Maggie's Farm

A few minutes after that, I heard another memorable quote and jotted down the time.  Then another.  Then-

At that point I realized the whole damn video was turning into a highlight reel.  I realized that this wasn't a debate or a forum or even an in-depth discussion.

It was a seminar.

There quickly comes a point when you realize you've never heard anything quite like this before, and certainly not outside academia.  It isn't just that both of these people are masters of the field of foreign policy, but they're both master tacticians, as well.  You not only hear the what and why, but the how to, as well.

If Newt's the 'Big Picture' guy, Huntsman isn't far behind.  His serving as Ambassador to China gave him a world view that none of the other candidates can touch save Gingrich.  The extra dimension he provided to the affair is his in-depth knowledge on how to deal with this rising economic-military behemoth, while Gingrich does his usual superb job of keeping things in historical perspective.

When you have an hour and a half to spare sometime, give it a spin. The link is here.  Click on the link over to the right to begin play.

This isn't something to be rushed through or watched in pieces.  You'll see what I mean at the end.  This is an event to be savored.

Up until the other day, I thought this was the hottest, coolest, hippest, fabbest remote-controlled flying airplane vehicle device thingamabob in town:

But that was then.

Meet the new champ:

Every now and then I read some article on how the Web is running out of bandwidth, or the government is going to take it over, or the UN is going to control it, or the increase in domain extensions is going to fragmentize it, or the corporations will soon own everything, or any of a dozen scenarios that spell certain doom.

I think, if only.

Personally, I'd be delighted to see a new 'web' spring up.  Personal sites only, please.  Commercial ventures okay if owned by only one person.

The problem is that the Web has gotten so massive that trying to search for info is becoming exceedingly difficult.  Your initial search will probably come up with millions of hits.  Refine it and, if you're lucky, it'll get it down to a mere tens of thousands.

When it gets near to impossible is when you're totally lacking in semi-unique 'keywords'.  I twice spent over an hour looking for a WordPress plugin that would display the 'last modified' date when listing the posts — and have it be clickable so the posts could be sorted that way (like it does with the name of the posts, author, date, etc).

And I got nowhere fast, simply because there just wasn't any keyword that helped zone in on the answer.  I just now did a search for "wordpress plugin list last modified" and came up with the expected 1.2 million hits.  I have Google display 20 hits per page, so, at 10 minutes per page tracking down leads per 8 hours a day, that's 3.4 years to go through them all.

If you, like me, simply don't have the 3.4 years available to do a proper Google search, there are some nifty little tricks that can help out immensely.

Aren't there always? xxxxx

Spoiler alert: I usually just include a brief clip or two in my movie reviews so as not to give too much away, but the second part of this video is somewhat near the end so I figured it deserved an official spoiler alert.  It's not the climax of the film, though, just a major hurdle to be overcome.  As usual, this is designed to be played in full-screen mode, so click the little gadget on the player's tool bar to expand it, ESC to bring it back down.

The Viking god Thor was a pretty awesome dude, right?  I mean, he was really strong and was the god of thunder and had that really cool hammer and-

Wait a sec.

A hammer?  You mean, like, if a bunch of nails stage a rebellion, Thor's the guy to call?

A hammer?  I warned him, "You know, you could put an eye out with that thing!"  So, that's who you're up against?  Someone who can give you a really nasty conk on the ol' noggin?

A hammer?

So there I was watching Thor the other night and wow, what a great movie.  I confess I usually don't like 'superhero' movies.  I thought Batman 6 stunk up the joint, every Superman has been absolutely terrible (except every scene with the irrepressible Gene Hackman, of course), I never bothered watching the other Spiderman movies after that first travesty, and the list goes on. Green Lantern and Captain America are both in my Netflix queue, but I'm not hopeful.

Side question: If you were producing the first major 'Superman' movie of the modern era, wouldn't you want the plot to be a little more plausible than "If you reverse the rotation of the Earth, time goes backwards"?

Anyway, not only was Thor terrific, but it also answered our original question:

A hammer?

Yes, Virginia, a hammer.  Here are three ways in which he uses the empowered hammer Mjölnir, utilizing elements such as lightning, raw energy, and the awesome cyclonic power of the vortex.

Elements you would expect from the God of Thunder.

