The Mallet of Loving Correction Part 8

Really, this just completely appalls me: That a political party handed one of the largest legislative majorities in decades can do what it was sent to do by voters in such a manner that it seems both defensive and apologetic for doing so, and has allowed the party which was swept from power for being to political intelligence what late-era Hapsburgs were to genetic robustness to potentially crawl back into power, not on the strength of its political ideas but on its ability to exploit the Democrats' weaknesses in organization and communication.

And some Democratic partisans will say, but, you don't understand. The GOP and all its various offshoots and media abettors, they're just so mean. To which I say: Really? This is somehow a surprise? Of course they're mean-they've got nothing else. The GOP has no actual and verifiable legislative plan, nor is it currently smart enough to come up with one. What you're left with when you've got no brain is shaking your fist and yelling at the clouds for being socialist. The GOP can't help themselves doing this any more than they can help themselves thinking that the best way to cure diphtheria is to give a fund manager a tax cut. For G.o.d's sake, this has been the GOP strategy since at least 1994, when that bilious creature known as Newt Gingrich erupted out of the back benches with his strategy to turn the word "liberal" into the moral equivalent of "pederast."

Given the paucity of intellect in the GOP, you can't really blame it for running back to this strategy over and over, especially when it works. What you can do is blame the Democrats for continuing to fall for this s.h.i.+t, over and over and over again. The reason it works is because the Democrats can't or won't call stupid stupid; they keep trying the "let's be reasonable" thing against people working hard so that the sentence "OBAMA IS A NIGERIAN ISLAMO-SOCIALIST WHO'S GOING TO MAKE YOU GAY MARRY AN ANCHOR BABY" doesn't strike 20% of Americans as evidence that something in the utterer's brain has just exploded. You can also blame the Democrats for doing a p.i.s.s-poor job of reminding voters that what they're pa.s.sing in Congress is what they were sent there to do. And you can also blame them for not doing the one thing the GOP actually does remarkably well, which is keep its caucus in line and on message and voting the same way on the things that actually matter.

And as it happens, I do blame the Democrats for this. In a sane world-in a world where the Democrats had enough political ac.u.men that they couldn't only get Congressional majorities when the GOP had screwed things up so badly that even the dimmest of voters could no longer ignore the damage-we wouldn't be talking about the very real likelihood that the GOP, this GOP, arguably the least intellectually and legislatively impressive GOP in the history of that august party, might take back the House. That we are talking about it really is all down to the Democrats. If they lose the House, it won't be because the GOP deserve to have won it. It'll be because the Democrats simply weren't smart enough to keep it.

That would make them, in fact, stupider than the modern GOP. The mind reels.

I'll Get Back to You When I Get Back To You Jun

10.

2009.

Look, a New York Times piece on how smartphones have morphed from luxury to necessity, which includes this following observation regarding responding when people e-mail or text you: "The social norm is that you should respond within a couple of hours, if not immediately," said David E. Meyer, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan. "If you don't, it is a.s.sumed you are out to lunch mentally, out of it socially, or don't like the person who sent the e-mail."

All together, now: Bulls.h.i.+t.

First: If you are the sort of person who believes that all your e-mails/texts must be responded to instantaneously or sooner, you may be a self-absorbed twit. Please entertain the idea that your responder may have a life of his or her own, with priorities which may not conform to yours. Chimpanzees, dogs and certain species of squid have all developed a theory of mind-you can too, if you try. We're all rooting for you out here.

Second: If you're the sort of person who believes that all e-mails/texts must be responded to instantaneously or sooner, that probably means you're ignoring something important right in front of you, like the other person at the table, or traffic on the freeway, or a large dog about to savage you because you're carelessly walking on his lawn. For your own safety and the courtesy of others, please do pay attention to the real world. Just because an e-mail or text wants your attention doesn't mean you're obliged to give it.

