By request. A picture of Lily and Tunch:
Not all inter-species snorgling attempts end well…
This is your real open thread.
Sorry for stepping on the open thread, but I agree 100%:
I think our society has become a bit hysterical about teen sexuality, and that age limits and punishments for statutory rape have, in some states, started to get a bit exteme even if such relationships are inappropriate.
But the undisputed facts of this case are that she was given booze and drugs and raped. There may be other procedural legal issues as I said, but I really can’t believe people are minimizing what happened. What is wrong with these people?
I was talking to my mom and dad this morning, and we don’t agree on damned near anything regarding politics anymore (mom seems to think that Bob Dole is still what most Republicans are like), and told them I can not believe everyone apologizing for Polanski. They couldn’t either, and it really is kind of insane.
One of you all remarked in the comments the other day that Polanski is the upper-class OJ Simpson. I think that makes sense.
Question for you all. I’m thinking about moving Tunch to all wet food rather than the kibble, because even though we have been dieting for a year we have only lost 3/4 of a lb. Many of you said your cats were much leaner and more active on an all wet diet, so I think I might try it.
Today, I gave Tunch his morning kibble and then for dinner I gave him some wet food. I gave him Before Grain 100% salmon, and he loved it. I thought he was going to choke to death because I have never heard him purr that loudly while eating, and afterward I got a rare look that didn’t seemed like he was sizing me up for a casket. I don’t want to go overboard, but he almost looked happy.
1.) Is Before Grain a solid choice?
2.) If so, how much should I give him? A can a day?
3.) How will this affect his stool?
4.) What about his teeth? Isn’t one benefit of kibble that it helps with their teeth?
In other news, it turns out the death penalty in Florida costs $51m a year more than just holding convicted killers for life. But, hey, that’s pocket change compared to the certainty that killing people is good.
Of course, I am sure you all know the response from the death penalty crowd- “Get rid of all those unnecessary legal protections for the obviously guilty!” I mean, sometimes, it takes decades of costly legal wrangling before you get to kill an innocent man. That shit gets expensive.
Palin’s bookers are said to be asking for $100,000 per speech, but an industry expert tells Page Six: “The big lecture buyers in the US are paralyzed with fear about booking her, basically because they think she is a blithering idiot.”
Maybe she, Carrie Prejean, and Joe the Plumber can go as a panel? Dan Quayle can emcee.
Maybe I’m way off base on this, but in my opinion, the Conor Friedersdorfs and Nicole Wallaces of the right aren’t so different from coupmeister John L. Perry. The idea of David Petraeus sweeping in and becoming president in 2012 isn’t unethical or unconstitutional, but I can’t help but think that Friedersdorf and Wallace simply want an institution they see as Republican — the military — to depose a Democratic president they dislike. (Friedersorf’s other preferred candidate is Colin Powell.)
The desire to depose Obama runs much deeper on the right — even the so-called moderate right — than anyone is willing to admit. The Perry piece wasn’t any kind of outlier.
Update. To those who say Friedersdorf and Wallace are just rooting for a Republican to win, I quote commenter neil:
But David Petraeus is not, in fact, a politician, nor a candidate, nor even a Republican. So this isn’t just somebody rooting for his side.
Wanting Mitt Romney, a Republican and all-but-declared candidate, to win the election as a Republican in 2012 is nothing like wanting David Petraeus, who is not known to be a Republican and has not expressed interest in being a candidate, to come in and out of nowhere and become the new Republican president. It isn’t the same at all.
Supporting an actual candidate is very different from hoping that your favorite general will become the new president as a member of your party.
Bret Stephens of the WSJ says neoconservatism is making come back…even though he can’t say what neoconservatism is:
None of this is to say that neoconservatism represents some kind of infallible doctrine—or that it’s even a doctrine. Neocons have erred in overestimating the U.S. public’s willingness to engage in long struggles on behalf of other people. They have erred also in overestimating the willingness of other people to fight for themselves, or for their freedom.
But as the pendulum has swung to a U.S. foreign policy based on little more than the personal attractions of the president, it’s little wonder that the world is casting about for an alternative.
I can tell you what neoconservatism is: it’s John Birchism with an intellectual veneer. It owes it’s political sense to the undeniable power of shouting “appeasement”, “Hitler”, “freedom”, “Munich” in Murdoch media while shouting “Burke”, “Thucydides”, “Mars” in the pages of the New York Times.
In some ways, this is understandable. When you read a serious piece about foreign policy, such as this one, there’s a lot to take in. It’s natural that some will take refuge in the simplistic pretension of neoconservatism.