Goodenough Gismo

  • Gismo39
    This is the classic children's book, Goodenough Gismo, by Richmond I. Kelsey, published in 1948. Nearly unavailable in libraries and the collector's market, it is posted here with love as an "orphan work" so that it may be seen and appreciated -- and perhaps even republished, as it deserves to be. After you read this book, it won't surprise you to learn that Richmond Irwin Kelsey (1905-1987) was an accomplished artist, or that as Dick Kelsey, he was one of the great Disney art directors, breaking your heart with "Pinocchio," "Dumbo," and "Bambi."

  • 74%How Addicted to Blogging Are You?

  • Google

Blogs I love and/or learn from

« Important! Overlooked News. | Main | I'm Nobody. Who Are You? Are You an Archetype Too? »



Here's another story along these lines. Ain't the world grand?


I meant to post this on the overelooked story thread. Sorry.


No one will disown you but...DON'T DO IT! Seriously, while I can well understand your disenchantment with a variety of folks on the left, I just don't understand how that can translate to a support of the current Republican platform and ideologies unless you really agree with those. If you do, great, but if you don't? (Or am I taking this way too literally?)

"Hillary looks all but inevitable?" Aaargh!! Say it ain't so!


My guess is that Rudy gets a free pass from the theocons.


Well, my heart just leapt up into my (well, where ever it leaps- throat?)

You've given me hope for the butterflies anyway- amba. I love the independence of your mind!!


I enjoyed Alan Stewart Carl's rant myself. Well, maybe I didn't enjoy it, but it did strike a chord.

However, I will remain an independent. I am appalled at the ranting of both the right AND the left--and frankly I don't see a whole lot of difference in the "gotcha" wars that both sides seem to be playing out, particularly in the bogs. I probably lean a bit more toward the dems than the republicans, but that's probably because 1) the republicans are in total power right now and 2) the ones in power seem to be the screaming right, not the moderate right.

I think both sides (the extremes anyway) have removed their critical thinking caps.

And I don't see an uprise in the centrists in 2008, so I fear that it will be voting for the lesser of two evils. Again. Personally I will vote for whoever I feel will give us a divided house/senate/executive grouping. This all one party ruly doesn't work in my book.


oops, blogs, not bogs, although if both sides were exiled to a bog for a while maybe it would improve the situation!


I love contemplating those "mistakes" such as Katie's bog/blog:

Bog: An area of waterlogged soil that tends to be peaty; low productivity; some bogs are acidic.

Maybe it fits after all!


So why is everyone so anti-Hilary? I keep on running into this sentiment, but I never hear the reasons for it. What’s so wrong about her?


Katie -- without having seen the other comments yet, I was just going to say -- I think you meant "blogs," but "bogs" is even better!

I once actually typed "Repuglicans" inadvertently (the left now routinely calls them the Repugs; I doubt they got it from me). I had to coin "Democraps" just to even things out.


Some bogs are acidic, all right! And if you get too deep into one, you might turn up thousands of years later, perfectly pickled!

What's wrong with Hillary: cold, calculating, opportunistic. (Which makes her less likable than some other politicians who are warm, calculating and opportunistic.) It's a gut thing, a feeling that there isn't any "there there" except driving ambition.


Doesn’t strike me as such (although I’m willing to admit that I’m in the minority on this).
But even if she is all those things, makes little difference to me. I’m interested in her stance on issues. Do you disagree with her on a lot?


"I value kindness to humans first of all, and kindness to animals. I don't respect the law; I have total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper, and old men and women warmer in the winter, and happier in the summer."
- Brendan Behan


So you're becoming an IINO (pronounced "I - Know"), an Independent In Name Only.

Good. Most Independents are, you know? (And I know you do know.)

re Hillary: No matter how appealing are her positions on issues, I can't believe a majority of Americans would be willing to be led by someone so willing to have been serially cuckolded and manipulated.

Mr. Grouchypants

If you think there isn't any "there there" except for driving ambition, then you aren't going to put a lot of stock in the candidates purported stances on issues since you can't really depend on the person sticking to those stances.


Grouchy: Word.

