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

« 100,000. | Main | The Best Advice in the Universe. »

Comments

Michael Reynolds

This will really be an opportunity for centrists. The election has all but obliterated any moderate middle, but with Dems in control centrists can assemble just enough power to act as a brake.

We can't let this devolve now into Dem wingnuts riding roughshod over everyone. Dems acting like assholes will tend to radicalize the remnants of the GOP and we very badly need a healthy, functioning, responsible GOP.

We need a new gang of 14 in the Senate, a group of moderates prepared to oppose both the triumphalist Dems and the bitter Reps. Easier said than done, of course. It will be tough for a Webb or a Tester to vote down cloture in defiance of party leadership.

But there may be one other very powerful potential force for moderation in the Senate: Hillary. She'll look to carve out a space for herself, make herself a power broker. She can't do that as one more voice in the chorus. She has to lead, and my guess is she'll lead from the center.

reader_iam

I hope you're right, Michael, though I must say, that word--hope--is a bit tarnished for me these days, politically speaking.

Tom Strong

I like Giffords, and was happy to get the chance to vote for her this year.

Outis

We can't let this devolve now into Dem wingnuts riding roughshod over everyone. Dems acting like assholes will tend to radicalize the remnants of the GOP and we very badly need a healthy, functioning, responsible GOP.

Someone should let Reynolds know that his identity has been co-opted.

Michael Reynolds

Outis:

I must have been drunk.

Simon

Ditto Outis (how can anyone who's observed the tenor of the Democratic party these last eight years be under any illusion that it won't be payback time?), but moreover:

there may be one other very powerful potential force for moderation in the Senate: Hillary. She'll look to carve out a space for herself, make herself a power broker. She can't do that as one more voice in the chorus. She has to lead, and my guess is she'll lead from the center.
Hillary is sending out emails to her list saying "Sixty is the magic number. If [Democrats] reach 60 Democrats in the Senate, then the days of Republican obstruction are over. With Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, there's nothing we can't accomplish." Pollyannaish doesn't even begin to cover the idea that Hillary will serve as a focal point around which moderates will coalesce. Lead from the center? I think she's going to lead from the majority leader's office.

Michael Reynolds

Well, Simon, we'll find out soon enough.

Within the next month Obama will start hiring his cabinet. We'll see if your tinfoil hat paranoia proves accurate or not. My guess is we'll be seeing appointees like Buffet, Powell, Volcker and Rubin, not like Ayers.

And Simon, you might want to keep in mind that my record for political prognostication is quite a bit better than yours.

Toldja the all-negative approach wouldn't work. It hasn't. Toldja the attacks on Obama were scattershot and off-target and thus ineffective. They have been. Toldja Palin would be a drag. She is. Toldja there'd be no Michelle Obama "whitey tape," and there wasn't. Toldja you boys you needed to show some love for McCain, not just attack Obama, and you'll eventually see I was right about that.

Here's one more prediction I'll be right about: in 8 days we're going to spank you guys, Simon. It's going to be a landslide. ( We won't get 60 Senators, I never thought we would.) But it will be huge.

And then you'll all set about slitting each other's throats. If guys like you dominate the rebooted Republican party the party will come apart and be replaced. If a more rational, less fear-obsessed, more genuinely conservative party comes out at the other end the GOP will be back in power in a couple of cycles.

I hope the GOP has the sense to marginalize people like you, and turns to its Jack Kemps and Dick Lugars, its WFB's and Jim Leach's.

And by the way: I'll be proven right about Hillary, too. It's not about ideology, it's about power.

PatHMV

I'll agree with Michael's pro-Democrat, anti-Republican b.s. on one point... with Hillary, it's about power, not ideology. She does want a 60-vote Democratic majority, because then she will hold the reins of great power over the Democratic Party. With 60 Dems in the Senate, Hillary's bloc will control everything, because anything she doesn't like, she can decide to let the GOP filibuster it, and not stop them.

Michael, there's no point to having 2 parties if they're just alike. If Obama is as moderate as you and others like you claim (he's not, but imagine if), then what the hell is the difference between him and a Jack Kemp?

Yeah, the GOP should trumpet McCain's praises a lot more, but they didn't because, well, the GOP doesn't care for him that much... because he opposes fundamental principles of free speech, he is in favor of the interventionist bail-out of both the idiot investment bankers who got us into this crisis and the idiot borrowers who overextended themselves. Sadly, in those crucial areas, the only difference between him and Obama is that Obama will, in addition to the ill-advised bail-outs, probably increase taxes on the remaining productive portions of society, and screw us over all the more.

