2019's baby names delayed and The Atlantic and New York Magazine on motherhood for Mother's Day

Happy Mother's Day! I had been planning to write about the most popular baby names of 2019, as I had for 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, but that's not going to happen. NBC's Today Show has the news.

For the first time in nearly 25 years, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will not be releasing its list of the year's most popular baby names.

Since 1997, the SSA has released an annual list of the previous year's most popular names for boys and girls. Typically, the list is released the Friday before Mother's Day, but this year, the administration announced that the coronavirus pandemic had caused them to shift their plans.

"Out of respect and honor for all people and families affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, the announcement of the 2019 most popular baby names is being rescheduled to a to-be-determined date," said the administration in a statement. "The agency sends its gratitude and heartfelt thanks to everybody fighting the pandemic and providing vital services throughout the country during these difficult times."

Looks like the COVID-19 pandemic has put this holiday tradition into isolation. That's disappointing. Here's to hoping the Social Security Administration will have the list ready by Father's Day.

In the meantime, I present two videos about the reality of motherhood, beginning with The Atlantic's A Poetic Ode to Motherhood.

Becoming a mother changed the way Nanfu Wang saw the world. This is an experience common to new parents, but it’s often ineffable. Wang’s new film, Between Everything, renders the perspective shift of motherhood in cinematic poetry.

YouTube suggested New York Magazine's Motherhood Through the Years, which I watched and enjoyed enough to share with my readers. As I last wrote in PBS Digital's Storied examines pandemics in literature and entertainment, "Behold the power of the YouTube algorithm!"

We asked six moms about what motherhood is like at a month, six months, a year, five years, 15 years, and 30 years. Does the mother of a 30-year-old feel like she knows what she’s doing any more than the mother of a 1-month-old baby? What are the greatest challenges and triumphs of motherhood? What we wanted to define was how mothering changes as children age — what we learned is that through years of challenges, heartache, and joy, once you’re a mother, “Everything changes. Everything.” Call your mom.

Yes, I will call my mom. I'm glad she's still around.

MSNBC's Jacob Soboroff earns a Cronkite Award for coverage of family separation at the border

The resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen yesterday helped me make up my mind about which winner of the Cronkite Awards to feature next.  Watch the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism's compilation of clips featuring Jacob Soboroff of MSNBC covering the effects of the Trump Administration's family separation policy.

Jacob Soboroff (NBC News/MSNBC) was one of the first national reporters to break the story on conditions of children separated from their parents at the border under the Trump administration’s zero tolerance policy. Though cameras were not allowed into detention centers, Soboroff was able to explain the situation “with clarity and descriptive analysis that was as powerful as any visual,” the judges said. He kept the story on the nation’s agenda, he stayed with the story, and his coverage had impact: it helped push the Trump administration into a rare policy reversal.

Congratulations to Soboroff and keep up the good work documenting this cruel policy.  Unfortunately, this policy may not have been cruel enough for Trump's liking.  As the New York Times warns its readers, Kirstjen Nielsen Enforced Cruelty at the Border. Her Replacement Could Be Worse.

Ms. Nielsen’s departure is seen by some as part of a broader restructuring of her department. Just two days before meeting with the secretary, the president withdrew his nomination for the next head of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, saying that he wanted to go in a “tougher direction.” Presumably he plans to chart a similar course with Ms. Nielsen’s successor.

For now, Ms. Nielsen’s acting replacement will be Kevin McAleenan, the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. This leaves Homeland Security without a top official at either of its critical immigration agencies. It comes as the swell of migrant families across the border pushes the system toward collapse.

Within this leadership vacuum, it seems likely that more influence will be exerted by Mr. Miller, who inspires and reinforces Mr. Trump’s harshest ideas on immigrants and immigration.

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, said of Ms. Nielsen’s departure, “It is deeply alarming that the Trump administration official who put children in cages is reportedly resigning because she is not extreme enough for the White House’s liking.”

If you are someone who thinks that the cruelty of these policies are counterproductive, as I do, you need to be reminded of what Adam Serwer wrote in The Atlantic: The Cruelty Is the Point.  That's a chilling thought.

Previous entries about the Cronkite Awards.

