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

« Hat in Hand. | Main | Not Exactly an Economist Here . . . [UPDATED SOME MORE] »


RW Rogers

I expected that to happen eventually, didn't you? At the same time, a couple of the trolls have changed their tune as well. (BTW, if your email locks up, it was something I sent. Forgot to reduce the size of the .jpg file.)

michael Reynolds

"A real absence of structured thinking." Gee, you might almost think she was calling Palin stupid. Which is basically what Will, Brooks, Hitchens, Parker, Dowd, Frum and Powell (and I suspect many others, privately) said. But that I figured out before any of them.

It's hard carrying this burden of always being right.

RW Rogers

Your lack of integrity would be astonishing if you weren't so patently dishonest, Michael,

michael Reynolds

Your apparent obsession with me would be pathetic if . . . well, no, there's no "if." It's just pathetic.

If you have some reason to believe I am dishonest, state it. This pouty passive aggressive act is getting kind of weird.

RW Rogers

Michael, I've said it before. You weren't paying attention. You've done nothing but engage in smear tactics and the politics of personal destruction for months now despite your repeated claims to want a discussion of issues.


"this expressed desire to operate "on a federal level" shows no concern for the conventional conservative idea of leaving it to the states"

In other words, if you don't think along conventional lines you are not a structured thinker. It thought that was supposed to be good.

michael Reynolds


In other words I came out for Obama.

It's an election season. A closely contested election. People get mad. The right throws a punch, I throw one back. I'd say they started it. But opinions on that vary.

For what it's worth, I have a pretty strong record of non-partisanship on a whole host of issues. But yeah, I support Obama. And yes, I think McCain has disgraced himself. And I think -- as does pretty much everyone who pays attention to politics -- that the GOP has a race problem.

I don't exactly know why you'd take this so personally. We're just talking politics here. The first dozen or so times you took shots at me I didn't even respond because it seemed so out of left field. I did not then, and don't now, know why you're so pissed at me.

You've been a long-time reader of my various blogs. Are you somehow surprised to discover that I'm a gleeful bomb thrower? Were you shocked to discover that when I get smacked I hit back?

I care about politics. I fight hard for my point of view. I state my positions very clearly. Some might say VERY clearly, and way too often. But I don't hate the people I argue with. There are very few, regardless of their politics, who I wouldn't sit down and have a drink with. (Probably easier in 2 weeks when this is over.)

One final point. I know how to land a punch with words. I should probably pull my punches more often, but when my worthy opponent is hitting as hard as he or she can, it feels condescending and dishonest, to go easy. It feels to me like an act of respect to take my opponents seriously and to engage them with the same passion they show.

In any case, I have no ill will whatsoever toward you.


Wow, that does not seem like a fair depiction of Michael's comment on here. I thought this site was one of the last bastions where people from opposite sides of the political spectrum could engage in dialogue without personally attacking each other. It's getting awfully hot in here.


It's getting awfully hot in here.

It's election time. Maybe I'm prejudice, to me Michael gives back what he is given. He certainly is no less respectful than his accusers.


I operate on the assumption that to a large extent Michael is performing, the way, say, Rush Limbaugh is performing. In fact, he is so good at infuriating people that I've advised him to go into talk radio, if he ever gets tired of writing kids' books. I think he'd kill.

So, if I ever start to get exasperated I just take a deep breath and a step back and enjoy the performance.

michael Reynolds

You are wise, Obi-Amba.

RW Rogers

Michael, it seems appropriate that you currently reside within easy diving distance of the birthplace of Niccolo Machievelli.


Real- it's only a positive if you aren't a stoopit, Conservative female running for VP.

How many letters in J-O-B-S, again?

RW Rogers

Karen, you have to cut Joe Biden some slack. He's undergone two operations for brain aneurysms after all. But it is open season on women, provided they are Republican or have been sexually harassed by Democratic officeholders. Provided one has the correct party affiliation, misogyny is not just A-OK, it is preferred.


Significantly, both Amba and Michael are alluding to his previous, explicit depictions (and not-unheard-of, in-fact-marked admissions) of himself as a bomb-thrower, rhetorically speaking. They both know this, and it's part of the context (Randy is entirely aware of this, as well.) Others here may very well be unaware of all of that context. And others yet may just be opportunistic, thinking no one will notice.


But I do. FWIW.

And as life does not end on Nov. 4, nor does Nov. 4 wipe the slate clean.