Meanwhile, supposed centrists like you have been busy demonizing the most moderate, centrist-oriented Republican candidate in recent memory, because (gasp!) he ran to the right in order to gain the GOP nomination.

Has Palin been a drag? No. We'd be behind far more in the polls without her. Has she been as beneficial as I would like? No, because you and your side and the media have a MASSIVE double standard for criticizing political candidates. Joe Biden, who is very glib as he makes stuff up whole cloth, insults Indian-Americans, and giggles like a fool, is treated as a GREAT asset to the Democratic ticket, while Sarah Palin is denounced as an idiot because she flubbed two TV interviews.

How many in-depth, one-on-one interviews as Biden given lately? Has he ever given one without at least one major misstatement, like announcing that Biden should have picked Hillary as a running mate, or thinking post-9/11 would be a good time to just give a bunch of cash to Iran?

Morons, the lot of you. I'm sick of your pretentions of being a centrist, Michael. You are, and have been for some time, nothing more than a Democratic Party hack.

amba

he opposes fundamental principles of free speech As in, "money talks". I never understood that one.

PatHMV

It's simple, Annie. It's a combination of the right of free speech and the right to peaceably assemble and petition our government for a redress of grievances. It costs money to do that. It costs money to print signs, to host web sites. It costs money to travel to some other part of the country and work with other people who share your particular grievance. If you prohibit the spending of money, you prohibit the speech, and the press. Suppose the limits were $50? You couldn't print out more than 100 fliers to distribute to affect the election. You sure couldn't operate any but the most free-service websites available. We spent more than $50 a year to host Stubborn Facts.

You can't speak in any meaningful way (either in today's society or back in the Founder's day) without spending money to do so. Free speech means far more than just standing on the public square haranguing passers-by.

Outis

Free speech means far more than just standing on the public square haranguing passers-by.

Pat, you understate the case. If one stood in the public square and haranged passers-by, then one would get thrown in jail for public nuisance.

Michael Reynolds

Pat:

1) I supported the wars in Kuwait, Afghanistan and Iraq.

2) I was for a surge before you or John McCain.

3) I favor limits on late term abortions.

4) I have pretty savagely criticized DailyKos and MoveOn.

5) I want more defense spending, not less because I believe -- as I did 8 years ago -- that we need a somewhat larger military force.

6) I'm a capitalist through and through. Ambitious, greedy and workaholic.

I'm not exactly Harry Reid. But I understand your frustration. Your party is burning down around your ears. And it is coming down precisely because it has become the party of negativity, attack, anger and bitterness.

You despise your own candidate. So, why did you nominate him? Because he was your only slim chance of holding onto power after the disaster your party has visited on this country. That's why.

Then, having nominated the one Republican who might have a chance of distancing himself from your toxic, failed party you insisted on dragging McCain down into your gutter. The right forced him to toady Bush, and forced him to pander on torture and weaken on immigration and lick the boots of hate-mongering religious right scum.

Your party made it impossible for him to choose a Ridge or even a Lieberman and have some hope of winning. Sarah Palin is a disaster. Read a poll or two, Pat. She's as under water as a mortgaged Californian.

McCain was a great man, once, until a party that hated him nominated him in a desperate, unprincipled grab for power at all costs. And then dragged him through the Republican sewer.

Your party has nothing left but rage and dog-whistle racism and fear-mongering. The party of Lincoln, TR, Eisenhower and Reagan reduced to putting on Halloween masks and trying to frighten children.

I know you're too emotional to appreciate this, but we're doing the GOP a favor. The same favor we did in 1964. You need to go to your rooms, think about what you've done, and come back when you're ready to contribute.

It's really pretty simple, now. Obama will appoint a SecDef, an Attorney General, Treasury Secretary, and all the other cabinet members. Let's see who he picks. Let's see who he puts in as undersecretaries. Let's see if he gives Education to Bill Ayers and Defense to Ralph Nader.

The proof will be in the personnel. Not only are you going to lose. But within 90 days you'll look like a fool.