Like the last line in the clip, there are a handful of cute comedic moments blended in.  When they first come across the handsome, unconscious Thor, one of the girls says, "Whoa, does he need CPR?  Because I totally know CPR."

A few more notes are below the fold.

And by the way, happy Thor's Day, everyone.

This is kind of an 'observation test'.  Let's see if you can figure out the answer to the question, "Why can't I market this remarkable item?" before the end.

How about a coffee mug that keeps your coffee warm up to ten times longer than a normal coffee mug?

Sounds pretty amazing — and sellable — doesn't it?  I mean, lots of people prefer their coffee hot, and probably subconsciously drink it faster than they normally would, just to get it while it's still warm.  Me, I use a coffee mug warmer plate which keeps it hot and allows me to drink it at a leisurely pace.

And think what an ad would look like for The Magic Coffee Mug.  You'd have a bar graph showing how long various popular mugs keep the coffee warm, and while the other bars on the graph would be a quarter-inch high, The Magic Coffee Mug's would be four inches high.  Very impressive, and sure to ignite a million sales.

Alas, I can't market this amazing product, even though I could probably get them for dirt cheap.

But let's start at the beginning.

Check this out:

The bad news is that she wasn't referring to Obama, dagnabbit.  She thought she was just doing a voice-over and was flipping off some guys in the studio who were trying to distract her.  There's a nice summation of it here.

Still, it's a beautiful moment.

Maybe next time.

Humph.

There's nothing quite like being chewed out by the boss to act as a motivational factor.  For those of you who saw my morning post, I pretty-much kissed off any further debate posts because of the lack of responses the recent posts have been getting.  Worse, of the five comments left in my last debate wrap-up, all five were deprecating and derogatory of the candidates, that same ol' whiny "Can't we have somebody ELSE?" attitude I see in the comments over at Hot Air and PJ Media.  As I said to Bird Dog in email, I can abide 0 comments, but I can't abide -5.

Anyways, after a couple of verbal lashings from the boss and some emails drifting in from (now-former) friends calling me 'Dr. Bitchy' and 'jma' (a real long-time Farmer) piping up in the comments to another post, I figure I'm cursed with the job.  Blogging isn't an easy life, let me tell you.

Maybe it's just a simple matter of imposing a new comments rule:

Happy thoughts only.

As far as the CNN debate goes, I don't have the time to write a full wrap-up, but I do think one interesting aspect of it should be mentioned.

In the previous two debates, not a barb or bomb was hurled.  As I noted at the time, the candidates were all in complete agreement that Social Security needed a major overhaul and abortion-on-demand wasn't the way to go, and they only differed on exactly how they'd approach the problem.

But when it comes to things like national security, with such gems as a nuclear-armed, Islamic-driven nation like Pakistan on the table, the rules change.  The question now isn't 'how to fix the problem', but where does the problem exist?

Do we threaten to cut off aid to them?  Do we offer them even more money?  Do we handle them with kid gloves?  Do we talk tough to them, threatening them with sanctions?  Do we seek their permission for every drone we lob at some bad guy or do we just tell them hey, if you aren't going to handle it, then we will, and lob away to our heart's content?  Is there a 'problem' with Pakistan at all, and, if so, is it with the government or the fundamentalists?

So, while no bombs were hurled, there was a lot of electrically-charged "I highly disagree with..." going on as each chose to stake out their claim.  I'm not sure two candidates agreed completely with one another the entire evening, in vast contrast to the amity they've shared in the last two debates.  It wasn't quite cantankerous, but heading that direction quickly.

I'd also note that we had a debate on national security just a few weeks ago and there was nowhere near the distance between the candidates as was displayed last night.  Credit the good folk at CNN and famed game show host Wolf "Blitz" Blitzer for coming up with just the right questions to create the most division and animosity between them.  As they say, professionalism always shows.

First, a little background.  All files you see and hear via your browser are downloaded to your computer first.  You may think you're reading a web page on some server in New Englandtown, but you're actually reading a file on your computer, and any pics, videos and music you see or hear are also being read from your computer.

Using Internet Explorer, these files are placed in a folder called 'Temporary Internet Files'.  They're 'temporary' because only so much disk space is allotted for them and they roll off the back end as new files arrive.  Firefox keeps them in a 'Cache' folder buried deep in the 'Users' folder.

