Majority Leader Harry Reid views Burris as "unacceptable," the aide said.

I'm going to need some popcorn. Stat!

Original Post...

Chutzpah, defiance and the hair...that's the Blago we've come to know and loathe.

Gov. Blagojevich today is expected to name former state Comptroller and Attorney General Roland Burris to Illinois' vacant U.S. Senate seat, a knowledgeable source said this morning.

A news conference is scheduled for 2 p.m.

Former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris, 71, had lobbied the governor for the position in recent weeks.

Here's Burris' law firm bio. He's obviously a party guy and my guess is everyone will say nice things about him, his unquestionable personal integrity and how he represents a choice everyone can agree on so no taint here, move along and we'll fight it out in two years. Cause that boys and girls is the Chicago way.

Below the fold is a letter Harry Reid and all the Democrats in the Senate sent few weeks back to Blago saying don't make an appointment. more...

Posted by: DrewM at 10:00 AM | Comments (120)
Post contains 451 words, total size 3 kb.

A funny thing happened on the way to the coronation (sorry NYT link).

Assemblyman Daniel J. OÂ’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side. Mr. OÂ’Donnell met with Mr. Paterson for about 45 minutes on Monday afternoon in the governorÂ’s Midtown office for what Mr. OÂ’Donnell said was his formal interview for the Senate seat.

...The governor’s chief spokeswoman, Risa B. Heller, confirmed that Mr. Paterson spoke to Mr. O’Donnell as part of the conversations that the governor is having with “a number of people” about the job. She declined, however, to say how many people Mr. Paterson has interviewed.

There's a whole slew of candidates listed. My front runner, Rep. Kristen Gillibrand isn't on there but I'm sticking with her as my guess. She's a woman who is nominally from upstate but has lots of ties with NYC power brokers (she represents an upstate district but pretty much used her summer home as her primary residence to do it).

Princess put Patterson in a bad spot with this. If he picks her, he looks weak (remember he's only the Governor because of Client #9's resignation), like he's the creature of the NY city and national elites. He'll piss off working Democratic politicians who were already less than thrilled about getting bigfooted by Hills 8 years ago and don't seem to like Ms. Kennedy all that much.

Of course, if he doesn't pick Sweet Caroline, he'll piss of a lot of NY money people (no, that's not code for Jews).

The quandary is, he needs both groups to be elected in 2010. See, a few months back he was a shoe-in. A sitting black, legally blind, Democrat governor will cruise to victory in NY 9 times out of 10. The 10th time requires something crazy like say, a state budget meltdown. Guess what is going on right now in NY?

I'm not saying the NY Republican party (is there still such a thing?) can rouse it self to challenge Paterson in 2 years but conditions will be more favorable for it than we thought just a few months ago. Governor Rudy, anyone?

As always there are other issues involved, Chuck "Is That A Camera" Schumer's ego and a strange battle over control of the state Senate to name just two that have to be factored into Patterson's decision. This is simply a headache and circus he doesn't need.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:57 AM | Comments (21)
Post contains 431 words, total size 3 kb.

Cpl. Jonathan Yale and Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter (USMC) stood their ground so others might live.

Some Iraqis told him they were incredulous that the two Marines had not fled.

When Marine technicians restored a damaged security camera, the images were undeniable.

While Iraqi police fled, Haerter and Yale had never flinched and never stopped firing as the Mercedes truck -- the same model used in the Beirut bombing -- sped directly toward them.

Without their steadfastness, the truck would probably have penetrated the compound before it exploded, and 50 or more Marines and Iraqis would have been killed. The incident happened in just six seconds.

"No time to talk it over; no time to call the lieutenant; no time to think about their own lives or even the American and Iraqi lives they were protecting," (Marine Maj. Gen. John) Kelly said. "More than enough time, however, to do their duty. They never hesitated or tried to escape."

Each Marine will be posthumously awarded the Navy Cross (an award for valor second only to the Medal of Honor) early next year.

"Indythinker" points out that Yale and Haerter each have tribute sites dedicated to their memories.

Also, polynikes reminds us of the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund.

(h/t Lex)

Posted by: DrewM at 07:11 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 221 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:07 AM | Comments (73)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Congratulations to Bristol and Levi.

Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston on Sunday. He weighed 7 pounds, 4 ounces.

Andrew Sullivan is still trying to do the math.

