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

« Throat Cancer from Oral Sex. [UPDATED] | Main | Love Dogs? Hate Snakes? »

Comments

Charlie (Colorado)

Doesn't her support now say a lot about McCain? How many men's ex-wives would be that favorable? (I wouldn't want to ask mine.)

Maxwell James

I'm just looking forward to the defenses of McCain's marital behavior from those who condemn Hillary Clinton for staying in her marriage.

amba

Well, that would be consistent of them. They believe in the right, if not the duty, to leave!

Ruth Anne

Looky here...Andrew McCain is CFO of Cindy Hensley McCain's beer company.

Soap opera stuff, no?

amba

I take it Andrew McCain is one of the sons of Carol he adopted? Tangled web á la Dallas or Dynasty.

Actually, it just shows that like many fractured families, they have remained a family, instead of not speaking to each other out of residual bitterness.

Melinda

(and perhaps her ability to have sex without pain, or her interest in it),

True, but then there's always...oh wait, now that gives you cancer.

michael Reynolds

Cue the chirping crickets . . .

I'm willing to bet we'll hear next to nothing on this from all those desperately concerned about Obama's "character." Republicans have a long, long history of concern for the moral character of Democrats and no interest whatsoever in the failings of their own candidates.

I guess it would be just too cynical to suggest that all the talk of "character" issues is bullshit, is -- and never has been anything but -- a false front for naked partisanship.

I have long taken the position that I don't give a damn who did drugs, who screwed around, or who hung around with which loser. People's marriages are none of my business and I "don't go there" unless in reaction to hypocrisy from the other side.

We are hiring an employee whose job will be to handle the job of president. I want a president to do things, not be things, to accomplish not to embody. I don't want or need a king, a pope, a role model, or any of the rest. I just need a guy to do the job without fucking up.

eusto

I imagine it would have been very difficult to remain with her for well, the rest of his long life, without having sex. It would have been somewhat heroic to stay with her.

But to screw around on her while married, and to get married one month after divorcing her was unnecessarily brutal.

I think the real interest of this story is that John McCain has been running a campaign based on his character, based on his being a war-hero, etc. He's also running on a family values platform as well, at least to the extent that all Republicans do.

As I noted to amba in the email I sent her, imagine just how vicious the campaign against Obama would be had he done this. I mean if dumping your crippled first wife in favor of a fabulously wealthy young model doesn't scream "elitism" and at least a somewhat tainted character I don't know what does.

Republicans want to scrutinize every syllable of Michelle Obama's (who BTW, Laura Bush today gave Michelle a pass on -- http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/09/laura-bush-defends-michelle-obama/) and breathlessly analyze Trinity's bulletin boards (Hewitt's posting them for God knows what reason) and excoriate Obama for having a very tenuous relation with William Ayers that basically all of high chicago society shared.

(See http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1810338,00.html for why Obama should not be blamed.

Basically, the problem is with Chicago accepting Ayers back into mainstream society (to the point he advises the mayor) because his dad was very well-connected. So, it's not what's wrong with Obama, it's what wrong with Chicago.)

I'm just sayin' if these guys want to go there, it's time to start talking about Cindy McCain's pills etc. (Which I find to be really nasty because the poor woman was addicted, but Barack has just appointed a full-time staffer [or maybe even a team] to defend his wife from attacks.)

Otherwise, they should back the hell off. McCain should know better after what Rove did to his family back in 2000.

amba

Hold your horses, eusto . . . nowhere does the story even whisper that she couldn't have sex. That was strictly my own conjecture about stories like this in general. It's one possible factor in such a case, but in specific cases it's none of our goddamn business.

amba

When you put URLs in these comment boxes, they get cut off. If you put them in as live hyperlinks, however, they don't get cut off, plus they make it easy for people to go see what you're talking about. (The irony is that they come through in the comment e-mail as live links but not in the actual comments. TypePad so sucks sometimes.)

Live links from eusto's comment:
Laura Bush defends Michelle Obama

Kinsley on Obama and Ayers

Anybody not know how to write a live link? The formula is a href="http://URL.com">text here. (Rats, that didn't come out right. After "here" you close the hyperlink with "". There is one space between "a" and "href." There is no space anywhere else in the formula except in the text that becomes the link. Note the quote marks around the URL.

Donna B.

Isn't there a bit of a difference in personal character and political character?

If one is appalled at the idea of marxism, a toned-down, but still present black rage in Obama's past and (as far as we know) future, isn't it politically wise to question and investigate those links?

The attacks that I've heard about Michelle have to do with her political philosophy, not any personal "problems" as an attack on Cindy McCain's addiction would be.

When Cindy starts expressing political statements that rightly reflect how her ideas and ideals might affect McCain's judgement, Let the questions, criticism, and "attacks" flow.

I've missed the attacks on Obama's moral character. I certainly don't think stating he's an elitist is an attack. Plus how can McCain's divorce and re-marriage be called elitism? Unfortunately, I think it's rather a too common thing.

Outis

McCain should know better after what Rove did to his family back in 2000.

Okay, so you just called Cindy McCain a drug addict and called John McCain a wife brutalizer and THEN claim the moral high ground for yourself. Wow!

Melinda

If everyone bought a person's product based on their moral fiber, nobody would ever buy a Rolling Stones album.

reader_iam

Whoa. However ridiculous my following comment might seem, still I'm going to put it forth:

To my way of thinking, when discussing character, context matters. Michael: John McCain's lapse came post-5-1/2 years in a prison camp. Do I think it would be much better, story- and nobility-wise for it to have turned out differently? You bet. But come on. Amba and Michael: In no way do I think there's anything even close to an apple-to-apple comparison of the McCain scenario to either the Gingrich scenario or (oh, please!) the Obama scenario, maritally speaking. (Hell, let's throw in the Clinton marriage, if anyone'd like. same thing, same objection.) For that reason, I'd take that sort analysis off the table, altogether. Because it makes no sense. It doesn't. not at all.

Back to Michael: Your current "anti-Republican" mode is clouding your better sense of in what context things best belong.

Republicans have a long, long history of concern for the moral character of Democrats and no interest whatsoever in the failings of their own candidates.

I think that particular sentence would work just as well with the "Republicans" and "Democrats" flipped--depending on which facets of moral character and failings one is focusing. Which makes it, in essence, a sentence of polemics, not one that's particularly meaningful, and certainly not of common sense--the stock-in-trade which you keep on insisting you're bringing to to the table.

Well, Michael, that's often true, but certainly not in this case or in this context.

And Amba, in case it got to buried: I want to, one more time, point out that I think the Gingrich-McCain analogy is inapt.

***

Notes:

DON'T 'hate' either candidate. DON'T 'hate' either candidate's followers. DO still find myself skeptical of hype. DO think this has been, is, and will be one frigged-up example of an election cycle.

TRULY believe that regardless of outcome, there's going to be enough (caused by both AND each side) to come back and bite our collective asses for a long, long time--I'm hoping for only a generation, but who knows?

amba

I quail at that last thought, but fear you're right.

BTW, "context" was the subtext where I said "as McCain mended physically" ...

Peter Hoh

Is there a difference between political character and personal character?

Yeah, one gets done with full knowledge that other people are watching.

Maxwell James

reader,

TRULY believe that regardless of outcome, there's going to be enough

Enough what?

David

Kinda made me think of this:
a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_06_08-2008_06_14.shtml#1213129109">text here

David

dang it ...

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

Ecosystem


  • Listed on Blogwise

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 08/2004