The problem is that a web page can be coded so that certain items, like their precious videos, won't be put into cache for later retrieval, all in a determined effort to prevent us from stealing saving them.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

Ah, there you are.  Couldn't find you in the crowd.  Thank goodness for that GPS tracking device in your iPhone, huh?  I hopped on the Web, punched in your telephone number and there you were.  This modern technology is just amazing.

Me, I'm not partial to any OS.  Hell, given my druthers, I'd be on my Amiga 1200 right now.  See, I hold to this wild, unconventional notion that once a program is up, it doesn't matter what the hell the OS is.  Not once, in umpteen billion computer articles written over 20 years, have I ever said one OS was "better" than another.

So, now that you don't hate me too much for being one of those prissy, starched-shirt PC users, can I ask a question?  I'd normally just do a Google search, but since I wouldn't have a Mac to test it on, it wouldn't do much good.

As I understand it, there's some way Macs can play online WMV video files.  They can't normally because WMV is a proprietary streaming format and the prissy, starched-shirt PC users at Microsoft want a bazillion dollars from Apple for the licensing rights to play them.  In turn, Apple wants a bazillion dollars from Microsoft so PCs can play streaming Quicktime videos, so it all evens out, neither can play the other, and thankfully the only people hurt are us users.

The solution was mentioned once in the comments here, years ago.  I had (innocently, to be sure) posted a link to a clip in Doc's Bag O' Clips, which are WMV files, and one Mac user promptly bitched moaned cursed me out politely noted that WMVs don't play on Macs.  Another Mac user piped up with the answer, but I failed to jot it down.

I'd like to put the info in the 'tech' section of the 'Clips' area so Mac users can enjoy the videos as well.  All of the rest of the videos on the site are in standard FLV format, but for full-screen, knock-your-socks-off, almost-DVD quality online videos, WMV is the only way to go in the streaming world.

Since I won't be able to run it myself, please leave some brief instructions on where to get it and how to install and run it.  I'll not only put the info in my 'Clips' area but also make a post of it here for future linkable goodness.  I'll even mention you by name in the article so later you can impress the babes by shyly admitting, "Well, yes, I am published."

Thanks!

Update: I think we got it, thanks to MikeNC and 'muleheadedfarmer'.

For you daredevils out there who want to give this a go, try this site.  Then click on the above link and test out one of the clips.  In theory, Quicktime should open and everything should play just fine.  Please let me know in the comments what blows up melts down how it goes.

Tech note: streaming WMV files are 'activated' by a small WMA text file.  I point it out so you won't be confused if you see both extensions mentioned.  The actual video is a WMV file, initiated by a WMA file, which is what the link goes to.

This was just as good, maybe even better, than the round table debate.  The video is here.  There's just something about the candidates sitting at a table that both lends itself to a more relaxed atmosphere, yet makes the whole event seem more 'businesslike', rather than sterile and 'debatelike'.

Like the last two debates, no bombs or barbs were hurled, and, much like the Cain-Gingrich confab, it was usually left to the participants to decide who answered what.  More specifically, the moderator might ask the question of a specific candidate to get the ball rolling, then it was left to the group if anyone wanted to pipe up after that.  It was cool, calm and collected.

There's a point to be made right from the start.  This was a forum about morals and values, which actually is the definition of 'political party', in the sense that pragmatic and scientific issues such as defense spending, immigration and global warming have no business, whatsoever, being aligned with one political party or the other.  The parties are supposed to be about moral issues like abortion and capital punishment; things that define a human being.  How carbon dioxide reacts in the atmosphere is not something that defines a human being.

This does, however, work to our benefit, because there are many people out there who might identify with the Democrats on moral issues, but not buy into the AGW hoax and think we ought to drill, baby, drill in ANWR and immediately start building a hundred nuclear power plants.  So they end up being Independents simply because they have nowhere else to turn.  And Independents usually study the facts and know some history and, in theory, will be able to deduce that keeping a socialist in the White House for another four years is perhaps not the best of ideas.

So this debate was a little more important than how it might appear at first glance.  This is the one that goes to the core.

This has been floating around recently and I thought it deserved a spot here.

The Debt Generation speaks:

Dear Republican National Committee:  Come the general election, please discourage our candidate from running any self-promotional ads.  Just run variations of the above over and over and over and over and over again, covering all ages, styles, types and classes of Americans.

That should be enough.

Thank you,
America

Well, darn.