Posted by: DrewM at 04:29 PM | Comments (309)
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Shit. I cratered like the Cowgirls in Philly yesterday.

Here's the last round up for you morons. Physics Geek takes the gold, with an impressive run to push his lead up 2.

Mesablue kisses his sister.

And somehow I manage to stay in the top five.

1 Physics Geek 139
2 mesablue 137
3 buzzion 135
3 Is pigskin kosher? (joshin) 135
5 Nodakdrunkhobos 134
5 Dr. Remulak 134
7 Dave in Texas 132
7 jimmytheleg3 132

ALSO: jimmytheleg3 is a BOS. Whatever the hell that is.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 04:22 PM | Comments (21)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Heh. more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:11 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

As I'm going to be at the Moronapalooza anyway.

Posted by: Ace at 02:07 PM | Comments (91)
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

This is one of those highly nuanced sorts of topics I want to stay away from because, frankly, nuance takes more work than unqualified declarations, so here's Allah on the GOP chairman candidate's passing around of Paul Shanklin's Barack the Magic Negro.

Here's the nuance: Do I think Shanklin's thing is offensive? Not... exactly.

Yes, I say this myself, and thought I originated the notion, until I found out Spike Lee had been talking about the "Magic Negro" syndrome in Hollywood for years. (Yes, like Billy Blasjowski in Night Shift, I invented it, except they already had it.)

But here's the thing. Spike Lee and later David Ehrenstein (who mentioned the phrase in connection to Barack Obama in an LA Times piece (I think) a year or so back) are both black. David Ehrenstein is half-black, but that counts.

The phrase is used to denote Hollywood's use of magical black men who show up to solve all of a white hero's problems. E.g., The Legend of Baggar Vance, where a magical Will Smith steps out of the shadows to help Matt Damon "get his swing back" in golf. The word "Negro" is meant pointedly -- and works far better than "magical black man" -- because it's designed to highlight that while Hollywood imagines it's being all progressive and forward-thinking in writing such roles, they're actually sort of demeaning.

For example, no Magic Negro resembling Will Smith or Morgan Freeman or even Michael Clarke Duncan has ever suddenly knocked on my door to help me solve all of my relationship troubles with some good old-fashioned southern-fried cornpone wisdom. I can't even get an extra thing of BBQ sauce at KFC, so I'm pretty sure blacks aren't particularly concerned about guiding me through my various psychological blocks.

Anyway, the use of the word "Negro" rather than "Black Man" underscores the fact that these roles cast blacks in a servile light, makes them no more than plot-objects, etc., displaying them as lacking their own inner light and personal agenda other than serving the needs of white people.

So: The word "Negro" is used there with a bit of racial bite. Black critics who use the term are angry that black actors are being put into what they see as the magical-reality equivalent of house-slave roles.

That's part of the reason that "Magical Negro" has caught on and "Magical Black Man" has not -- the former has bite. It's edgy. It's just right up to the line of being offensive, while not really being quite offensive.

At any rate: While two black guys have done more to popularize the term than, say, me (and I am saddened I am not credited with doing my own part), it's still kinda owned by blacks, who can toss out the word "Negro" with impunity, because they're using it not to call other blacks by a retrograde term, but to underescore the retrograde thinking behind these type of roles.

So the question of whether or not it's offensive really turns on intent. And blacks are pretty suspicious of Republican intent from the jump anyway. Spike Lee would say he can use it and whites can't because he's using the word "Negro" to highlight centuries-old attitudes about blacks, whereas whites are just digging the phrase mostly because it's giggle-worthy way to get away with saying an almost-forbidden word.

And, on my part... yeah, that latter thing is part of the appeal. I admit it: I'm using it for both reasons. Kinda-forbidden but not quite technically offensive language is sometimes funny. Try saying "octoroon" in mixed company for no particular reason, for example.* Try: "Oh, my friend Charles, he's a perfectly delightful octoroon." Silence and awkward tension. Nervous titters and social horror.

Good stuff.

The fact that it's a word people aren't quite sure they're allowed to say makes it, well, shock humor. (A mild sort of shock, yes, but still in that category.)

But I'm an idiot. I'm not running for RNC chair.

In short, it's really stupid for a white candidate for GOP chairman to think he can get away with this. He can't. Duh. One can argue double-standards until one turns blue but one can't argue with the fact they exist, or that there are consequences for running afoul of them. The GOP is perpetually derided by the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) as being "against blacks" because, it is claimed, that we're against policies that help blacks.