Third: Can we all agree that we don't want to live in a world where we are obliged to respond to e-mails/text in an unrealistically short period of time, lest we be thought an enormous douchenozzle? I think trying to respond to your e-mails/texts over a course of a day or even two is perfectly reasonable, coupled with the understanding that, in fact, not every e-mail/text requires a response, so you might not get one. If you really need an immediate response, you can ask for one in the e-mail/text-again, with the understanding that a) abusing the "please respond asap" privilege dumps you into the "self-absorbed twit" category, and b) that person may still not respond immediately.

Basically, if we all agree that we can act like people who don't have to be ZOMG the centaar of Teh Univa.r.s.e!!!one!! for every other person and thing, things will be a lot more pleasant overall.

Mind you, even if we can't all agree with this, I'm still going to answer my e-mail/texts on my own sweet schedule, not anyone else's. Yes, I have a smartphone. And yes, I do in fact answer e-mails and texts with it; it's fun to do so. But the main reason I have the phone is so that if my car flips and I'm pinned under two tons of Honda steel, I can call for help. I may or may not answer texts/e-mails any sooner because I have the phone. Not answering immediately does not mean I don't like you; it means I have my own life and I'm busy with it. If you can't manage to grasp that basic and obvious fact, that goes into the bin marked "your problems," not mine.

Note that this formulation does not apply if you are my wife. If you are my wife, your e-mails and texts are returned immediately. Because I totally love you, babe. Everyone else: Eh. I think this is a fair set of priorities, personally.

An Incomplete Guide to Not Creeping Aug

9.

2012.

The last couple of months have been a really interesting time for geekdom, as it's had its face rubbed in the fact that there are a lot of creepy a.s.sbags among its number, and that geekdom is not always the most welcoming of places for women. Along that line, this e-mail from a con-going guy popped into my queue a few days ago: Any tips on how not to be a creeper? I try not to be, but I don't know that I'm the best judge of that.

Let's define our terms here. Let's say that for this particular conversation, a "creeper" is someone whose behavior towards someone else makes that other person uncomfortable at least and may possibly make them feel unsafe. A creeper may be of any gender and may creep on any gender, but let's acknowledge that a whole lot of the time it's guys creeping on women. Creeping can happen any place and in any community or grouping of people, but in geekdom we see a lot of it at conventions and other large gatherings.

Let me also note that the reason I stress this is an incomplete guide is because a) there's no way to cover every contingency and b) I'm writing this from the point of view of someone who doesn't get creeped on very much (it almost never happens to me) and when it does happen I am usually in a position, by way of my gender, age, personal temperament and contextual notability, to do something about it. Other people who are creeped on-particularly women-aren't necessarily in the same position. So the advice I give you here is informed by my point of view, not theirs, and as such is almost certainly incomplete (but hopefully not wrong). This is just a start, in other words, and others will have different and probably better perspectives on the subject.

That said, these are the rules that I use when I meet people, particularly women, for the first time and/or to whom I find myself attracted in one way or another. Because, yeah, I do meet a lot of people and/or I do find many of the people I know in a casual way to be attractive in one way or another. The very last thing I want is for them to feel that I am a creepy a.s.sbag. These are the things I do to avoid coming across as one.

Bear in mind that following these recommendations will not make you a good guy. They will just hopefully make you be not so much of a creeper. These are preventative measures, in other words, and should be viewed as such.

Fair enough? Okay, then. Let's start with some biggies.

1. Acknowledge that you are responsible for your own actions. You are (probably) a fully-functioning adult. You probably are able to do all sorts of things on your own-things which require the use of personal judgment. Among those things: How you relate to, and interact with, other human beings, including those who you have some interest in or desire for. Now, it's possible you may also be socially awkward, or have trouble reading other people's emotions or intentions, or whatever. This is your own problem to solve, not anyone else's. It is not an excuse or justification to creep on other people. If you or other people use it that way, you've failed basic human decency.