I was all enthused about this afternoon's debate because of its different style and fewer participants until I saw a link this morning to an article on American Thinker, a highly-respected right-wing blog site, and read Prepare Yourself for Obama's Second Term, a thorough and persuasive demolition of the GOP's chances.

So I guess we should call this the "Why bother?" debate.  Because, let's face it, according to the above article, we're just wasting our time, and it would be a lot better and healthier for the nation as a whole to simply give up now and concede the election.  I'm sure this national feeling of peace and harmony was at the forefront of the writer's mind, and possibly those who linked to it.  What's four more short years of Obama compared to how an impassioned and contentious election would tear the nation apart?  It's nice to see that someone out there is looking at the bigger picture and seeing what we little people don't.

Nevertheless, I guess I'll dourly plunder on with this post.  Haven't got anything better to write about at the moment.

This afternoon's dour waste of everyone's time is brought to you by 'family' groups, such as Family Leader and the National Organization for Marriage.

"This is not a debate," dourly said Bob Vander Plaats, President and CEO of The FAMiLY LEADER. "Our meaningless purpose is simply to learn about their dour worldviews and to listen to their dour hearts on key family issues. The discussion will allow us to see a more personal side of the dour and meaningless candidates."

(I edited the above quote a bit to bring it up to modern standards.)

I dourly note that neither Romney or Huntsman will be participating.  What might make the event interesting, albeit in a dour and meaningless way, is that it's being touted as a 'forum', rather than a 'debate', so that should be fun to see, even if it is a total waste of everyone's time.

The good news is that you won't lose any of your valuable TV time as it's only being streamed via the miracle of the World Wide Web.  Better yet, it's on at a grossly early 5 pm EST, so hopefully the entire nation will be too busy to watch this inconsequential pile of platitudes leading up to a foregone election.

Update: I meaninglessly just spotted that the sponsor site says "64 television stations will carry either live or delayed broadcasts" so check your local listings, although I doubt any station carrying it would bother mentioning it.

Again, I think the nation as a whole owes a debt of gratitude to American Thinker and their clear understanding of our hopeless chances (as well as those who linked to their fine piece) and, like the way global warming is finally dead, so, too, is this election, and I'm sure we've all got more important things to do than stare at some stupid computer in the middle of a beautiful Saturday afternoon when we should be out there living life to its fullest and doing important things, like cleaning the garage and washing the car.

Or, you could completely disregard the article's defeatist message and approach this afternoon's event with the same zeal and enthusiasm with which you've approached the others in our determined effort to get this horseshit socialist out of the White House.

Your call.

"Popcorn!  Popcorn!  Get yer fresh popcorn!"

"Batter up!"

Crack!

"And the centerfielder's going back... back...  Home run, Team Republican!"

Sorry, just getting in the mood.

With this extraordinarily long lull between debates (an entire week), I thought I'd step back and take a fresh look at things.  Armed with the very latest in caffeine-fortified psychotropic drugs and a Jack Daniels I.V. drip, I'm prepared to take on such challenging questions as, "Does bra size matter in a presidential race?", and "Would you vote for someone with an opposing astrological sign?"  That's why Maggie hired me, to take on tough, penetrating questions like these that no other blogger dares address.

By the way, I had a rare insight while writing this post and have resolved not to say too many scornful, derisive, abusive, reprehensible things about Ron Paul ever again.  So that's good news for our Ron Paul fan(s) out there.

"Peanuts!  Peanuts!  Get yer fresh peanuts!"

Batter up.

After last Saturday night's debate, I spent three hours writing one of the best wrap-ups yet.  When I awoke the next morning, it had vanished from the Maggie's editor.

I have four logical theories on what might have happened:

1. The dog ate the server's hard drive.

2. Bird Dog, ever mindful of the "politically centrist" in the site's banner and the possibility of class action law suits for false advertising, read how many harsh, critical things I'd written about the liberal scum-dog moderators and immediately deleted the post to save the site's reputation.  Because, as everybody knows, if there's one thing a politically-centrist site would never, ever, do, it would be to disparage one side without fairly and centristically disparaging the other.

3. The webmaster, never dreaming in his wildest dreams that some demented blogger would actually be writing on a Saturday night when he's supposed to be out there having one of those "life" things I read about did some kind of maintenance routine, or maybe an upgrade didn't work and he hit 'Restore', and that was that.

