Doom at the Democratic Convention

Some of us thought it couldn't get any better. Hillary and Obama were mercilessly attacking each other, causing their supporters to become embittered (without clinging to guns and religion). The superdelegates were dithering, leaving the resolution of the nomination to the Convention itself. People were suggesting that a totally new candidate be brought in. Some groups were threatening violence in Denver, shades of Chicago 1968.

But now, it does get better, much better: The Democrats have hired Microsoft to run the technical end of the Convention.

Get a load of this, from the link above: "For Microsoft's part, the software giant said in a statement that the Democratic National Convention Committee (DNCC) picked it to 'create a technically flawless event and engage more people in the Convention experience using cutting-edge technology.'"

Microsoft? A "technically flawless event"? Seriously?

Here's what I foresee. Obama or Hillary up on the stage, giving the acceptance speech for the hard-fought nomination.



And right there in the middle of the speech, Microsoft's technical prowess is put on display for millions of viewers to see:





UPDATE: Old Bill Gates video.

UPDATE: Is that you, Bill?

Click here to read more . . .

Charles Murray for dogs

There are about a gazillion doggie IQ tests -- you can find 'em by googling -- but only one of them found its way into an article in the New York Post. I don't know what's involved in that test, making it so special, because I was unwilling to spend $79.99 On Sale Now! Just $49.99 to buy it.

But it's no great loss, really, because you can get another doggie IQ test for free from Ace, so long as you're not too offended by some Anglo-Saxon language and (im)mature content (consider that your content warning). Here's a sample from the True/False section:

3. This nasty old rotting canvas sneaker I just pulled out of the mulchpile tastes like that dog's ass, which in turn tastes like my own genitals, which themselves taste like strawberry waffles.

4. Toilet water tastes much like maple syrup.

That's not even the best part. Ace really had me laughing in a guilty way, so if you can deal with the language, you should definitely read the whole piece.

On a different note, what breed of dog is Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic Governor of New York? My guess is a beagle. The beagle is number 9 in the list of least intelligent breeds, and Spitzer was Client 9, although that's obviously a coincidence. What I'm thinking is that beagles are considered to have an "independent and willful nature." Which describes Spitzer quite well.

Click here to read more . . .

The looming nickname gap

When you're a guy who writes under a nickname, you sometimes pay a little more attention to that subject than perhaps you should. And I was thinking back to some of the presidents of the mid-20th century: FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Ike. For fun, we could throw in Tricky Dick.

Who is there like that in the current election cycle? Really, nobody. Maybe "Huck" for Huckabee, but that's about it.

So let's expand our definition of nickname to include a distinctive first name or middle name that a candidate is truly known by.

Among the major candidates on the Democratic side, that brings in Hillary, but not Obama (Barack is distinctive, but it's not used much in the campaign) or John Edwards. On the Republican side, we get Huck, Mitt, Rudy, and Fred! (always with an exclamation point). John McCain is still nowhere to be found, and "Maverick" doesn't count, since it's usually his detractors who use it.

This is actually very troubling.

Going into Super Tuesday, it looks as if Hillary and McCain could be well on the way to winning the nominations of their parties. One with a nickname, broadly defined, and one without.

Why is this troubling? Consider the history. I'm going to go through the past presidential elections starting with 1952 to show that there is a slight but distinct edge for the candidate with a nickname. For each election, I'm going to rate the nickname comparison on a scale of 1 to 3 (slight, moderate, or strong) with a plus or a minus sign to indicate whether the candidate with the nickname won or lost.

Next, I'm going to commit an act of mathematics that would have gotten me a 15-yard penalty at my undergraduate math department for "intentional oversimplification": I'm going to average the scores. If you disagree with my approach or my numbers, put it in the comments.

Here we go:

1952

Ike vs. Adlai. One could call this a wash, but "Ike" was used by his supporters much more during the campaign. Eisenhower beat Stevenson. I'm going to rate this a + 1.

1956

Ike vs. Adlai again. Same result. + 1.

1960

JFK vs. Nixon. Serious nickname. Kennedy beat Nixon. + 3.

1964

LBJ vs. Goldwater. Johnson beat Goldwater. "AuH2O" was a cute bumper sticker, but it wasn't a nickname for Goldwater. This election gets a + 3.

1968

HHH vs. Nixon. Lots of people referred to Humphrey in writing as HHH, but he wasn't identified as such in nearly the same way that Kennedy and Johnson were with their initials. And in any event, Nixon won. I rate this a - 2. The negative sign means the candidate with a nickname lost.

1972

Nixon vs. McGovern. Neither had a real nickname, other than Nixon's "Tricky Dick." I call this a wash. A big, fat 0.