• 'Meet The Press' earns a Cronkite Award for its coverage of climate change
• CNN's Parkland Town Hall wins a Cronkite Award
• KCET wins a Cronkite Award for exposing gerrymandering in southern California

'Icarus' wins Best Documentary, making a political point at Putin's expense

One of the tasks I set out for myself at the end of Diversity, representation, inclusion, and fantasy all winners at the 90th Academy Awards was to write about the political implications of "Icarus" winning Best Documentary Feature.  Watch ICARUS Oscar 2018 Acceptance Speech for Best Documentary Feature from ABC The Oscars.

Watch Bryan Fogel and Dan Cogan's Oscar 2018 acceptance speech for Documentary Feature for ICARUS at the 90th Academy Awards.
Greta Gerwig and Laura Dern present Bryan Fogel and Dan Cogan with the Oscar® for Documentary Feature for "Icarus" at the 90th Oscars® in 2018.Greta Gerwig and Laura Dern present Bryan Fogel and Dan Cogan with the Oscar® for Documentary Feature for "Icarus" at the 90th Oscars® in 2018.

Frankly, that came as a surprise to me, as I thought "Faces, Places" would win, writing "'Faces, Places' looks like the clear favorite among documentaries" with 40 points total according to my giving it two points for every awards show win and one point for every nomination.  In contrast, "Icarus" appeared to be the weakest of all the nominees with only 11 points based on the same scoring system.  However, I shouldn't have been completely surprised, as FiveThirtyEight had it tied with "Faces, Places" in their weighted scoring system and claimed it as a win, albeit halfheartedly.

Still, this win means something, especially because the entire Motion Picture Academy membership votes on documentaries, not just the documentarians.  I have a feeling they wanted to send a message, just like the Television Academy did at the Emmy Awards.  The TV people reacted to Donald Trump at their awards; how could voting for "Icarus" be a sign that the movie people did?  The answer is indirectly.  Follow over the jump to read how.

The most honored political documentaries of 2017 examine crime, injustice, and the Syrian Civil War

I have twice told my readers to "Stay tuned for an entry about the top political documentaries of 2017" today, so it's time for me to follow through.

Since it's awards season, I am ranking documentaries about politics, government, social issues, and the environment by counting up how many nominations and wins each film has earned at what I'm counting as the major awards shows and programs that recognize documentaries.  I'm counting films recognized by the Black Reel Awards, Cinema Eye Honors Awards, US, Critics' Choice Documentary Awards, Environmental Media Awards, USA, Film Independent Spirit Awards, Gotham Awards, International Documentary Association (IDA) Awards, National Board of Review, Online Film Critics Society Awards, Producers Guild Documentary Awards, and Satellite Awards.  I also included two points for the Emmy Award that went to LA 92.  For every nomination, the film earns one point and every win, the film earns another point for a total of two.  Only movies that earned two or more points made the list, as they either won an award or were nominated for at least two awards; movies with only one nomination got left off.

After adding up all the points, I've ranked the qualifying films as follows with films having the same score arranged alphabetically.  To see the awards and nominations, click on the link in the title to read the relevant IMDB page.

Strong Island 12
City of Ghosts 11
Abacus: Small Enough to Jail 10
Chasing Coral 9
Cries from Syria 9
Ex Libris: New York Public Library 9
Quest 8
An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power 7
Icarus 7
Whose Streets? 7
The Work 6
Dolores 5
LA 92 5
Last Men in Aleppo 5
Rat Film 4
Hell on Earth: The Fall of Syria and the Rise of ISIS 3
Human Flow 3
Let It Fall: Los Angeles 1982-1992 3
Eagles of Death Metal: Nos Amis (Our Friends) 2

That's an impressive list of worthy films.  I don't envy the documentary branch of the Motion Picture Academy; they had their work cut out for them, as there were 170 eligible documentaries this year.  The top five from my list alone would make for a good Oscar field, but that won't happen, if for no other reason than the fifteen film short list has already been released and  "Cries from Syria" did not make it.  In addition, "Faces, Places," "Jane," "Long Strange Trip," "One of Us," and "Unrest," which are not on my list, have made the Oscar shortlist and are as good as any of the my top five.  On top of which, "An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power" also made the Oscar shortlist and could make the final five based on it's being a sequel to a previous winner and as a response to the current political climate.  If so, it would probably replace "Chasing Coral," which would be a shame, if understandable.  As I have found out by examining awards shows, not every electorate is the same and the pool of voters matters.

Follow over the jump for the films arranged by general subject along with their plot summaries and my commentary.