4. God is a Democrat, and omnipotently seeing that my article was destined to be viewed as the "greatest piece of literature in the history of mankind" and would be read in every language on every continent on earth and play the decisive role in getting Sarah Palin and Chris Christie elected Empress and Vice-Emperor Of The World (Newt Gingrich as Secretary of Earth, Mark Steyn as Chief of Staff), decided He'd better nip it in the bud.  "This Palin woman just doesn't know her place," He mumbled.  "And what's with that accent!"

There were, however, two telling moments during the debate, so I thought I'd grab the YouTube clips and snip out the scenes for your enjoyment.

Since liberal moderators will be speaking and there might be children present, decorum dictates that we continue below the fold.

Yes, yes, I know it's like Christmas came early, but there's another debate on tonight.  What makes this one a little different is that this is the first debate aired on one of those old-timey 'broadcast' channels, often referred to as 'cave man channels' in the cable industry.  I believe a roof antenna is required, if I remember my childhood correctly.  Rabbit ears can be enhanced by wrapping balls of aluminum foil around the tips.

Of course, because microwave transmissions heat up the air and thus cause global warming, they can only broadcast for an hour at a time, so you might have to scramble if you want to watch the last half-hour.

The first hour will be broadcast live on the CBS Television Network. Additional portions will be broadcast on Face The Nation, CBSNews.com, NationalJournal.com and will be available to CBS affiliate television and radio stations for a mere $5 fee.

It looks like it's being streamed on the CBS News site.

The good news is that the debate's main topic isn't something crashingly boring like economics or Social Security.  Tonight's 'primary' focus (get it?) will be on national security, and I'm eager to see how Cain defends his plan to put electrified barbed wire along the top of the southern border wall.  The moderators will probably label it 'cruel', but it's really just a matter of how much voltage is applied.  A mild, paralyzing shock never hurt anyone.

It'll also be about foreign affairs, so all Ron Paul advocates within the reach of this blog site are strongly urged to miss this one at any cost.  I'd suggest a small hammer blow to the forearm or hand, just enough to warrant an hour and a half visit to the hospital.  I promise you, the pain you'll feel will be much less than if you'd stayed home.

The question is how the audience will respond when Paul outlines his plan to distribute America's nuclear arsenal to every country in the world so that all nations can be equal, thus ending war forever.  The audience might go for that, but they'll probably stop short when he suggests we rename Washington, D.C. to Ahmadinejadville.  That guy really knows how to push boundaries, doesn't he?

As far as who's hosting the show besides CBS, we're in luck.  It's some magazine called the 'National Journal' and it appears from their web site to be quite fair and evenhanded, which is just what we need after the CNBC Attack Machine went into overdrive last Wednesday.

Hold on, let me grab a quick screen shot:

Yep, looks fair and balanced to me.  Actually, I thought they went a little easy on Perry, but maybe they're trying to show that they're above picking on him just because he had a small memory lapse in the last debate, although it's doubtful any professional media organization would ever stoop that low.

The fair and impartial extravaganza begins at 8 pm EST on your local Cave Man Channel.

I usually don't get to include videos in the debate wrap-ups because of the time crunch, but since last Wednesday's debate wasn't streamed and I had to watch it on YouTube, I figured I'd take advantage of the opportunity and snip out a few choice moments.  Rather than the usual debate wrap-up, this'll be commentary on the vids and a few side thoughts.

Now here's a surprise:

The debates are getting better.

Although I didn't catch it live, I eventually saw it on video and the gang was on.  My guess is that the moderators coming right out of the gate with their attack program really woke everybody up.

That is, if you consider the second question as 'out of the gate'.

The first question sounded fairly innocuous; how will Italy's impending meltdown affect America, and should we do anything to help them?  A fair and reasonable question, directed to Mr. Cain.

Cain responds as you'd expect, pointing out that we can't really help them, and we should be focusing, instead, on the domestic economy.  And how does the moderator respond?  She phrases it like a statement, rather than a question:

"So, to be clear, focus on the domestic economy and allow Italy to fail."

Yeah, that's it, Maria.  Focus on the economy and allow Italy to sink into the fiery abyss of hell incarnate, thereby telling every Italian-American in the audience, "Hey, screw your grandparents!  Let 'em die!"  Not surprisingly, Cain didn't bite, and when the question was directed to Romney, he said the same thing; that Europe was perfectly capable of fixing itself, thankyouverymuch.