Given that reality, it's hardly a smart move to give blacks and race-conscious whites even more reason to be distrustful of the party and our motives.

The more likely a joke is to give offense, the more howlingly funny it had better be to justify that offense. Shaklin's parody is so-so, not really anywhere near his greatest hits CD, and it's kinda old by now in any event.

Not really worth it. Quite the opposite. Counterproductive and stupid, and even or me -- someone mostly willing to give him the benefit of the doubt -- leaving me wondering what he was going for here, exactly.

I kinda wonder if this is his idea of pandering -- "Hey, vote for me. I'll use the word 'Negro.' You guys like that, right?"

I don't think he was really thinking that. But I'm kinda baffled.

And if this cat thinks he's got the chops to charm the media and attract fresh voters to the GOP -- well, this is not exactly giving me confidence in his judgment.

It's 2008, we have the media more overtly in the bag for the Democrats than at any time this century, and we just lost two bruising elections in a row.

What the hell, man? What, things aren't difficult enough for us as it is? You want to make things a little harder because you dig big challenges?

Stupid. I don't even have to reach the actual substantive issue of racial insensitivity because this guy is an Epic Fail on judgment and savvy. Next.

* I'm legally obligated to say that "mixed company" doesn't mean racially mixed company, unless those of other races are your friends and know what you're up to.

I have to say that, or else, my lawyer advises, one of you morons will try this and I'll get sued for provoking a light to medium race riot.

By the Fucking Way: I'm pretty damn sure I did coin "Magic Retard," though I see now everyone is saying it.

Well, not everyone, but other morons who type on the internet.

Posted by: Ace at 12:38 PM | Comments (360)
Post contains 1098 words, total size 7 kb.

Yeah, well, apologies for the second post about Jessica Valenti. But this is seriously dumb.

Prager makes the case which, I'm thinking, most men agree with: Hey, honey? I know you're not in the mood tonight, but then, I wasn't in the mood to spend six hours shopping for tea-cozies and flan-cups at Bed Bath and Beyond, either. Give me a pity hand-jay for crying out loud.

He's more delicate:

The subject is one of the most common problems that besets marriages: the wife who is “not in the mood” and the consequently frustrated and hurt husband.

...

It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.

First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.

This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.

Most women don't seem to agree with this logic (alas), but last time I checked there's no crime committed in asking someone to change their attitude.

Jessica Valenti, author of the upcoming book Did I Mention the Time a Guy Once Used the Word "Finger" In Mixed Company?, calls this an advocacy of marital rape:

It takes a certain je ne sais quoi to unabashedly argue in favor of marital rape. Of course columnist Dennis Prager doesn't call it that. No no, he prefers to use some sort of bizarre high school logic about how ladies who really love their man will "give her body" on demand.

...

And here I thought the "if you really loved me" argument was only relegated to after-school specials! How wrong I was.

...

Haha, because the ideas of men's bodies as commodities is ridiculous, of course! Outside of the insulting notion that men only recognize love through sex, Prager also seems to think that sex is simply about women "giving" their bodies to men. (In fact, he writes some variation of the phrase "give your body" or "deprive your body" multiple times in the article.) The idea that sex could be a mutually enjoyable and wanted expression of love is lost on the dude. Which is actually pretty sad.

Um, no, it's not lost on him, he's just, you know, accepting the reality that men want sex more often than women, and things like work-stress will put a woman out of the mood for sex while a guy with work-stress, on the other hand, thinks that pretty much sex would be the best thing he could imagine to relax him.

In other words, m'dear, he's living in the real world, and you're living in a fantasy world of no sexual differences whatsoever.

PS, when these chicks aren't railing about how awful it is to be called a "slut" because they have sex with strangers, they're also advocating sexually depriving husbands of sex.

It kinda makes no sense whatsoever -- sleep around with whatever guy chats you up at the bar, but don't put out for the guy who's dumb enough to marry you.

Okay, that's enough with Jessica Valenti, author of her most serious, scholarly book yet, a hard-hitting, paradigm-shifting work about the nuances of female sexuality, tentatively titled Milk, Milk, Lemonade, Fudge, unless she can figure out a way to tastefully work the word "Vulva" in there somewhere.

Posted by: Ace at 11:24 AM | Comments (307)
Post contains 745 words, total size 4 kb.