'Veep' leads nominated comedies at the Primetime Emmy Awards with 17 nominations

I concluded Infidel 753 and I discuss zombies by telling my readers to "Stay tuned for the post about the Emmy nominees I promised in "13th" vs. "O.J.: Made in America" plus other non-fiction political programs nominated at the Primetime Emmy Awards."  It was supposed to be "a post about the scripted comedies and dramas about poliitics, including shows starring two fictional presidents, Selina Meyer and Frank Underwood," but I decided to split the comedies and dramas into to posts.  To quote "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum," "tragedy tomorrow, comedy tonight!"

The leading comedy, political or otherwise, is "Veep" with 17 nominations.  It's won Outstanding Comedy Series the past two years in a row and its star Julia Louis-Dreyfus has won Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series every year the show has aired, which makes for five consecutive wins.  Impressive.

What's also impressive is the number of Washington insiders who say that it is the most realistic portrayal of political life on American television, more so than "House of Cards," the subject of tomorrow's entry.  I'll begin with WYNC's quote.

According to Jess Mcintosh, a democratic operative who works in communications, “Our lives are not like 'House of Cards.' There is really nothing that 'House of Cards' presents other than the names of certain Washington locations that bear any relation to reality.”

“'VEEP' is sometimes so painful to watch because it is so close to things that have happened in my world. I’m aware that it is funny, but I can’t possibly laugh at it,” she continues.

The Wrap elaborates on what "Veep" captures that "House of Cards" does not.

“The funny thing about ‘Veep’ is, we as people who worked in the White House always get asked, okay, what’s the most real? Is it ‘House of Cards? Is it ‘West Wing’? And the answer is, it’s ‘Veep.’ Because you guys nail the fragility of the egos, and the, like, day-to-day idiocy of the decision-making,” [Tommy] Vietor said.

I finish the comparison with this passage from The Atlantic.

House of Cards does get some things right. Its set design is impressive, down to the decor of the congressional offices and the style of the nameplates on the doors. And it correctly captures a new media landscape influenced by Politico and Buzzfeed (er, Slugline) while only somewhat exaggerating the corrosive impact of money on modern politics.

But Veep gets much more of the total picture, and it does so more enjoyably by presenting the capital as folly, not awash in soul-crushing darkness.

It may not make Congress's approval ratings rebound from the gutter, but the truth that Veep captures is that the worst of the worst in Washington are more likely to be buffoons than monsters: Politicians and their aides are probably not killing people in D.C., but they often are shooting themselves in the foot.

There you have it.  To paraphrase what a Canadian politician said about the Canadian left, our politicians are more likely to be gauche than sinister.

There are two other comedies with a political slant, "Black-ish" with four nominations and "South Park" with one.  Follow over the jump for all the nominations of scripted comedies with political themes at the Primetime Emmy Awards.

2016 could be a good year for minor party candidates

Monday at Kunstler's blog, I linked to CNN's Gary Johnson: GOP Trump Alternative?

Smerconish talks to Libertarian Candidate Gary Johnson, who will probably be on all 50 state ballots and is polling at 11% but is usually left off of polls.

It was in response to another reader touting Jill Stein.  I agreed with him, but thought that Johnson would make a bigger splash.  I concluded my comment by wrting "I can already tell this will be a good year for minor parties."

I'm not alone in thinking this.  Within the past few months, several articles have expressed the same hope.  March saw the Washington Post opine that Americans should make room for third-party candidates.  That article touted Bloomberg, who later declined to run.  He figured that Clinton would win the Democratic nomination and he would have acted as a spoiler.  He didn't want that.  On the other hand, if he thought Sanders was going to win the nomination, he'd probably have run.

The pace picked up in April with three articles, beginning with The Huffington Post declaring Why 2016 Could Be A Record Year For Third-Party Candidates, And What Pollsters Can Do About It.  The answer is include Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in those states where they are on the ballot.  The same month NBC News wondered Third Time's the Charm?: Minor Parties Hope for 2016 Wins.  Also in April, The Atlantic wrote There's Still Time for a Serious Third-Party Presidential Run.  Yes, if it's the Libertarians or Greens, who will have ballot access in a majority of states; the Libertarians might have ballot access in all of them.  No, if it's William Kristol's quixotic crusade to draft someone like Romney as an Establishment alternative to Trump; the deadline to get a true independent on the ballot in Texas has already passed.  Besides, any idea Kristol favors is likely to be a bad one.