From that point on, I wouldn't say the candidates were particularly on their 'best behavior' with the moderators.  Three or four times a moderator cut in during an answer and was rewarded with a snippy "Pardon me, but do you mind if I finish?", if not outright ignoring them.  It wasn't 'antagonistic', but certainly no undue respect was given the moderators the rest of the evening.

In truth, I don't think the moderators were quite ready for what they were about to unleash.

Maria, this just isn't a gotcha gang.

Say, what was that silly thing I said yesterday about "apathy" and blog sites like Hot Air?  Oh, right.  Guess who didn't even mention last night's debate yesterday?

Hot Air.

Update: No, wait, I was wrong.  I just discovered it this morning.  One of the main bloggers, 'God's Critic', did, indeed, write about the upcoming debate.  A half an hour before it started.

Well, alrighty, then!

The asshats at CNBC didn't stream it (the first debate that hasn't been), so I didn't see it.  If nothing else, though, at least it finally answered that pesky question, "Is there a liberal bias in the mainstream media?".  Can you imagine them not streaming a debate if Democrats were involved?  If you'd like to tell them what a bunch of biased pigs they are, their contact page is here.

And no, I haven't seen the Perry video, despite it being thrown in my face all morning long.  Quite frankly, I'm not into sadomasochism.  I read the transcript and feel sorry for the guy.  I'll take a look at where we stand in the next election post.

Rot in hell, CNBC.

First off, I've found an excellent site with all of the upcoming debate dates and videos of the past debates here.

As I see it, there are a three aspects to these political debates that, in general, the pundits out there either don't get, or refuse to acknowledge because it would devalue their article.  Or, in some cases, negate the need for the article altogether.

The first is not recognizing that debates have procedures, no matter what the topic or venue.  For example, if an opponent has used up his allotted time barking at you and continues to do so, the proper procedure is to address the moderator, not get into a cat fight with the asswipe breaking the rules, thereby breaking them yourself.

Here's Charles Krauthammer after the last debate, when Perry went bananas on poor Romney's ass:

Worse, Romney turned to the referee — moderator Anderson Cooper — with a plaintive "Anderson?" seeking intervention. An uncharacteristically weak moment.

That is precisely incorrect, and I saw this evaluation a lot after the debate.  There are protocols in place for almost any endeavor where people get together, be it school board meetings, town hall meetings, the Rotary Club, the local kids' treehouse, you name it, and political debates are no different.

We tend to throw the words 'moron' and 'imbecile' around a lot in the blogosphere, but I believe the correct word in this case is ignoramus.

And then there's this from candidate Jon Huntsman, who sat out the debate:

"I was totally embarrassed -- completely embarrassed by the lack of seriousness, the lack of focus on the issues that really matter to the American people -- issues about reviving our economy and addressing joblessness were given short shrift," said the former Utah governor.

Sounds mighty powerful and caring and candidate-y, doesn't it?  Well, Jon, here's the thing:

The candidates don't get to pick the topics!

I've seen the whiny "But they're not talking about the important stuff!" all over the place, including the comments here.  Either these people have no business behind a keyboard, or they're purposefully glossing over the obvious so they'll have something to bitch about.  As the renown TigerHawk says, can you think of a third alternative?

(As a small side note, I often use Tige's great question when reading an AGW article.  I think at the time, either this moron actually believes this tripe, or he's lying through his teeth for a greater purpose, most likely his wallet.  Can you think of a third alternative?)

And the worst of all is the dispiriting tenor of the bloggers.  "Oh, Crap, Another Debate" blares Hot Air.  "What A Snoozer!" screams PJ Media.  It's been getting worse and worse as the debates roll by.  This will sound absolutely ludicrous, but I'm the only blogger I see who's remaining excited about them and trying to keep our collective spirits up.  Yes, I excoriate the candidates mercilessly at times, but I'm also quick to pass along kudos when I feel they're deserved. I crack jokes, I point out that Michele looks particularly hot tonight, I keep us in tune with the audience's reactions, like who got the first big applause, who got the biggest applause, and which candidate is the only one to get soundly booed so far (I wouldn't want to mention any names, but his initials are R.O.N. P.A.U.L.), all in the hopes of inspiring people to stay involved and upbeat.

Everybody else acts like watching and reporting on them is a chore.