2. Acknowledge that you don't get to define other people's comfort level with you. Which is to say that you may be trying your hardest to be interesting and engaging and fun to be around-and still come off as a creeper to someone else. Yes, that sucks for you. But you know what? It sucks for them even harder, because you're creeping them out and making them profoundly unhappy and uncomfortable. It may not seem fair that "creep" is their a.s.sessment of you, but: Surprise! It doesn't matter, and if you try to argue with them (or anyone else) that you're in fact not being a creep and the problem is with them not you, then you go from "creep" to "complete a.s.sbag." Sometimes people aren't going to like you or want to be near you. It's just the way it is.

3. Acknowledge that no one's required to inform you that you're creeping (or help you to not be a creeper). It's nice when people let you know when you're going wrong and how. But you know what? That's not their job. It's especially not their job at a convention or some other social gathering, where the reason they are there is to hang out with friends and have fun, and not to give some dude an intensive course in how not to make other people intensely uncomfortable with his presence. If you are creeping on other people, they have a perfect right to ignore you, avoid you and shut you out-and not tell you why. Again: you are (probably) a fully-functioning adult. This is something you need to be able to handle on your own.

Shorter version of above: It's on you not to be a creeper and to be aware of how other people respond to you.

Also extremely important: 4. Acknowledge that other people do not exist just for your amus.e.m.e.nt/interest/desire/use. Yes, I know. You know that. But oddly enough, there's a difference between knowing it, and actually believing it-or understanding what it means in a larger social context. People go to conventions and social gatherings to meet other people, but not necessarily (or even remotely likely) for the purpose of meeting you. The woman who is wearing a steampunky corset to a convention is almost certainly wearing it in part to enjoy being seen in it and to have people enjoy seeing her in it-but she's also almost certainly not wearing it for you. You are not the person she has been waiting for, the reason she's there, or the purpose for her attendance. When you act like you are, or that she has (or should have) nothing else to do than be the object of your amus.e.m.e.nt/interest/desire/use, the likelihood that you will come across a complete creeper rises exponentially. It's not an insult for someone else not to want to play that role for you. It's not what they're there for.

So those are some overarching things to incorporate into your thinking. Here are some practical things.

5. Don't touch. Seriously, man. You're not eight, with the need to run your fingers over everything, nor do you lack voluntary control of your muscles. Keep your hands, arms, legs and everything else to yourself. This is not actually difficult. Here's an idea: That person you want to touch? Put them in charge of the whole touch experience. That is, let them initiate any physical contact and let them set the pace of that contact when or if they do-and accept that that there's a very excellent chance no touch is forthcoming. Do that when you meet them for the first time. Do that after you've met them 25 times. Do it just as a general rule. Also, friendly tip: If you do touch someone and they say "don't touch me," or otherwise make it clear that touching was not something you should have done, the correct response is: "I apologize. I am sorry I made you uncomfortable." Then back the h.e.l.l off, possibly to the next state over.

6. Give them s.p.a.ce. Hey: Hold your arm straight out in front of your body. Where your fingertips are? That's a nice minimum distance for someone you're meeting or don't know particularly well (it's also not a bad distance for people you do know). Getting inside that s.p.a.ce generally makes people uncomfortable, and why make people uncomfortable? That's creepy. Also creepy: Sneaking up behind people and getting in close to them, or otherwise getting into their personal s.p.a.ce without them being aware of it. If you're in a crowded room and you need to scrunch in, back up when the option becomes available; don't take it as an opportunity to linger inside that personal zone. Speaking of which: 7. Don't box people in. Trapping people in a corner or making it difficult for them to leave without you having the option to block them makes you an a.s.sbag. Here's a hint: If you are actually interesting to other people, you don't need to box them into a corner.

8. That amusing s.e.xual innuendo? So not amusing. If you can't make a conversation without trying to shoehorn suggestive or s.e.xually-related topics into the mix, then you know what? You can't make conversation. Consider also the possibility that playing the s.e.xual innuendo card early and often signals to others in big flas.h.i.+ng neon letters that you're likely a tiresome person who brings nothing else to the table. This is another time where an excellent strategy is to let the other person be in charge of bringing s.e.xual innuendo to the conversational table, and managing the frequency of its appearance therein.