Charlie (Colorado)

In any case, there's not the slightest evidence that Palin is of low, or even merely average, intelligence. There's been a long discussion of it at Volokh, however, which leads me to observe that one's perceived intellectual capacity among "liberals" is dramatically diminished by having the temerity to run against a Democrat.


I happen to be one of those who thinks Sarah Palin is smart. After all, she is a governor of a state where she has a high approval rating. And certainly her being woman doesn't bother me, I like women. But after eight years of the Bush administration, with her ideology which is even further to the right of Bush's, she is the last person I would want to see in a place so close to the presidency.

michael Reynolds


Ken Adelman came out for Obama. Citing Palin as a major reason.

Just another elitist Democrat. Clearly he was just pretending when he worked for Goldwater, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush. There is no end to the clever perfidy of secret liberals.


Just another elitist Democrat.

Nah, just proof that there are elitist Republicans too.


RW- i didn't know that about Joe. Damn.

Peggy Noonan is just beside herself, as well, over the Palin nod for VP.

I really don't get it, except the marked contrasts between the soft-spoken Noonan w/her great ability to pen phrases so poetically-- and Palin, who is able to pump her breast, carry her baby on her hip and her rifle on her arm-- and govern Alaska... is glaring.

It's some kind of ~in-you-face intimidation~, i think. The soft-handed, highbrowed elites gasp at the callousness of it all. It feels like bigotry, to me.

As for Michael and his bombs... i find them amazing. I couldn't lob large like that. If it weren't for a sliver of a glimpse in a long-ago comment- i'd not forget, either. But, hey-- it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round.

Spud, 'fess up. You like women, but not for their minds ;0).


The soft-handed, highbrowed elites gasp at the callousness of it all.

I hope she is half as bright as you, farmer-poet Karen.


Geeesh :0).

In another life...


I love women. I love smart women. I love some smart women who are conservative Republicans. I can think of plenty of Republican women who would have been extraordinary additions to the ticket in either position. But are we actually still having the argument that Sarah Palin was a good choice for John McCain, for the Republican Party, and for this country? If it makes me an elitist to believe that Palin does not have what it takes for the gig, then I'll take my Elitist t-shirt in extra large.



But it is open season on women, provided they are Republican or have been sexually harassed by Democratic officeholders. Provided one has the correct party affiliation, misogyny is not just A-OK, it is preferred.
Bingo. Althouse has said that she thinks Palin is good for feminism - but in my view, Palin will only be good for feminism if McCain wins. What will be the lesson if those who would destroy Palin are allowed to succeed? What will be the message to other women who might be inclined to follow her path? It could not be plainer. It is that if you risk thinking for yourself, if you deviate from the orthodoxy, unless you kowtow to the old order of the liberal feminist establishment, you're next. What happened to Palin is what will happen to you. You will be destroyed, caricatured by the mainstream media, hung out to dry by the feminists who would have been first in line to decry your treatment were you not a conservative. There's a clear message to women this election season: shut up and get in line. What's surprising is that the people saying it are the media, the Obama campaign, and the feminist establishment.


Amba, let me say this: I think it over-eggs the pudding to say that "[s]ince Ann has tilted publicly towards Obama, a number of her commenters have turned on her." One or two - they shall remain nameless - have done so, I fully agree. But for the most part, her more conservative commenters have never been the sycophants of leftosphere lore; we have always disagreed with her conclusions and criticized her reasoning when we disagree with her. I yield to few in my respect and affection for Ann, but when I think she's wrong, I have respectfully but robustly criticized her, with no punches pulled.

To be sure, her recent posts have garnered heavy criticism, and not only from drive-by trolls but from regular commenters. Some of it, frankly, has been out of bounds, and I've defended her when it has been. Nevertheless, the fact is that some of what she has posted lately has been thinly-reasoned or in tension with earlier writing, and she has been criticized - strongly but not disrespectfully - by several regulars, myself included for that. But it does a disservice to suggest that there is equivalence between how she has routinely been treated by the vicious lefty anti-althousiana in the past, on the one hand, and on the other, the majority criticism she's gotten recently from regulars. Some outliers, yes, but for the most part, no.


Sorry if I suggested that, because I didn't mean to. I should have said something like "her commenters are disappointed in her" or "feel betrayed." Some feel tricked -- like she intended to vote for Obama all along and "cruel neutrality" was just a pretense. I don't know.