The point is, with people being distracted by Thanksgiving and Xmas, the next few months are going to fly by and the primary elections will be upon us.  After four months of steadily-increasing ennui, do the bloggers expect everyone to suddenly catch fire at the last minute just because they tell them to, or will the momentum that builds from apathy be too strong?

And, will it be too late?

As for tonight's debate, the subject is economics.  Stand by for a bunch of complaints tomorrow from various pundits and commenters whining, "But they didn't talk about the important stuff!"

The debate will focus exclusively on the nation's economic challenges including the national debt, jobs and taxes.

Seriously, is it possible for them to be any clearer?

Game time is 8 pm EST, CNBC.  The assholes aren't streaming it, so I'll miss it.

As a small side note, I've been pushing for Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin for the V.P. slot since the beginning.  Add this to the reasons why.

This was such a rare, wonderful event that I thought I'd bump this back to the top so you can get a flavor of what happened over the weekend. The video's available for watching.

Well, that was different.

Imagine, if you dare, two fierce competitors vying for the nomination fighting it out eye-to-eye in yet another political bloodletting on national television.

Over the next hour and a half, the following harrowing events occur:

— When the candidates are asked a new question, they decide between them who should answer first.

— The candidates are welcome to talk as long as they want.  When the other wants a turn, he wags a finger and the floor is turned over to him when the next conclusion is reached.

— At one point, a candidate answered a question for about three minutes, then the other candidate talked for about three minutes, then the first candidate apologized and said he hadn't really stated his answer very well the first time, so he took another three minutes, resulting in a much better, clearer answer.

— When the candidates were invited to ask the other a biting, crippling question that would put their opponent's greatest weakness on display, one candidate referred to the other's extensive business background as a CEO and asked him what advice he'd pass along to the current crop of CEOs.  Then that candidate referred to the first candidate's extensive political background and asked him what three things had he learned looking at the system from the outside.

— One of the candidates told a lengthy joke and everyone had a really good laugh.

— While they didn't wish to appear rude, it was clear that they didn't want the members of the audience to break in with applause any more than they had to.  After all, it is a small breach of etiquette to interrupt someone while they're talking, and thankfully the audience took this slight with good grace.

— Over the course of an hour and a half, these two big, warm, lovable guys who were nothing but smiles all evening long used the words "cheaters", "liars" and "crooks" about a thousand times.  They didn't hold anything back.  With both of them, it was like a given that every government institution is filled with X percent of the aforementioned cheaters, liars and crooks.  They were merciless.

Like I said, it was different.

Have you heard about this?

Nationwide Emergency Alert System Test Scheduled for Nov. 9

In brief, it's the old "This is a test of the emergency broadcast system" routine for radio & TV, albeit on a nationwide scale for the first time.  The big dif is that the usual test lasts for a minute, whereas this is going to last for more than three.

Since I don't own a TV or have a radio handy, my only question is whether or not those loud emergency sirens are going to light off.  We have a Coast Guard station not far from here and I presume they have one.  After four articles, all I could come up with was this:

The test does not affect any planned tests of local outdoor warning siren systems or 911 callback systems.

Which doesn't really answer the question, in the sense that they could be planning on testing the sirens at the same time.  You would think they'd want to, given the opportunity.  But if they do light off those suckers, imagine the people who are unaware of the test and think it's just another 1-minute drill.  And then it keeps going... and going.  What a surprise when they suddenly conclude that there actually is a nuclear missile on the way.

Of course, if the Russians have planned their missile attack to coincide with the test (an insidiously clever plot, to be sure) and there really is a nuclear missile headed your way, simply do as we did in our school drills back in the 60's and crawl under your desk.

You'll be just fine.

If you're a mature, sophisticated adult (that is, over 50), then you remember Cracked magazine as being one of the staples of your early youth, right alongside Mad magazine and Playboy.  Gotta get your education from somewhere, right?

Well, IMHO, Cracked has turned into the premiere comedy/parody/satire site on the Web.  There are a handful of imitations around, but Cracked is the best-written and most polished.  Some of their stuff is exceptionally clever.

As a quick example, they're absolutely merciless when it comes to dismantling time-travel movies, like Back To The Future, The Matrix, and, especially, The Terminator.  They had a field day with that one.

So much for introductions.