The speculation continued this month, as FiveThirtyEight asked Could An Independent Candidate Succeed In 2016?  Of all the answers to the question, I agreed most with Harry Enten, who said "this year pretty much meets all the criteria for at least a moderately successful third-party candidacy."  For me, that means that the Libertarians and possibly the Greens could reach the threshold of five percent of the popular vote to qualify for public financing in 2020.  The Constitution Party does not have ballot access in enough states to meet that criterion.  It's very unlikely that even one of the minor parties will qualify for the debates with the major party candidates.  As Gary Johnson pointed out, that requires fifteen percent in several polls before the debates.   While minor parties have earned Electoral College votes before, that happened when they had concentrated regional strength, such as the Dixiecrats and the American Independent Party, and could win pluralities in three-party contests.  Neither the Libertarians nor the Greens meet that criterion; their support is more diffuse.  Consequently, none of the minor parties will win the presidency, but they'll certainly overperform compared to any election since 2000 and possibly even 1996, but not 1992.  None of these candidates is Ross Perot.  Even he didn't win any Electoral College votes.

Finally, USA Today reported Presidential transition could include third-party candidates under new law.  Don't make too much of it.  That just reflects a change in the language of the law extending transition services to any qualified candidate, not just the Democratic and Republican ones.  Still, it is a sign of the times.

Hollywood's diversity issues for MLK Day

The Wrap's predictions for a diverse set of acting nominees this year.  None were nominated.

I concluded Speculative fiction at the Critics' Choice Movie and Television Awards by telling my readers to "Stay tuned for an entertainment-themed Martin Luther King Day entry on the same theme as last year's."  That post lamented "Selma" being relatively snubbed by the Oscar voters, earning only nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Song when a lot of critics thought that the film's male lead and director deserved nods as well.  That was still better than this year, as Wochit Entertainment reported in Oscars Still So White?

Oh, no, not again. For many movie fans, Thursday's Oscar nominations brought a dispiriting feeling of deja vu. For the second consecutive year, no minorities were nominated in any of the four acting categories. One year after the critically acclaimed "Selma" was largely snubbed by academy voters, sparking protests, actors and filmmakers of color are again being ignored -- and Twitter is not happy. "It's actually worse than last year. Best Documentary and Best Original Screenplay. That's it. #OscarsSoWhite," tweeted April Reign, an editor who was credited with launching that hashtag in protest after last year's nominations were announced. Idris Elba had been expected to score a nomination for his performance as an African warlord in "Beasts of No Nation," but he was passed over. Other hopefuls such as "Concussion" star Will Smith, "Creed" star Michael B. Jordan, that movie's writer-director, Ryan Coogler, and the cast of N.W.A biopic "Straight Outta Compton" also were ignored.

Of all the listed actors not nominated, FiveThirtyEight thought the biggest snub belongs to Idris Elba.

One of the biggest upsets of the morning was in the supporting actor category. While Mark Ruffalo (“Spotlight”), Tom Hardy (“The Revenant”), Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies”) and Sylvester Stallone (“Creed”) were all favored by Paddy Power (which set odds for winning an award, not for being nominated), Christian Bale’s nomination for “The Big Short” was totally remote, as of data pulled midnight before the nominations were announced. That means Idris Elba (“Beasts of No Nation”) and Michael Keaton (“Spotlight”) lost out big. Elba had 6-to-1 odds of winning it all, according to the bookmakers, which gave him the third-likeliest score behind Stallone and Rylance. And although Keaton was a relative long shot to win, at 8-to-1 odds, he was still considered a more probable candidate than Ruffalo, Hardy or Bale.

Elba being left out was particularly surprising, as he was nominated for a Golden Globe (he lost to Sylvester Stallone), a BAFTA Award, and three SAG Awards (two for his film perfomance and one for a TV role).  The actors and foreign press were certainly behind him, even if the rest of the voters were not.  Follow over the jump for why that might be the case.

Blast from the past: Sarah Palin's Naughty Monkey Shoes

After posting Blast from the past: Joan Rivers vs. Sarah Palin, I remembered that I had another entry in the Daily Kos archives about Governor Palin, Palin's Naughty Monkey Shoes, which was also posted to my LiveJournal.  Since I'm in an "I can't be all DOOM all the time" mood and I can't resist another trip to the well, here it is.