9. Someone wants to leave? Don't go with them. Which is to say, if they bow out of a conversation with you, say goodbye and let them go. If they leave the room, don't take that as your cue to follow them from a distance and show up wherever it is they are as if it just happens you are showing up in the same place. Related to this, if you spend any amount of time positioning yourself to be where that person you are interested in will be, or will walk by, for the purpose of "just happening" to be there when they are, you're probably being creepy as h.e.l.l. Likewise, if you attach yourself to a group just to be near that person. Dude, it's obvious, and it's squicky.

10. Someone doesn't want you around? Go away. Here are some subtle hints: When you come by they don't make eye contact with you. When they are in a group the group contracts or turns away from you. If you interject in the conversation people avoid following up on what you've said. One of the friends of the person you are interested in interposes themselves between you and that person. And so on. When stuff like that happens, guess what? You're not wanted. When that happens, here's what you do: Go away. Grumble to yourself (and only to yourself) all you like about their discourteousness or whatever. Do it away from them. Remember that you don't get to define other people's comfort level with you. Remember that they're not obliged to inform you about why they don't want you around. Although, for G.o.d's sake, if they do tell you they don't want you around, listen to them.

Again: Not a complete instruction set on how not to be a creeper. But a reasonable start, I think.

In Which I Select a Current GOP Presidential Candidate to Vote For Nov

11.

2011.

As most of you are no doubt aware, in 2012, I am about as likely to vote for a GOP candidate for president as I am likely to vomit a Volkswagen Beetle straight out of my esophagus. But if I had to vote for a GOP candidate for president, which current GOP candidate would I vote for? Well, I'll tell you, in a list, from least likely to most likely.

9. Michele Bachmann: Look, it's not just the eyes. This woman is completely off the beam, blathers idiocies at an appallingly frequent rate and apparently knows about as much about anything outside the closed-loop of Tea Party talking points as the squirrels in my yard, busily gathering nuts for the winter, who I fear would b.u.m-rush Bachmann if she came to my house and carry her away, Veruca Salt-style. Attractive, though, which does nothing to quell my longstanding concern that GOP voters think about potential female presidential candidates the way drunk fraternity brothers think about conquests, i.e., who cares if she's zoned-out as long as she's hot (see: Sarah Palin). In the end it's the complete apparent didactic ignorance she spouts that puts her on the bottom of my list.

8. Rick Santorum: A querulous bigot, with whom I am dismayed to discover I share a birthday. Somewhat more apparently intelligent than Bachmann, but what does that say. If he and Bachmann were the last presidential candidates on Earth, I would vote to return the US to Britain. Fortunately the man has even less chance of being president than Bachmann-indeed, has even less chance of being president than all but one person on this list, I think-and his apparent confusion as to why he's not doing better than he's doing says something about his disconnect from reality.

7. Gary Johnson: Who? I mean, seriously: who? I know he's still running, since his Web site says he is, and he even was at some of the debates, but, dude: You're wasting your time. If all the other GOP candidates were hit by lightning at one of the debates you weren't invited to, you still wouldn't be the GOP presidential candidate; they'd drag Chris Christie kicking and screaming to the Republican National Convention long before they'd even acknowledge you were there. Yes, it sucks; you were by all indications a pretty decent governor. But you had your moment with the "shovel-ready" quip. Maybe you'll make a good Secretary of the Interior or something.

6. Ron Paul: He's certainly a man who sticks to his principles, which is admirable enough when you are one representative out of 435. But I doubt his principles scale, which is to say that if he had the same executive style as his legislative style, he'd veto everything that didn't meet his "it's not in the Const.i.tution!" shtick, which would be just about everything, and thus would run the country into the ground in about six months flat. And I suppose that would be perfectly fine for a lot of the people who would vote for Ron Paul as president. But it wouldn't be fine for me. I think he's best where he is.