I found the following Cracked article both revealing and insightful, and immediately confess to being guilty of a huge number at least one of the sins he mentions.  My thought at the end was, anyone getting on the Internet for the first time should read this first.

Oh, before we start, would you mind if I asked a rather delicate question?

Got a mirror handy?

The 6 Stupidest Internet Reactions To Shocking News Stories

(6:43 pm last night)

(Doc skims over a news site)

Hurricane Rina Lumbers Toward Mexican Resort Towns

"Oh, big deal!  Probably nothin' more than a bunch of fat-cat 1-percenters living in the lap of luxury off the sweat and toil of us hard-working 99-percenters!  Go get 'em, Rina!  Kick some Wall Street ass!"

(goes back to reading, glad he got it out of his system)

Ding!

"Hmm, an email.  From the landlord?  Wonder what that's all about."

Subject: HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS PLAN

"Huh?"

(goes to NOAA web site)

"Uh, yeah?  And?  Who gives a shit what happens to Mexico?  What the hell's my landlord talking about?"

(fearing he's being suckered into playing into the hands of a demented madman, Doc goes to the Stormpulse site, since it has such pretty graphics)

"Oh."

(preparing for a long evening of picturing the worst that could happen when hit by a Category 18 hurricane, Doc grabs the blender and whips up one of his famous Valium-Vicodin-Jack Daniels-methamphetamine milkshakes and heads over to Terrapin, his usual mainstay for hurricane tracking because it uses the combined plot of the six best agencies in the business)

"Well, at least we can be grateful that we live in a day and age when hurricanes can be accurately predicted," he says fatefully.

"Okay, so maybe there are still a few kinks to work out of the system."

And that's the sitch at the moment.  If it continues on the Stormpulse track (also in this video), you'll have some real, live hurricaneblogging here at Maggie's.

With emphasis on the "live" part, hopefully.

Shh-hh.  Are we alone?  I'm going to do something here that I'm not sure any blogger has ever done before, and, in fact, might actually be some kind of digital misdemeanor.  Or, at very least, break Blogger's Rule #1.

I thought I'd ask for your opinion on something before publishing the post.

Yes, yes, I know that sounds crazy, and perhaps it is.  They've recently changed my psychotropic drugs here at the sanitarium (also affectionately known as "Maggie's Farm" by the regulars in honor of the sweet ol' gal who runs the place), and I've increased my caffeine intake of late, so perhaps I've lost that delicate chemicular balance required to write a modern blog post.

All I know is that I had such good luck when I suckered that first sap into proofreading it (I wouldn't want to mention any names, but his initials are B.U.L.L.D.O.G.), that I thought I'd open it up to the Maggie's Valued Readers™ for further input before hitting the 'Publish' button.

It's about one of everybody's favorite subjects:

Global warmening!

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I'd be posting my global warming opus soon, but I held off because I wanted to run it by a few people and make sure I was touching all the bases.  I mean to cover everything in this baby.

For example, Bulldog reminded me of Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was one of the first jump-off points ("The glaciers are melting!") for the AGW movement.  My article mentions the Thames freezing over in the early 1600's and he noted that the Hudson and Delaware rivers had also frozen over, and that reminded me of the Northwest Passage, another item on the AGW list that deserves to be shattered.

And, as many people will tell you, when it comes to shattering hopes and dreams, I'm just the guy for the job.

So, fellow (and fellowette) anti-AGW aficionados, what say ye?  Corrections, updates and additions are welcome.  Any pro-AGW dribble will be cited in a future post arguing for the return of 15th century insane asylums.

"Wait a sec.  Did he say 'levitation'??  Oh, come on!  What's next, ESP?  UFOs?  Boy, the crap you see on blog sites these day, huh?"

Yeah, well...

Hat tip Theo.  Home site is here, although there didn't appear to be any more vids or info on the above.  Pretty amazing, though.  You know that fun old literary theme of going back in time and appearing real smart compared to everybody else?  If I'm going back in time, I'm bringing along one of these babies.

Exit question: How long would it spin in a vacuum with no air resistance to slow it down?

Vegas!

Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?

I bartended in Vegas a number of years ago, and while I hated the traffic, I loved the general feel of the city.  Seeing The Strip off in the distance was a constant reminder that You're in party town, USA, bub.  It was frolicsome and fun.  I have some observations here.

I suppose the word we'll be seeing for this debate is fiery.

It was certainly that.