No reason.  I just like the picture.

A Des Moines bound United Airlines flight from Denver was delayed six hours Tuesday when passengers alerted flight attendants to three ticks in the plane’s cabin.

“It is an unusual situation to find ticks on the plane, and we regret any inconvenience this might have caused our customers,” United spokeswoman Robin Urbanski said.

How the wayward arachnids got on the jet had not been determined. A replacement aircraft shuttled the 107 passengers to Des Moines while Flight 1178 was deticked and checked.

Urbanski said no ticks were found on passengers.

Thank God.  Thank God. 

Severe thunderstorms, meanwhile, further delayed the trip to Des Moines.

“I never heard of it before, but it is a serious matter, and they had to get plane cleaned up,” said former West Des Moines resident and passenger William B. Seward, 80, of The Villages, Fla. “I’m retired, so my schedule is flexible.”

"Also, I'm an idiot.  Did I mention I live at The Villages?"  God, what an moron.  "I'm retired, so my schedule is flexible."  What the hell?

A six hour delay.  I think I would have had to kill the three people who complained about the three ticks.  Shut up about the ticks!

I blame The Villages for John McCain, BTW.  Thanks for nothing, The Villages.  And while we're on the topic, check out the unintended hilarity of this headline:

Energy of McCain, 71, appeals to many oldsters

Maybe he should give a stump speech about ticks?

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.

]]> http://nastybrutish-n-short.com/blog/2008/07/the_blogging_blondes_much_to_my_complete_surprise_i_know_them.html http://nastybrutish-n-short.com/blog/2008/07/the_blogging_blondes_much_to_my_complete_surprise_i_know_them.html Culture Tue, 08 Jul 2008 21:19:20 -0500

Yes, take a cool shower, wear a hat, and of course, DON'T bathe your baby in alcohol.  Good to know.  Good to know.

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.

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. 

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!

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.

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!

Democrat Victoria Wulsin came within 3,000 votes of defeating Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) in 2006 and is taking another shot this year, but she’s still got something to prove to national Democrats.

Unlike every other near-miss rematch candidate, Wulsin has not yet been named to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s (DCCC) Red to Blue program.

The Democrats were fools to pick Wulsin over Steve Black in the primary.  Yes, Wulsin came close last time.  But Black is a much better fit for the district.

Getting on the Red to Blue list brings lots of attention and money.  The Wulsin Campaign seems ticked by the DCCC's neglect. 

Wulsin spokesman Kevin Franck was critical of the DCCC, and cast doubt on whether national Democrats know what is happening on the ground. He pointed to recent gains in Democratic registrations and Wulsin’s outperforming in her district of Gov. Ted Strickland (D) and Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) in 2006.

“I’m not sure I understand the D-trip’s thinking, completely,” Franck said, adding: “Interacting with the D-trip and the national party organizations, when you get to the highest levels of decision-making, where the choices are made about which list a race goes on, there seems to be a lot of mystery surrounding the metrics they’re using.

“I think we have a very clear case. We have an incredibly unpopular incumbent in a district that’s not a Republican stronghold anymore. Vic has been running for two and a half years now. Her name ID is much higher than it was. We have more money than before.”

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) has taken note of the DCCC’s lack of action. NRCC spokeswoman Julie Shutley, said: “With one loss already under her belt against Rep. Schmidt, Wulsin seems to be having a tough time convincing her own party she has a remote chance of launching a competitive campaign.”

If the Wulsin campaign hasn't made its case to the DCCC by now, it's probably too late.  Like I said though, they'll add her to the list later this summer (they've already got her on some sort of watch list, that means it's coming next time).  It'll give her the chance to put out a release that says the DCCC thinks the race is tightening, and she'll get some free media out of that. 

But in the meantime, the campaign cash and the attention is going elsewhere.

In the European mind, Guantanamo is one of the centers of evil in the world, a dungeon where George W. Bush commits unspeakable acts on innocent Muslims who just happened to be on a battlefield in Afghanistan or Pakistan when U.S. troops captured them.

She says the prisoners in Gitmo have been denied their constitutional rights.

I say they are enemy combatants; they have rights under international treaties, but not American constitutional rights.

But they have “global rights,” she insists.

What are “global rights”? I ask.

There’s no precise definition, but as far as I could tell, “global rights” appear to be American constitutional rights applied to the entire planet. It’s an astounding notion, given that American constitutional rights definitely do not apply across the entire planet — not even in places like, well, France.

A lot of the English aren't much better:

I have a friend in London, very Euro in outlook, who is terrifically frustrated and worried about the election.

His chief concern: the role of Americans. “It’s a pity that Americans are the ones who elect the president,” he says. “It would be much better if the people of the world voted on the American president.”

And guess who would be elected in such a scenario? Here’s a hint: It’s not John McCain.

Basically, it's us against the world.  And by us, I mean red state people.

Please let us not have this idiot for another season.

A decade ago, astronomers discovered that what is true for your car keys is not true for the galaxies. Having been impelled apart by the force of the Big Bang, the galaxies, in defiance of cosmic gravity, are picking up speed on a dash toward eternity. If they were keys, they would be shooting for the ceiling.

“That is how shocking this was,” Dr. Livio said.

It is still shocking. Although cosmologists have adopted a cute name, dark energy, for whatever is driving this apparently antigravitational behavior on the part of the universe, nobody claims to understand why it is happening, or its implications for the future of the universe and of the life within it, despite thousands of learned papers, scores of conferences and millions of dollars’ worth of telescope time. It has led some cosmologists to the verge of abandoning their fondest dream: a theory that can account for the universe and everything about it in a single breath.

What a bunch of idiots.  Fools on fools' errands.  And such arrogance!  They want a theory that can account for no less than "the universe and everything about it."  And they're looking in telescopes to try to find it. 

Amusing though that they call this b.s. "dark energy."  Wonder who had a hand in that?