Meade: And out of ambition.

m. takhallus


Make a list of the 10 places in the US you'd most like to live. Not visit but live.

Make a list of the 10 you'd least like to live in.

I'm betting that when you look at that list you'll find the bulk of group 'A' are Democratic cities or towns, and the bulk of group 'B' are Republican.

You've just gone from NYC to Chapel Hill, the Berkeley of the south. Setting money aside, would you rather be in San Francisco or Salt Lake City? Seattle or Dallas? Chicago or Tampa? Boston or Phoenix? (Okay, set weather aside, too.)

Democrats are idiots, but Republicans are bores. 90% of painters, writers, film makers, musicians, actors, dancers and poets are Democrats. 90% of bankers, football coaches, car salesmen, lawyers and accountants are Republicans.

Really now, Amba, you want to hang out at a country club in Charlotte or a blues club in New Orleans?

Dave Schuler

Most Democratic Party activists give me the impression that they're interviewing for a job. Most Republican Party activists give me the impression that they already have jobs and plan on keeping them.


My only real reason to become a Republican would be to get as far away from those people as possible. As I mentioned at Done with Mirrors, Amba, this reminds me of the Assistant Village Idiot's observation that "Conservative issues don't attract me as much as liberal idiocy repels me." I'm still intrigued by the notion that many of us define our politics by what we aren't rather than what we are.

As for Hillary, I like her, although I'm quite apprehensive about her secrecy gene. It's Nixonian in nature, and that worries me.


90% of ... lawyers ... are Republicans. I don't think so, Michael. Maybe it used to be that way in the 50s, but much has changed.


To Danny and all the rest who equate being a Republican with endorsing the platform of the current Republican party: That sort of world-view is how the radicals (left or right) capture control of a party. The only way to recover a party from them is for people who do NOT agree with their view to register and vote in the primaries of that party. It won't be quick, and it won't be easy -- the people in power in the party won't let go easily. But there is no other way to do it. And the only real-world alternative is to let them continue to have the power to trash the country whenever people get fed up with the short-comings of the other party.

m. takhallus


Sorry, I forgot to include my standard disclaimer:

"All statistics quoted are pulled out of my ass."

Tom Strong

Tak's got it.

Sissy Willis

Sweetheart, don't despair. Your instincts are telling you where to set your course. The reference to how disgusting it is "to try to fight a war without getting your hands dirty" calls to mind Bubba's "I didn't inhale." His wife cares for nothing but power.

You might find solace and guidance from neo-neocon's deeply introspective series of blogposts "A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change." She's been there and done that and has come out the other side a sadder but wiser seeker of wisdom and truth.


The Democratic Party is an excellent argument for disenfranchising public employees.

You can work for the government, or vote, not both.

Too many decisions made by Democratic politicians are based on the input of the public sector unions that put their self interest ahead of the public interest.

When public unions become purely partisan, that's dangerous for those unions, and that party.

Add to that, the completely disingenuous stances many Democrats take regarding the Global War on Terror and you have two huge arguments for discounting Democrats and trying to effect change by effecting the Republican party and completely ignoring their main opponents.

A huge opportunity was lost during primary season to stand up solid moderate candidates across the country in Republican primaries.

Maybe next election cycle.


But even if she is all those things, makes little difference to me. I’m interested in her stance on issues.

Quite simple Whatever you want to hear.


Every now and then I contemplate running for something someday and I always wonder which party I'd choose. I figure, given my politics, I'll either be a hard-ass Democrat or a weak-kneed Republican (that'd be public perception, mind you). I kinda tend towards hard ass Democrat in the model of the traditional hard ass Texan Democrat. Much about the left makes me physically ill, but I've always thought that's because I came from the left and it's hard to see people whom you share so much with act so stupid.

I dunno. I'm still thinking about the post I wrote. It was a moment of clarity that has, nonetheless, left me confused.


That's for the statistical clarification, M. Tak. Somehow, I overlooked your rule of thumb... or wherever.


Alan, isn't that called a ~Classical Democrat~? Helpful and hopeful w/out killing the golden goose?