As I was reading one of Vanity Fair's two recent articles on Sarah Palin, quite a few things struck me, both serious and silly.  I'm saving the serious ones for another post.  This entry is for the silly ones.

Follow me over the jump for the details.

Johnson and Stein in final third party presidential debate on Russia Today

I made three predictions in Free and Equal Debate tonight. How did they turn out? Here's the first one.

Maybe a coherent response could be cobbled together [from] the positions from [of] Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Rocky Anderson. I don't hold out much hope for anything useful coming out of the mouth of Virgil Goode.

Now The Atlantic's report on the debate: Shift-Alt-Debate: Meet 4 Presidential Candidates the Press Mostly Ignores

What do Libertarians, Greens, and Justice Party supporters agree about?

• It's urgent to rein in the military-industrial complex and reorient American foreign policy away from bellicose interventionism.
• Civil liberties are being trampled on by Democrats and Republicans.
• The drug war is a failed policy. Some combination of decriminalization, legalization and regulation is needed.

It says something powerful that people so ideologically diverse agree on those significant points.

Not just one, but three coherent positions from Johnson, Stein, and Anderson. That's even better than I expected.

What about Goode?

Goode wants to halt immigration. And along with Johnson, he wants a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on the legislature, imagining that it would weaken special interests.

No and no. First, I'm not in favor of restricting legal immigration any more than it already is, as I wrote in Happy 4th of July from James Howard Kunstler's Tea Party! Second, I've seen what term limits have done here in Michigan; they've actually made special interests more powerful, not less.

What else do Goode and Johnson agree on?

Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode believe America's deficits have put us on the edge of fiscal collapse. For them, balancing the budget is an urgent priority, and they're actually serious about it -- unlike the fake fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party, Johnson and Goode fess up to the fact that they'd try to make substantial cuts to everything from entitlements to the bureaucracy to the military.

I have my doubts about the wisdom of this version of austerity as well. There is a reason why I have an "anti-austerity" label.

That's two predictions that came true. What about the third?

I suspect it will be Jill Stein vs. Gary Johnson in the final debate.

And the finalists are...

Winners of October 23rd Presidential Debate Have Been Announced

“The voters have spoken, and we are pleased to announce that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will advance to the second debate,” stated Christina Tobin, founder and chair of Free & Equal.

I'm three for three!

So, where can people watch the debate? I have a hint.

"[F]or unclear reasons, Russia Today"--snork! Russia Today loves to broadcast dissenting American voices, including tinfoil hat wearer Alex Jones. This event is right up their alley.

Take it away, Russia Today!

RT Presents Final US Third-Party Presidential Debate

RT is proud to host the final US presidential debate between Libertarian Party candidate Gov. Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein. The two will go head-to-head and discuss foreign policy live from RT's Washington, DC studio on Tuesday, October 30. Voters can catch the show-down live on RT America, RT.com and right here on YouTube from 9:00 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. Eastern Time, (October 31, 1:00 a.m. -- 2:30 a.m. GMT)

I have this feeling the two candidates will agree as much on an anti-interventionist foreign policy just as much as Obama and Romney agreed on an interventionist one. Russia Today couldn't ask for a better pair of candidates.

The Atlantic on Tea Partiers disrupting planning commissions because of Agenda 21

I've blogged before about how Tea Partiers are fighting efforts to improve mass transit, build high-speed rail, protect endangered species, and prepare for climate change. Now, The Atlantic has an article about this topic with entirely new examples of people concerned about Agenda 21.

How the Tea Party Is Upending Urban Planning

Across the country, Tea Party activists have been storming planning meetings of all kinds, opposing various plans by local and regional government having anything to do with density, smart growth, sustainability or urbanism. In California, Tea Party activists gained enough signatures for a ballot measure repealing the state’s baseline environmental regulations, while also targeting the Senate Bill 375, the 2008 law that seeks to combat climate change by promoting density and regional planning.

Florida’s growth management legislation was recently undone, and activists in Tampa helped turn away funding for rail projects there. A planning agency in Virginia had to move to a larger auditorium and ban applause, after Tea Party activists sought to derail a five-year comprehensive plan and force withdrawal from the U.S. Mayors Agreement on Climate Change.