5. Herman Cain: He's this cycle's "straight talking no-nonsense CEO from BusinessLand" entry, and in that role he's been facile enough that he appears to have convinced a large number of people that his 9-9-9 tax scheme will somehow benefit them rather than doing what it actually does, which is to give the rich an immense tax break while raising the taxes on a substantial number of working Joes and Janes, so good for him, I guess. On the other hand he's clearly and woefully uninformed on anything that Herman Cain has decided Herman Cain doesn't want to know about, and you know what? All those s.e.xual hara.s.sment settlements don't exactly inspire confidence, and that's just about the most polite way I can put that. Andrew Sullivan is of the opinion Cain's not in this to win this, and that he's in it to sell his books and raise his speaking fees. I suspect he may be right.

4. Rick Perry: Aaaaaaaauuugh! Republican Governor of Texas! Run away! Run away! And he's even more what Dubya is than Dubya was: That big smiley good ol' boy thing, with an engine in the brainpan that doesn't exactly run on premium fuel, as evidenced by that absolutely ridiculous "optional tax overhaul" plan he and his brain trust farted out a few weeks ago. Perry started strong in the field but faded once he opened his mouth, which actually makes me think better of potential GOP voters. Ironically, while lots of commentators pinpointed his brain freeze in the most recent debate as the end of his campaign, I had some sympathy for him when it happened, since I'll be introducing people I've known for 30 years to other people and blank on their names. It happens. What he shouldn't have said was that "oops" at the end. That's what killed him.

3. Newt Gingrich: I'm just as amazed as anyone that Gingrich lands this high on my list, and it has more to do with this current GOP field being populated by the confounding crew that it is than anything else. Gingrich is a cla.s.sic politinerd, which is to say he wonks out like no one's business but then when he has to deal with actual live humans he's like a giraffe talking to a fungo; it just doesn't work. His compa.s.sion-blindness is what makes him great at the politics of character a.s.sa.s.sination, but it also means that politicians who understand people can box him into a corner and poke at him until he explodes. h.e.l.l, that was one of Bill Clinton's favorite things to do. In a general election, Obama would rope-a-dope him all the merry day long. On the other hand, he does know how Was.h.i.+ngton works and it's possible if handled properly (i.e., like a fragile ball of thin gla.s.s with EXPLODE on the inside) he might be able to govern. I'd actually love to meet and chat with Gingrich; I think as long as he and I never talked politics everything would be fine. But I think having him as president would be a very bad idea, only a slightly better idea than everyone else on the list below him.

2. Mitt Romney: Come now, Republicans: Do any of you really think Romney won't be your eventual candidate? Really? Really? I think we all know this is how it's going to go. Yes, Romney is the bland high school treasurer type, the one who carefully crafts his extracurriculars for maximum effect on his college applications, and who spends his time thinking about what to say that will make him popular with the other kids rather than, you know, being interesting in his own right. But at the end of the day you've got to beat Obama in a presidential election, which means you have to find some way to appeal to the independent voters-and not only that but the independent voters your Tea Party adventures of 2010 have scared the c.r.a.p out of. And that's Romney, the Safety Prom Date, the one you pick for the dance because you know he'll show up in a limo, give you a nice dinner, dance with you and then not complain while you mostly hang out with your friends, and then on the way home will refrain from doing anything other than a couple overly polite kisses without tongue and a two-second breast-cupping, mostly for form's sake. No, he's not gay. He wants you to know he respects you. Just try not to think of football captain Rick Perry too much as he's doing it, okay? Mmmmm...Rick Perry.

Anyway. If he gets elected, I suspect he'll actually be somewhat moderate, for values of moderate that translate to "relative to the modern GOP," which means "far to the right of anywhere Ronald Reagan ever was," but whatever. I mean, he was governor of Ma.s.sachusetts, for G.o.d's sake. He knows something about meeting in the middle. For someone like me, he's workable. But no, I'm not excited about him either.