PatHMV

Michael, there's really no point debating anything with you at this point. You straw-man until you're blue in the face. Who claimed Obama would appoint Bill Ayers as Secretary of Education? Of course he won't do that, and I'm certain you can't name any serious Republican who claims that he will.

Will he, however, appoint someone who shares Ayers' beliefs about the role of education? His past actions suggest he will. He supported Ayers' education project in particular. I disagree with him fundamentally about the role of the federal government in education and the role of education in society. He thinks it should produce "right thinking" people. I think it should focus on teaching basic facts and history and skills, and leave the values to parents and other institutions in our society.

As for your list of things you support, if that's true (and only a bit of it is, and with many caveats), then you'd have to be clinically insane to believe that a President Obama would support ANY of those things you claim to be for.

And as I've said before I will no longer tolerate you or anybody else repeating the LIE that Republicans are the party of "fear and racism." That's bullshit, through and through. It's not worthy of debate, it's so fucking stupid. You are a racist pig for suggesting it.

Now you go to YOUR room and ponder your foolishness, since you're in a mood to be condescending.

PatHMV

As for the "party of fear," don't be ridiculous. The Democratic party's mantra for the past 7 years has been "George Bush is a fascist who wants to take away your civil liberties! Patriot Act! Gitmo!"

Every time I turn on the TV, I see a Democratic ad denouncing the local Republican Congressional candidate for wanting to "gamble" your retirement funds because he supported partial privatization of Social Security.

We're all certainly free to disagree on the relative merits of those policies, but don't even try to claim that your party has some moral campaigning high ground. The Democratic Party thrives on selling fear. You just happen to agree with their policies. As always, your criticisms carry only the veneer of impartiality; your real objection is to the policies, not the tactics you claim to denounce, because you denounce them only when done by Republicans.

Simon

Ahaha. Reylnolds continues the habit I mentioned the other day: ending his posts with projection ("I know you're too emotional to appreciate this").

Too emotional? You've been hopped up on hatred for a few years too many to be capable of rational thought at this point. Over and over again you've been guilty of misrepresentation, overstatement, slander and outright lies. Pat's being too polite: you're a dick. And you're not worth the time to respond to any more.

realpc

I am not left or right, but I am also not centrist. I believe in an ideology that is not expressed in our political system. I can't locate my ideology on a one-dimensional spectrum.

Most politicians find a way to squeeze all their ideas about life into leftism or rightism, and I just can't seem to figure out how it got this way.

Leftists think capitalism caused the Great Depression and the New Deal cured it. They think Reagan laid the groundwork for the current financial crisis. They have no doubts that capitalism is bad and there is something else that is better, and you can find it in parts of Europe.

Rightists think free markets if left alone can create heaven on earth.

Anyway, I am not a centrist because I don't know if the truth is somewhere in between the two extremes. Maybe the truth is at right angles to the two extremes. I think we have to be very skeptical of everything that we seem to know. Evolution gropes its way into the future by trial and error, driven by divine creativity, and we are each a small part of that. Our ability to plan, predict and control is extremely limited.

We need ideologies to organize our thoughts and to communicate with others, and no ideology can be adequate to model reality, which is infinitely complex. But it seems to me we could come up with something better than conservative and progressive. Ask a progressive what the word means and I doubt you will get a coherent thoughtful answer.

PatHMV

And when's the last time a significant Democratic internet voice had the honest integrity to do something like this? RedState is a hard-core Republican blog, run by several people who are likely to be long-term leaders of the Republican party, and despite the fact that we face a 60 vote Democratic majority, they're STILL endorsing 2 Democrats in Alaska, because the Republican holders of those seats are corrupt pork-barrelers. Yes, the GOP has problems, and the failure of its leadership to do anything about people like Stevens is one of them. But I don't see any Democrats endorsing any Republicans because their own party members are corrupt.

Of course, I'm sure that must be because there's no such thing as a corrupt Democrat.

PatHMV

Amen, Real.

Callimachus

I'm surprised not to see my Sen. Arlen Specter on the list. He's an arrogant man (I've sat in editorial meetings with him; it's not hearsay), and hardly popular, but he belongs on that list.

PatHMV

Oh, yes, and the Democrats took a good person who actually ran AGAINST the corruption in her own party (at great risk to her own political career in its early stages) and tarred her as the stupidest politician to ever walk the planet, with many "clever" young "right-thinking" people wearing t-shirts proclaiming her to be a c***... all because she didn't do all that well in her first two interviews, though her vice presidential opponent almost never gives any interviews himself, and makes major gaffes in almost every major speech he makes.