1976

"Jimmy" Carter vs. Gerald Ford. Carter had to take action, sometimes legal action, to force states to list him as "Jimmy" on the ballot, instead of James Earl. Most states then required an official, legal name. Carter won, so I give him a + 2.

1980

Reagan vs. Carter. Reagan was sometimes known as "Dutch," but really, Reagan was REAGAN, larger than life and without a nickname. Carter, execrable as he was, was "Jimmy." Reagan beat him, so this election gets a - 2.

1984

Reagan vs. Mondale. Mondale was sometimes known as "Fritz," but his supporters rarely used that name for him during the campaign. I'd call this one a wash, or 0.

1988

Bush vs. Dukakis. Neither really had a nickname. Both were indescribably dull. I'd call this a wash, too, or 0.

1992

Bush vs. Clinton. Clinton played up the "Bubba" angle, not so much for a nickname as for his southern background. He won. This is a close call, but I'd give it a + 1.

1996

Clinton vs. Dole. Bob Dole's nickname was Bob Dole, in the third person. He gets no credit. He loses big time. As above, this is a + 1.

2000

Bush vs. Gore. Bush was often "Dubya" or "W," and his supporters used those appellations a lot of the time. Gore was simply Gore (or, if you're Rush Limbaugh, Algore). Bush won. (Yes, he really did, you lunatics.) So I give this a + 2.

2004

Bush vs. Kerry. Kerry wanted to be the second coming of JFK, but no one paid any attention. Bush won again. I give this a + 2.

CONCLUSION

The total of all the ratings is 12 for 14 presidential elections, an average of just under 1, a slight but very distinct positive correlation with nickname.

This truly is not a good sign, because Hillary! has a noticeable edge over McCain.

We have a looming nickname gap, and the Republicans would be well advised to do something about it.

Click here to read more . . .

After the Democratic debate

Hillary Clinton laughs along with two undecided

Democratic voters who asked questions

of the candidates at Thursday's debate on CNN.

* * * * *

(See also here, here, and here.)

Click here to read more . . .

Flu season's coming

I loved this ad mocking S-CHIP's reliance on the cigarette tax. The male actor is pretty good in his role, too.

"Hey, thanks, guys! Flu season's coming."

Click here to read more . . .

"Frozen cash" congressman has some success in court

With the D.C. Circuit holding that the search of the office of Congressman William "Frozen Cash" Jefferson (D-Louisiana) violated the Speech Or Debate Clause, and that some materials had to be returned to him, it's time to recycle my photo comic from last year, "Bush consults the Chief of Control."

Click here to read more . . .

The photo that made Kos's head explode

This photo appears in the RJC Bulletin, dated May - June 2007, which just arrived in the mail. Lieberman was speaking about the need to win in Iraq.


That explosion you hear . . .

UPDATE (6/18): In response to Bruce's comment about Lieberman, I'm offering a link to my photo comic of Ned Lamont.

Click here to read more . . .

Late April linkfest

I barely have time to yawn these days, but I didn't want a few classic stories to go by unnoticed. So you'll excuse me if I put them in a linkfest.

1. You know how little kids have potty mouths these days? Well, check out the newest fad: potty heads.

LONDON (Reuters) - Firefighters said on Wednesday they had come to a [2-1/2 year old] boy's rescue after he got a toilet seat stuck on his head which he couldn't get off.

That must have been some party!

2. Florida: A state senator who was "convicted of grand theft for paying his office staff with state money while he worked on his re-election campaign" but is still in office has introduced a bill that would allow schools to suspend students for up to 10 days for showing their underwear. The bill is called "Pull Up Your Britches." The link contains video.

3. A British documentary on the "telly," called "Human Footprint," makes a remarkable claim: "The average person will eat over 10,000 bars of chocolate, shed 121 pints of tears and have sex more than 4,200 times" over a lifetime. The article at the link is accompanied by a chart stating how much or how many in a lifetime for a whole variety of things.

Particularly relevant to Pillage Idiot is this: "35,815 litres of wind passed." This figure might make sense to me if I knew how many inches there are in a litre.

And if you believe all of these figures, that means you had better get going if you want to have sex 4,239 times in your lifetime, which coincidentally is the exactly the same number of rolls of toilet paper you'll use. Unless, of course, you're Sheryl Crow.

4. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi speak to the press, and Harry puts his hand on Nancy's shoulder. Nancy pretends she doesn't mind. But she's faking it.

(1-3 via Fark, 4 via Hot Air)

UPDATE: 5. Ace updates a post from HuffPo about how to tell if your husband is gay. My answer: "Are you a man? If so, your husband is gay. So are you."

Click here to read more . . .