1. Jon Huntsman: Smart fellow with an eclectic past (played in a rock band and was a missionary to Taiwan!) who went on to be an extraordinarily popular two-term governor of Utah, who played to traditional Republican strengths like cutting taxes while at the same time promoting a Federal increase of the minimum wage and signed on to the Western Climate Initiative. Worked for administrations both Republican and Democratic, and when he was Obama's amba.s.sador of China, got his name blocked on search engines for walking around in street protests, just to, as he said "see what's going on." Has this to say: "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." Supports civil unions for same-s.e.x couples, which puts him on the same ground as Obama. And so on.

In other words, Huntsman seems to be what I would actually like to see in a GOP candidate-and, indeed in a Democratic candidate as well: A fellow who has particular core values and works toward them but doesn't appear to be a doctrinaire whack-job subscribing to a scorched-earth policy when it comes to working with people of other political views. Huntsman has politics I'm not on board for, such as his stance on abortion, but this is the field I have to work with, and in this field, if I had to vote for someone, this is the guy who gets my vote-and if he became president, he would be someone I would have at least some optimism about.

So where is he in the polls? Pulling down somewhere between 4.5 and six percent, well behind Romney and Cain, the current front runners, and indeed trailing Bachmann, Gingrich and Ron Paul. At least he's ahead of Johnson and Santorum. My support for him tells me I would probably make a terrible modern Republican. But then again, this is something I already knew.

It's Okay Not to Read Me Jul

2.

2012.

I noted this briefly on Twitter last night but I think it's worth expanding just a little bit. Last night I read a mostly vaguely negative review of Reds.h.i.+rts on a personal blog in which the reviewer basically admitted, in somewhat different words, that they're just not an enthusiast of most of my books. This is of course perfectly fine, because I'm like that too-there are many writers out there for whom I am not the perfect audience, including some for whom it would seem I should be the perfect reader. People are quirky and don't always work the way they're supposed to. Likewise, I have no beef with the (mostly vaguely) negative review; as I've said before, a good (i.e., well thought-out) negative review can be better and more interesting than a positive review, and anyway I'm generally of the opinion that the books I write are good enough to release. So there's that.

What the review made me feel, paradoxically enough, was a bit of sympathy for the reviewer, who (I imagine), once confronted with yet another of my books, sighed heavily and then set themself down to the mostly unpleasant task of reading an author they have regularly found unsatisfactory. And along with that sympathy, a bit of befuddlement, because, well. They're reading that author (namely: me) why, exactly? This particular reviewer was not a.s.signed the book for a gig; they were reading it on their own recognizance. So I suppose that my own thought on the matter is, why would you do that to yourself? Life is often unpleasant enough without choosing to fill your recreational hours pursuing a book from an author with whom ample previous readings have shown you have little rapport.

Here's my thing about my own writing, which I've noted before: I write my books to be generally accessible, and generally enjoyable, for just about anyone. I cast a wide net, as it were. But within that general intention for a general audience, there will always be particular people who will discover I am not their ideal writer. For whatever reason: Perhaps they don't like how I write dialogue, or plot the stories, or feel like I should be writing the book differently from how I am actually writing, or so on. Yes, it's sad, for both of us; I like to sell books, and I a.s.sume these particular readers like to read books. When a writer and a reader find their respective books and tastes don't match, there's always a sad little moue of the mind, a wistful wish for what could have been. But then you both go on with your lives. For the writer, there are other readers. For the reader, there are other writers. That's how it works.

As a writer, I'd like readers to give me my work a fair shake-to try what I write to see if we're a good fit. But if they try it and after a couple of fair-minded attempts they decide I'm just not the writer for them, then from my point of view the obvious solution is to acknowledge the fact and thereby avoid the task of grimly tromping through my future books. Because clearly I am not making them happy, and I have to admit that as a writer I don't enjoy the idea of someone joylessly hauling themselves through my prose for whatever reason they determine that they absolutely must. I really don't write books to be joyless slogs. Unless it's your job (or, in the highly specialized case of awards like the Hugos and Nebulas, you're reading a slate to determine your voting), there's probably not a good enough reason to do that to yourself.