What’s prompting the ire is anything from a proposed master plan to a new water treatment plant, rules governing septic tanks, or a bike-sharing program. What’s driving the rebellion is a view that government should have no role in planning or shaping the built environment that in any way interferes with private property rights. And in almost all instances, the Tea Partiers link local planning efforts to the United Nations’ Agenda 21, a nearly two-decade old document that addresses sustainable development in the world’s cities – read as herding humanity into compulsory habitation zones.
...
It may not be time to panic. In some cases there are very few vocal activists leading the charge, but the Tea Party has been so well publicized, and their tactics are often so sophisticated, that their powers of intimidation appear outsized. This is also in part a case of everything old being new again. Property rights activists have always been well organized, and were energized by the Kelo Supreme Court case affirming the use of eminent domain. The sprawl lobby – the fanciful label from my first book, This Land – circles the wagons for corporate home-builders, road-builders and even the lawn-care industry invested in far-flung conventional suburban development. The anti-smart growth American Dream Coalition dovetails with the Tea Party view, giving some familiar contrarian voices new visibility. Wendell Cox and Ron Utt co-authored a grave warning against “radical environmentalists,” driven by, yes, the UN’s Agenda 21, in a recent fact-contorting essay for the Heritage Foundation.
...
Yet, as in national politics, the Tea Party view doesn’t leave room for compromise. Even the most open-minded and free-speech supporting planner can’t operate when the framework for the dialogue itself has been invalidated. Where does one go from there? The skirmishes at town halls around the country over the past year or so means that planners will have to try even harder to make their case. But in the mean time, the chairman of that sleepy planning board hearing might be eying the exits, looking for a black helicopter, to make a run for it.

Read the rest of the article, including the 325 comments, which the Tea Partiers are swarming.

The general outlines of this phenomenon, including the connection to the "sprawl lobby," but not all the details, such as the general anti-environmental hysteria, were forecast more than eight years ago during the filming of "End of Suburbia" by James Howard Kunstler. In Bachmann on $2 gas and Kunstler on maniac politicians, I put together quotes of his from two sources in which he outlines his prediction.

There will be a great battle to preserve the supposed entitlements to suburbia and it will be an epochal act of futility, a huge waste of effort and resources that might have been much better spent in finding new ways to carry on an American civilization.
...
Americans will elect maniacs who promise to allow them to keep their McMansions and their commutes and that’s going to produce a lot of political friction, probably a lot of violence, probably a threat to our democratic institutions.

Prophetic, wasn't he?

Kunstler has since escalated his language from maniacs to "corn pone Nazis." Even he thinks the Tea Party is his prophesy come to life.

The Tea Party people are the corn-pone Nazis I have been warning you about.

There is a reason why I use the "corn pone fascists" tag for posts about the Tea Party and the politicians they support.

Troy Mayor Janice Daniels shows how to be vulnerable to a scandal

In my previous post about Troy, I discussed the rejection of federal funding for the Transit Center. There was something else in the report from the New York Times I quoted.

The transit fight is not Mayor Daniels’s first brush with controversy. Earlier this month, it was revealed that she posted a message to her Facebook page last June, after New York State approved same-sex marriage, stating, “I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.” In an interview, she said she regretted the online comment.

This quote plays right into a narrative that opponents of the Tea Party in general and Janice Daniels in particular already have for Tea Party candidates. In fact, combined with the rejection of the money for the transit center, it satisfies many of Nate Silver's criteria for a good political scandal. Let me walk through Nate's questions and their answers for these two outrages.

Since I'm in a Star Wars mood lately

I've been playing a lot of Star Wars: The Old Republic this week and posting about it to my LiveJournal and Dreamwidth, I've been looking for an excuse to post a Star Wars entry that is still on-topic for this blog. Yesterday evening, I stumbled across not one, but two items that fit the bill.

First, from The Bad, the Ugly, and the Irrelevant: The 2012 GOP pretenders on Facebook comes this macro.





Next, Ta-Nehisi Coates, one of The Atlantic's star political bloggers, is playing Star Wars: The Old Republic. Yes, really.

Return of the Jedi

So how are we feeling about Star Wars: The Old Republic? I just finished installing and patching this morning. I played around with some character creation, but haven't a chance to do much else. But even in doing that little bit, I realized how dated WoW's graphics really are. I suppose that's a good thing in some ways--WoW can run on almost game PC, at this point.

Either way, I'd love to have a new game on my list. I'm a little pissed about WoW actually adding the panderan. It just feels like more comic relief.

If I hadn't already been a fan of Coates, I would be now. Also, read the comments. They're actually very informative.