I don't think that many of the regulars feel "betrayed" - perhaps I shouldn't presume to speak for others, so speaking for myself alone: of course I'm disappointed that she is leaning the wrong way, I am hopeful that she will rethink. She was always more likely to vote for Obama than not, and I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her claim to having sought to remain neutral and open to persuasion. I hope she is still open to persuasion, and I think that she is, although it is hard to see what would suffice at this point. If she ultimately votes for Obama, so be it; I'm not going to hold that error against her, although I freely admit that that is a double standard, because a vote for Obama is something I will be holding against anyone else who casts one.


a vote for Obama is something I will be holding against anyone else who casts one.

Figures. And that's my issue with you, in a nutshell.


There ARE regulars (not I) who DO feel betrayed and use those exact words, Simon. For obvious reasons, I can't and won't name names, but you are incorrect, or at least out of touch.


Wow! I'm fascinated by Simon's doomsday alert to the future of women in politics "...if those who would destroy Palin are allowed to succeed." So if McCain loses, those who would DESTROY Palin will have succeeded, is that how it works?

"...if you risk thinking for yourself, if you deviate from the orthodoxy, unless you kowtow to the old order of the liberal feminist establishment, you're next. What happened to Palin is what will happen to you. You will be destroyed, caricatured by the mainstream media, hung out to dry by the feminists who would have been first in line to decry your treatment were you not a conservative."

Gee, and here I thought the growing consensus was simply that people didn't think Palin was a good choice for VP. Note that among the people most recently decrying McCain's choice are MANY who could hardly be considered part of "the liberal feminist establishment." What is that establishment? I wonder if I'm in it. Again, I want my t-shirt!

Apart from everything else, Palin has proved herself to be a lousy candidate. It is her own actions that have squandered much of the initial excitement about her presence on the ticket. Why does that have to be blamed on some vast liberal conspiracy against her?


a vote for Obama is something I will be holding against anyone else who casts one


(Taking out my List of Things To Do and crossing off "Have Simon Like Me.")

Can I have that elitist t-shirt in an extra-large, too? I want to use it as a night shirt so I can have sweet elitist dreams about brie and arugula and Woody Allen movies.

Seriously, I think Palin is good for feminism. Why shouldn't there be a female Nixon or Reagan?

I'm not voting for her, but I didn't vote for Nixon and Reagan, either.


I think she's good for feminism, too, Melinda.

Michael Reynolds


Yeah, it's misogyny. Which explains why Palin scores better with men than women.

Women checked her out and rejected her. The misogyny is on your end. McCain picked her in hopes she'd attract Clinton women. Well, she didn't. Instead she attracted conservative MILF lovers. Add 30 pounds and subtract a cup size and she wouldn't be scoring with Republican men, either. I mean, spare me. The verdict has been handed down: by women.

RW Rogers

The road that purveyors of the politics of personal destruction are taking us down is available for view here. They are not content with the character assassination of public figures. They aren't sated by the public dissection of the private life of some unfortunate working man who asked a question when Obama approached him in his own front yard. They're out to destroy anyone who disagrees with them. Note the emphasis on the religious affiliation of those they seek to destroy.


Reader, conceded, but I would still say that even those who are dismayed by her growing drift towards Obama have not, in the main, taken to mounting the kind of verbal assaults on her that are the hallmark of her critics on the left.

Danny, my comment warned about the future of non-liberal women in politics. If you are so willfully blind to what has happened since 8/29 that you honestly don't see that the media has deliberately and systematically set out to destroy Sarah Palin, I don't know what to make of that. I guess I just don't believe it - one hates to presume good faith, but you're advancing a "sun rises in the west" claim. And after Palin has been subjected to weeks of vicious misleading attacks in the media, is it any wonder that the average person's opinion of her has dropped? If I bought wall-to-wall saturation media coverage making constant negative (even if false) claims about you and after two months we took an opinion poll, how do you fancy your chances?


Randy - as they reap, so they might so. The Kossack urges readers to dig up dirt on their political enemies and blackmail them into backing out. An administration can only operate through its people; perhaps we should adopt the same view of anyone who goes to work for an Obama administration? And if not, why not? Why is that any different to what Kos is urging?

Never let it be forgotten, this sorry chapter in American history was authored by the left.