I mean, if you've determined I'm not the writer for you, it's okay to check in every three or four books and see if I'm still not working for you. Who knows? Maybe I'll have changed my writing and/or something about you will have changed, and then suddenly what I write will work for you. Groovy. But otherwise I really would suggest taking the time you're using to unenthusiastically trudge through one of my books and devote it instead either to writers you know you love or (even better!) in the pursuit of newer authors who are looking for their audiences. You could be that audience! It's worth giving them a fair shake, rather than looking at one of my books and thinking to yourself, oh, c.r.a.p, another Scalzi book. Here we go.

Don't go. You don't have to go. If you don't really enjoy what I write, stop reading it. Read something else, from someone else. If for some reason you need my permission and blessing to do so, here it is. I sincerely hope you find another writer whose work you like better.

Joe Barton Just Wants to Have His Life Back Jun

18.

2010.

There are many ways to distinguish between the two major political parties in the United States, but one of the more obvious ways is in how they choose to implode. Democrats, for example, tend to implode in slow motion, when their own aimless, plodding inertia turns them into lugubrious and easy targets for the right wing media, which scurries around them, draping yet another thin, disingenuous stratum of "they're socialist grandmother killers!" over them until the whole sludgy edifice collapses from the acc.u.mulated weight, and the Democrats are crushed underneath. Republicans, on the other hand, implode like old, fat, ga.s.sy stars, when the depleted fuel of their empty ideology can't sustain further inward pressure from their personal idiocy, and the whole mess sucks down and then spectacularly erupts into a blazing display of abject stupidity.

And then you have something like what happened yesterday, when Texas representative and ranking Republican member of the House's energy and commerce committee Joe Barton apologized to BP for having to endure the "shakedown" of agreeing to put $20 billion in an escrow account to help pay for the damages the company inflicted on the Gulf of Mexico. Shortly thereafter Barton was forced by the Republican leaders.h.i.+p both to apologize for his apology and to retract it, which he did, in exactly the same manner a 10-year-old boy whose mother is standing behind him with a well-used wooden spoon apologizes to his sister for putting a dog t.u.r.d in her bed. Barton didn't apologize because he felt he did or said anything wrong; he did it because the alternative-losing his standing on the energy and commerce committee-would be more painful.

It's this fact which is the real problem for the Republicans. The Republican leaders.h.i.+p is righteously p.i.s.sed off at Barton at the moment, but the question not answered is: Is it p.i.s.sed off because he said something that does not reflect the Republican point of view on the escrow account, or is it p.i.s.sed off because Barton, the House GOP point man on energy, was stupid enough to say it out loud at a congressional hearing? The phrases "shakedown" and "slush fund" as regards the escrow account didn't come out of nowhere-other Republicans and right wing media were already using the terms before Barton made an a.s.s of himself with them. The major difference is that when Michele Bachmann and Sean Hannity punt the terms about, they're part of the GOP "socialist grandmother killer" strategy of dinging the Democrats over the long term, and the Republican leaders.h.i.+p doesn't have to engage with it directly and can distance itself from it if need be while still benefiting from getting the meme out there.

But when Barton, poster boy for the House GOP energy policy, used them, there was nowhere for the GOP leaders.h.i.+p to hide. It had to either disavow the statements and step on Barton's head, or hand the Democrats a really thick board to smack Republicans with from here to November. So the leaders.h.i.+p disavowed the statements and in doing so killed off any benefit they get from Bachmann or Hannity burbling on about shakedowns and slush funds because now they are explicitly contrary to the GOP position, and any further leakage of the phrases from backbenchers and right wing media is going to be used by the Democrats as further proof of the GOP's utter insincerity on the matter. But some folks won't get the memo, which is to say the Democrats probably still have a nice thick board to use between now and the elections, which Barton didn't just hand to them but personally engraved and then dropped trou and bent over to receive his beating.

