put us back on the Founder's Path! He's just oozing James Madison. Out of his pores! Was that flop sweat? No, it was the Federalist No. 10.
Meanwhile, over at Politico we learn how wonderful Obama was. As editor of the Harvard Law Review. This headline made me snort at its ridiculousness:
Obama Kept Law Review Balanced
The sub-head:
Mostly liberal publication ran progressive pieces alongside ones from a Reagan official and a right-wing judge.
Another snort. What are we supposed to think, that his administration will be a conservative happy land because he published an article written by a Reagan official and right wing judge? Is the point that Obama was sooooo brave for printing articles by conservative scholars?
The pretentiousness (and the utter untruth) of this passage made me snort a third time:
In Obama's time, as it is today, the Harvard Law Review was one of the most important and distinguished legal publications in the world. Founded in 1887, it is the rare self-supporting legal publication compiled and edited completely by students, typically those attending their second or third year at the prestigious school.
The Harvard Law Review is not even a remotely important legal publication. No law review is. Lawyers rarely, if ever, read law review articles. And if you cite to one in a brief it is highly suspect. Judges frown on it. It's kind of like, "What else have you got? Any actual case law?" Why cite to some professor's personal or political agenda? That's what they all are.
Also, pretty much every law review I am aware of is "compiled and edited completely by students." That does not make them great, it just makes them possible. They're basically just vehicles academics use to advance their careers by "getting published," courtesy of indentured servants working for a future pay off (a highly profitable line for their resumes).
And yes, I have that line on my resume. What did we run articles on during my law review days? I don't know, and I don't care. You just suck it up and work on them. No one pays the slightest bit of attention to what they are actually about. In law school, you don't have time to care, and I'm sure Obama didn't.
But lets not let these facts get in the way of talking about how Obama was such a great law review editor. He let two conservatives get articles past his desk. Nobless oblige!