Simon, I can see that you take this as a fait accompli, but I really and truly do NOT see that the media has deliberately and systematically set out to destroy Sarah Palin. At least any more than they "deliberately and systematically set out to destroy" any candidate on either side. I will agree that there was misinformation spread about Palin at first, not so much by the "media" but by people who were horrified by the selection and jumped the gun with unsubstantiated claims. But I thought those discredited rumors PALED in comparison to the crazy rumor mill that is still in force about Barack Obama. I was never part of the camp that felt that Sarah Palin becoming VP would be the end of secular life as we know it and the beginning of some fundamentalist nightmare in this country, I agree that there was plenty of hysteria on the left when she was nominated. But are you completely unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Palin has not proven herself to be a strong candidate? Or DO you think that was the best choice that McCain could have made? I think the future of non-liberal women in politics will be just fine. I'm just not sure about Sarah Palin's future in national politics.

And I'm amused at the comment that implies that the politics of personal destruction is way more prevalent on the left during this election. Are you freaking kidding me??

Oy, I need a time out.


Well, I don't know what to say to that. I suppose I could do exhaustive research to demonstrate how ludicrously and openly the media has set out to destroy Palin's reputation; I could point out the broad discrepancy between how she appears whenever she isn't filtered through the media editing room and how she appears when she is, and point out that there's really only one rational way to account for that; I could point out the sheer venality of the media's double-standard, which demands infinitely more of Palin as a veep nominee than it does of Obama as a Presidential nominee; I could invest a huge amount of time comparing and contrasting the way Palin has been treated vs. how anyone else has been treated. But it seems like it would be a waste of time to make such effort to make you see what's right in front of your face, and if you've not seen it yet, I don't know what I can do to open your eyes.

As to whether Palin was the right choice - absolutely she was the right choice. Who else was he going to pick? The fundamentals of this election were already set in a gale force wind against the GOP before we had the first primary; when we picked McCain, we picked perhaps the only person who could get us close to winning, but someone who was deeply unpopular in many corners of the party, who threatened to split. The fact that McCain is within striking distance of winning this thing - the fact that he's even remotely in contention - is one hundred percent attributable to the Palin choice. The idea that she was a mistake - I find that contention mind-numbingly idiotic. Just unbelievably disconnected from any kind of objective reality. How is Palin supposed to have failed - that she couldn't fundamentally change the characteristics of this race? That she didn't magically convert almost all Democrats to Republicans? That her poll numbers couldn't withstand a wall-to-wall nuclear assault from the media coupled with weeks of lies, insinuation and misinformation from Obama, his surrogates and supporters? I know you're all taken with this idea of elevating leaders to messiah status, but I think you ask a little much of her.

RW Rogers


Does Joe Biden really strike you as being a structured thinker? As his remarks yesterday demonstrate, it is a good thing for the ticket that he has received so little coverage during this campaign. LOL!

Anyway, for those interested, both Todd Zywicki and Orin Kerr of the Volokh Conspiracy have interesting posts on glibness and intelligence.

With tongue firmly in cheek, I confess to liking Patrick Stephens's response, which includes this gem:

It's more important that an ignorant executive be cautious than decisive. On that score, Palin is the only candidate in either ticket that seems even mildly conscious of her own ignorance. When foundering in ignorance, Obama reverts to platitudes, Biden makes stuff up, McCain suspends his campaign, and Palin asks for clarification.

When they re-open voter registration after the election, I'm joining the OMG FREE PONIES!!! Party.


...Palin is the only candidate in either ticket that seems even mildly conscious of her own ignorance. When foundering in ignorance, Obama reverts to platitudes, Biden makes stuff up, McCain suspends his campaign, and Palin asks for clarification.

Okay, that is funny. My first pro-Palin laugh! (Well, I thought she was pretty good on SNL, too.)


I'm just not sure about Sarah Palin's future in national politics.

I am, if McCain loses. She'll never be heard from again on the national scene. And it's not so much that she's not qualified, because she isn't. It will be more that her far right ideology isn't going to play well, for a long time to come.

RW Rogers

Spud, if McCain-Palin lose (and I believe they will), Palin will most likely be re-elected governor in 2010 by a huge majority and then U.S. Senator in 2012. That is unless she takes on Lisa Murkowski in the 2010 primary, in which case she'll be out of the governor's office and sitting in the U.S. Senate four years earlier. Like it or not, you'll hear much more about her. You don't like her but most Alaskans love her, and that is unlikely to change any time soon.