Michael Reynolds

Simon:

This from a man who is furious that the NYT didn't fall for an obvious race-baiting hoax.

You do realize I take great pleasure in your impotent, sputtering rage, right?

Of course I'm a dick. I've said so myself. But unlike you and Pat, I'm a dick who understands politics. I'm a dick who's been right from the start on this race and on Palin and the GOP's doomed strategy, if you can dignify this ludicrous smear-fest as a strategy.

So, going forward into the glorious Obamafied future let's all keep straight that I'm the right dick, and you're the wrong dick. Enjoy your civil war.

karen

heh- and he got the last word in: again!

"Yes, the GOP has problems, and the failure of its leadership to do anything about people like Stevens is one of them."

Pat, i highlighted this before your next comment because we obviously DO have issues as a whole(Republicans); but, we out our own and own our own. We should do better and maybe we now have a precedence on how it should be handled. Thank you, Sarah!

I don't get this ~slitting eachother's throats~, unless you mean the Peggy Noonans, etc that disown the Party nominee as VP. I call that- having one's own opinion. Does it cound for more if you're an elite?

I've never really seen ~lock-step unity~ in Conservatives unless it's about supporting the Troops or the War, itself. Of course, i'm new, yet, to politics- i haven't the cynic's patina and i hope i never do.

Actually- i'm hopeful. Hopeful because Mc DID choose someone that i can relate to(Hick Chick)that has more stone that any average Conservative around. You may not acknowledge this, Michael- but, quite a few people who wouldn't vote for Mc before will now that he has picked Palin. Just because the rabid Left hate her w/great passion doesn't mean the Right thinks she is wrong.

I'm still holding our for Outis:0).

Outis

I'm still holding our for Outis.

Don't hold your breathe, Karen! With each pasing day I'm more discouraged by the whole damn thing. We've gone from a nation of citizens to a country of voters in very short order. What follows next is predictable.

But if it makes you feel any better, everyone else in my family that can vote will be voting for McCain. That includes my mother, who has voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since Truman in 1948 without fail. Also my sister, who often votes Democratic. (Although she may just say she does that to annoy her husband, a staunch Republican who is STILL proud of voting for Nixon!)

Outis

Yes, the GOP has problems, and the failure of its leadership to do anything about people like Stevens is one of them. But I don't see any Democrats endorsing any Republicans because their own party members are corrupt.

Hell, Pat, the Democratic Party promotes such people to leadership positions! Let's count some of them. (An exhaustive list would take a week or more.)

Murtha, a known crook willing to sell out his own country to foreigners, now Chairman of the Appropriatios Defense Subcommittee and was supported for House Majority Leader by the present Speaker.

Chris Dodd, on the take from the same "predatory" mortgage lenders he likes to decry in public, now Chariman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Harry Reid, who got rich from crooked land deals and who uses campaign donations as a personal slush fund, now Senate Majority leader.

And I've saved the two best for last!

Joe Biden, idiot extraordinaire, whose son and uncle have made fortunes "lobbying" for legislation that Joe was instrumental in passing. Of course, this didn't violate any laws - or at least so we're told by the media who all but refuses to dig into this story. (Hell it probably didn't violate any laws. The goddamn people who write the laws are the crooks involved!) The upshot of one of the bills was the most craven re-write of bankruptcy laws on record. For all of this, he was made the VP Nominee.

And, drumroll please...

Barack Obama! Beholden to Chicago "operators" like Tony Rezko, Obama used his position in the Illinois State Senate to steer money to Tony Rezko to 'manage' various low-rent properties. Rezko did a notoriously bad job so that he could keep most of the money for himself. Obama got a sweetheart housing deal out of it. Then there's Michelle Obama's sudden raise from the hospital she worked for - she got it right after Obama started sending federal dollars to the hospital. Hmm. (Of course, Michelle did good work at the hospital - she made sure uninsured patients would be sent to other hospitals. She gets to screw over the 'little people' AND gets to be married to the Savior of All Little People! Sweet deal.)

Of course, for these sins, and probably many other we aren't aware of, Obama was annointed Democratic Nominee for President, and just as soon as ACORN and various Democratic Party election officials get done stuffing the ballot box, he will be annointed President.

Ain't politics fun?

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