I don't want to suggest the GOP isn't going to pick up seats in the House and Senate in November-I suspect it will-but I don't think it will pick up enough seats to take the majority from the Democrats in either chamber and I suspect that a large part of that will be because of the complete mess the party is currently making of its oil spill messaging, and in particular its a.s.sociation with and affinity for BP. One, I'm not at all sure why any Republican would want to be seen taking the side of a ma.s.sive foreign corporation over the American citizens and small business owners whose livelihoods are now threatened by that ma.s.sive foreign corporation's neglect and inept.i.tude. Two, in particular, I'm not at all sure why the Republicans would want to be seen doing that in the American South, where the majority of its political base lies. Three, n.o.body who isn't stupid and/or reflexively partisan would pretend that if a Republican president had negotiated the exact same escrow account with BP that Bachmann, Hannity, Barton et al, wouldn't be falling all over themselves to point out how it's an example of how Republicans work with private business to solve problems rather than trying to have government be the solution in itself and forcing tax-payers to foot the bill.

Basically there's little in the GOP oil spill positioning that isn't a) initially following the mantra of "Whatever Obama does is Socialist," b) a confused and hasty backtrack from that position when the GOP realize that most people are not interested in blaming Obama, they're interested in blaming BP, which to be fair is responsible for having its oil rig blow up, killing 11 workers, and gus.h.i.+ng millions of barrels of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. Part of the reason for this is that I don't think the GOP as it is currently intellectually const.i.tuted is able to handle getting off the script regarding point a), or doing anything but responding petulantly and defensively regarding point b). It and its members (and media) are so used to their "socialist grandma killer" talking points, and in trying to help the Democrats do their slow motion implosion that they just don't notice that when it comes to BP and the gulf, they're setting themselves up for their own implosions of supernova magnitude.

Joe Barton had to go up like an oily Roman candle for this to impinge in the GOP consciousness. I wonder how many more GOPers will have to go up for it to really sink in.

Just Plain Stupid Jun

6.

2011.

Dear Andrew Weiner: Seriously, dude? You're not some frat boy, you're a congressional representative. You shouldn't have to be told "no s.e.xtweets for you," you should know it on your own. And if you didn't know it, that other congressional representative-from your own state!-who made an a.s.s of himself on Craigslist earlier this year should have been a warning. But, I don't know. Maybe you thought this was the sort of thing that only happened to Republicans. Surprise! Married Democrats probably shouldn't do certain things either, and mailing around pictures of your swaddled member is one of them.

Ugh. I've been waiting for this particular announcement since Weiner admitted that he couldn't be sure the picture wasn't of him. I'm going to say it again: One probably does know one's own package, and at the very least one also knows if one makes a habit of sending ill-advised pictures of one's self on the Tubes. As soon as Weiner employed that particular hedge, the clock was on the play and it was just a matter of time until he either he admitted it, or the evidence piled up at his door. Weiner picked the more honorable route in terms of dealing with it (that is, after having lied about it to begin with), but once more: Dude. What were you thinking. And the answer, quite obviously: He wasn't thinking at all, or more aptly wasn't thinking with his brain.

For the record, I have no real issue with people s.e.xting or s.e.xtweeting or s.e.x-whatever-ing their little brains out; if it gives you joy, go ahead. Everyone has their hobbies. That said, this particular hobby does come with repercussions and responsibilities. Toward the former, as suggested earlier, this is one of those hobbies contraindicated by high-profile public service, especially if one has no stomach toward owning up to it when caught (and one would be caught sooner than later). Toward the latter, the relatively newlywed Mr. Weiner should have disclosed to his wife his little hobby, which he apparently did not until this morning, which was no doubt the least comfortable conversation in the history of the Weiner-Abedin breakfast nook.

If she had been fine with it-and who knows? There have been stranger things-then, well. Still not smart for a congressman, but then it would fall under the "hey, their life" category. But, look: When you're married or otherwise in a deeply serious relations.h.i.+p, all the cards are out on the table. No one likes surprises, and more to the point, your spouse (or the equivalent) deserves better than to get a surprise like this.

In sum: Stupid. Just plain stupid.

Kodi, 19972010 Jul