RW Rogers

I accidentally cut-off the rest of my comment:

As I was saying... The GOP rarely nominates anyone for President who has not run before (Outside of the unique Eisenhower, GW Bush & Wendall Willkie being the sole exceptions since 1928.) The 2012 race could feature Romney, Huckabee and Palin. After a successful term as Governor, freshman Senator Palin (or re-elected Governor Palin) would be a serious, well-rounded contender. You don't vote in GOP primaries, so what you think of her doesn't really matter. The base loves her. And they won't blame her for McCain's loss. The vituperative campaign against her guaranteed it. She'll most likely be fund-raising for candidates nationwide for the next four years, and raising seriously large amounts of money in the process. That will expand her influence, not diminish it. She's also reasonably young, so if it looks like Obama is a sure bet in 2012, she can bide her time and build for 2016.

Michael Reynolds

Yes, its the media's fault that Palin thought her state's proximity to Siberia was foreign policy experience. I live pretty close to Bosnia, as the crow flies. And now, hey, I'm an old Balkan hand. I should be Secretary of State.

NBC/WSJ: Fifty-five percent of voters say Gov. Palin is not qualified to be president if the need arises, up from 50% two weeks ago. And when given a list of possible concerns about Sen. McCain, voters were most likely, by far, to cite Gov. Palin's qualifications.

Simon said she'd be the Destroyer of Democrats, I said, nah, don't think so.

Time to blame the media. Especially that misogynist Katie Couric. Because Katie hates women. Her and Oprah both.

It certainly couldn't be that Simon was just wrong.

Error! Error! Must find scapegoat! Default to media-blame.

Simon Dodd

Randy, the problem is that the official democratic party and the unofficial democratic party are a lot smarter than Spud; they understand how much of a threat Palin is and they understand that she will likely be back. That gives them an incredibly strong incentive to continue their sliming of her after the election. Indeed, to hugely expand the canvas; given a four year time frame, they have far more scope to run a multitiered campaign against her, to plant stories and make things up, with the goal of destroying any possibility of her being a viable candidate in the future.


Wow, can we meet here in eight years? Because if that prediction is correct and Palin becomes the Republican nominee for President in 2016, I'd like to grab a Fedora, sprinkle it with some liberal elitist sea salt, grab a knife and fork, and eat my hat. I just can't believe that such a thing will ever happen. When you say "the base" loves her, who do you mean exactly? Most of the Republicans I know were furious at McCain for this choice.

(On the other hand, eight years is a long time, and in 2000 I was fool enough to believe that Hillary Clinton was not planning a run for the Presidency. I'd love to see a race between Clinton and Palin. I think Hillary would trounce her.)

P.S. I actually DO know some Alaskans and they DID love Palin as governor. Now, after this campaign, they can't stand her.

Simon Dodd
Most of the Republicans I know were furious at McCain for this choice.
I suspect that says more about your social circle than anything else. Let me take a shot at this: they're "lifelong Republicans," but they're against Proposition 8 (I notice that you live in Cali.), and this year, they just have to vote for Obama because they're "dismayed by the drift of the party" and find McCain "too conservative." They're against the war, think that Bush has "abused the Constitution" and all that other guff you get from people who call themselves Republican but haven't voted for one since Ford. That sound familiar at all?

And by the way: more likely that Palin will be the nominee in four years than eight. Hat still on the menu in that case?

RW Rogers

Simon, the kind of tactics you mention don't really work over an extended period of time. There comes a point when people tire of the lies, slurs and innuendo if others try to keep it going once the election is over. In the meantime, Palin's a great fund-raiser and will be for a long time to come thanks to those people. That gives Palin ample time and opportunity to further develop her skills, her resume, and her reputation. Then, if Palin resurfaces front and center on the national stage, attempts to repeat the stunts will be met with "Heard it all before" responses (except for the partisans, of course). She could decide she's not interested, too. But the decision will be hers, and what she does after the election will determine how successful she will be.

As it is, take heart with the thought that Michael's rants here probably raised money for your ticket. LOL!


Nope, the Republicans I'm talking about are still voting for McCain but they think he made a stupid mistake with Palin.

Palin the nominee in four years? You bet I'll eat my hat, and I'll throw my sneakers into the mix.

(But the California Republicans I mentioned ARE voting NO on Proposition 8 to their credit so you got that part 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