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

« What Is It With Liberals and . . . | Main | Just a Sinking Feeling. »



"if you don't like either available flavor of Kool-Aid, really, where is there to turn?"

How about common sense? The vast majority of Americans are probably centrists like us. It's obvious to us that Darwin's theory can't explain the origin of life and species, and it's obvious to us that none of the "experts" know how to fix the economy.

Of course there is a little problem -- everyone, no matter how frantically partisan, considers him/herself to be quite moderate and sensible. My relatives who think Bush exploded the WTC consider themselves just a bit left of center, not radical at all.

So who are the real moderates, and what are we? I think we have to stop conceptualizing political ideology as a left-right spectrum, and define ourselves according to specific groups of of issues.

So, for example, there would be an anti-abortion/anti-gay marriage party, for all those who think nothing in the world really matters except making sure every single fertilized egg gets born, and that every married couple is a legitimate XY - XX pair.

TypePad Support

This is a test comment.


I don't understand the "bi-partisanship" desire. If we put two teams on the field, we don't want them to "get along."


Maybe we should rephrase it. The desire is not for "bipartisanship" per se but for common sense and fresh thinking. Both parties are so stuck in their ruts, and yet they are the only two alternatives we are offered. "Bipartisanship" is the desire to pick the best ideas from each side, or, in the absence of fresh ideas from neither side, at least to make the two sides cancel out each other's excesses. Your analogy of teams is very revealing: politics has become merely a sport, all about rooting for your side rather than wisely governing the country. The latter might require a genuine combination of liberal, conservative, and third-way ideas.


Politics always was about rooting for your side. History smooths that over. Today we celebrate Lincoln the Emancipator, not Lincoln the Republican.

How about, we tear down both parties, and re-divvy up the positions on issues RANDOMLY between two new parties. With coin tosses. This side is for abortion rights, against gay marriage, for offshore drilling, for legalized pot, for a hard-line stance against Iran, etc. Would it be more illogical than what we've got now?

How about an Old People's Party. The new GOP, the Grand Old People. Who are essentially conservative in their approach, not because they fear change but because they've learned the cost of forcing it to happen too quickly. Calmly suspicious of the efficacy of change for change's sake.

And a Young People's Party -- the new Yippies -- who are enthusiastic for impelling things in the direction of compassion and inclusion with a thoughtful eye to preserving the uniqueness of America and what makes it work. Willing to work with hands and hearts in the world for the ideals they marry.

But then what would you do with the other 90 percent of Americans?


heh, Cal.

If parties cannot even listen amonst their own and are becoming fractured from w/in-- maybe we could just vote for folks who seem to listen(and i don't mean like Obama, who does-n't) but really... aw, hell. Who am i kidding. We need to fall flat on our faces in order to appreciate the freedoms and the rights we have. Now's the time, i guess.

I'm a fatalist, today.


"How about an Old People's Party. The new GOP, the Grand Old People. Who are essentially conservative in their approach, not because they fear change but because they've learned the cost of forcing it to happen too quickly. Calmly suspicious of the efficacy of change for change's sake."

I would join that one. I got a senior discount at a movie last week, so I'm ready.


I'm not a good partisan - I was left during the 90s and right during this past decade and remain, by temperment, mostly a righty. I am not a good partisan, though, I get too emotional and I always feel ready to defend my 'side'.

I said at Althouse that I think it's a chump's game. The part of the stimulus bill that concerns me is the health care part because I have a chronic illness and I am a physician. It's online, supposedly, the health care stuff, and I guess during my abundant free time I oughta look over some of it. I'm not sure I'm crazy about this adult stuff - it sure seems like many in Washington aren't either.


By adult stuff, I meant actually paying attention. It's hard!


That incongruously reminds me of talking to a young woman who'd recently graduated from college (When I was probably in my 40s) and asking her how she liked adult life. She said "Fine, except for the paperwork."

But I know what you mean. As a blogger (and a fact checker in civilian life on top of it), I now feel responsible for substantiating what I say (or if I'm too busy or lazy to do that, then label it as irresponsible opinion). It's hard work. Real citizenship (and I don't count myself as having achieved it) is hard work.


LOL (fine, except for the paperwork!)

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