I like the real Democrats. So, where are they all? As for the Dems gettin' all pantie-drenched over Republican infighting- internal clensing and hashing out is a healthy thang. Lock-step marching and outing members of ones' own party for carrying an honest individual thought? That's biggoted.


"Bores" are worse than "idiots"?

Let that question leak in for a while.

Here's another: What place does context have in that judgment?

But of course, people don't actually "judge" that sort of thing, they feel it. Which is perfectly human and normal--but not necessarily efficacious.

I won't expound further right now, except to say that the (relatively small handful) of people whom I truly admire in the political realm, over time, actual office-holder or otherwise political professionally, were mostly (but not entirely) both. Generally, however, that's not realistic, in reality or hope.


One more thing, with regard to the original question I posed: The old saying incorporating the words "shit" and "eat" pops to mind.

Which refers to which, pray tell, especially among those who prefer "idiots" to "bores"? (Or, hell, vice versa?)

m. takhallus

Oh bores are absolutely worse than idiots. Idiots can be great characters. Think Joey on Friends, or Homer Simpson. Stupid but fun. Think of a great character who's a bore. It's a contradiction in terms. A bore can only be a bore, while an idiot can be Barney Fife.


In personal life, Tak, you and I absolutely agree. And I would extend that to other arenas where personal amusement and/or connection and/or ... well, whatever is paramount.

But in terms of politic and diplomacy ... etc. Hell, no. Assuming one must choose (which, mostly, really, one must, now. As opposed, arguably, as it used to be.) There, you and I are parting company, friend.

If we ever meet, I'll spring for really good drinks and we can spar then.


And that "judgement" in my first comment in this thread is irritating the heck out of me. Amba, for the love of whatever, fix that for me, by deleting the first "e," will you? Please?

Gotta go with the accepted version of the last couple of decades or longer. I accept. But sometimes slip.


Now, BOARS on the other hand ... .

We've got rather a surfeit of those now, don't we, in addition to everything else, in public life (multiple realms).

; )


Boors, darn it, boors.


Though, Amba, I do believe that very recently indeed, as it happens, you expressed your affection for--not your words, but mine--pregnant bloopers.


Barney Fife is Republican as the day is long.


Peter Hoh: belatedly -- but seriously -- what makes you think Rudy will get a pass?

Sissy Willis

Check out Paul Greenberg's latest at Town Hall:

First we get the static, the confusion, the ideological discontent, all the symptoms of cognitive dissonance, and only then -- if we're honest -- the stabbing clarity. We may not like what we suddenly see, but we can no longer deny it to ourselves.

How perceive reality, how separate wheat from chaff, the party line from the glimmer of truth?

I tell the journalism students I talk with now and then to stay open to those shining moments of clarity when they become aware of a certain . . . cognitive dissonance.


Very good!!


There's the party for which I could sign up.

The Party of Cognitive Dissonance.

Not for the faint of heart.


As a registered Republican, all I can say is "Noooooooh!", Colbert style.

(I'm not really a Republican, I just happen to be registered for primary purposes.)

I think in the absence of the centrist movement one has to pick sides, but not permanently. For instance, given just how badly the current crop of Republicans have governed, I think they need to lose power. Even though one might agree abstractly more with Republicans than Dems, on say security issues, the details indicate, to me at least, that they need to lose power so they can regain their soul. However, I'm more likely to vote for a Republican president but I think at least one house needs to change hands.

I think it's a big mistake to get caught up with branding. As M. Takhallus has pointed out repeatedly the Reps have a better brand. But I don't think the image matches with reality.

IOW, be partisan strategically and don't let the underbelly of each side monopolize your decision. I think in the absense of a centrist movement, centrist just need to vote so as to keep the branches in different hands.


Reader: that's the default party. No need to sign up.

Eusto: you're right, of course. Distribute your vote and even your registration around strategically, but give no party your soul.


you're right, of course.

That's my speciality, amba ;)

When I die, I hope people say, "He was mean, heartless, immoral, and insufferably long-winded. But on all matters, human and divine, he was right."

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

New on FacTotem, my Natural History Blog

Jacques' Story: Escape From the Gulag

The AmbivAbortion Rant

Debating Intelligent Design


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004