James Poulos has in the past been, in my mind, one of those all-too-uncommon righties who is actually worth hearing out. You know the kind, or at least rue the rarity -- don't always agree with him, says some truly whacked-out things, but still, not always just regurgitating Rush, Beck, and Newt. I used to check in on the original(?) Postmodern Conservative blog pretty regularly, and I'd also try to remember to look for his posts over at The American Scene.
And then he moved PoMoCo over to First Things, and howl how you will about GUILT BY ASSOCIATION!!!1!, I could not often bring myself to consider worthy any longer someone who would willingly associate himself with the likes of The Anchoress and Hateway Pundit. There is a shortage of time and energy in all of our minds, and we must therefore apply filters, crude though they may sometimes be.
However! Roy informs us "that nice young man" has moved on -- looks like! hurrah! -- and is now, it appears, "an Editor and contributor at Ricochet." (Maybe we will henceforth refer to "James Poulos, Ed." as Jim Ed Poulos, because we like obscure baseball references.)
So! Maybe those thought-waves I've been beaming at him ever since he descended into being a part of what someone, I can't remember who, called "that fascist Catholic outfit" have transmogrified him just a bit. Let us pray.
Apropos of nothing, except that it has been grating on me even more than usual lately, I wish to register my irritation with what has become an all too common expression.
I really have had it with this: no one ever describes him- or herself as working anymore. It is always working hard.
It's reached the point where adding the modifier diminishes the verb. We are not fairly amused.
Either stop doing that, or if we're to surrender to the inevitable, that the cliché has become an idiom, let's just be honest with ourselves that we've cheapened yet another phrase and eliminate the space: We have been workinghard on our latest project.
__________
[Added] Also: working closely with. Ugh. Prefer working with.
Yeah, so I just learnt me a new word, and I made a punny. Sue me.
But before you do that, go read my teacher and the associated comments. Boy am I glad I made the conscious decision to read no newspapers or blogs yesterday.
And if promoting a piece of debris to the level of Holy Relic isn't enough for you, you might also have a look at Roy's previous post, in which he notes the (person who we ought always refer to as the disgraced) former Speaker of the House huffing about how we can't trust the President of the United States. Because he's a Kenyan. And Newt knows this to be true because Dinesh Fucking D'Souza told him so. I am not making this up.
Let me just add that I hope Roy's closing thought in the first post was nothing more than a burst of frustration. We have precious few pillars of sanity left in this country.
__________
[Added] Roy's also right about Gingrich's reach for ALINSKY!!!1! as the new all-purpose pejorative. Y'know, I'm not the best-read libtard on the planet, but I never even heard of this guy until mid-2008, when butthurt wingnuts started howling his name every five seconds, and I'd lay long odds I'm not unique in this unfamiliarity. You'd think they thought it would never have occurred to any of us to ridicule their ridiculousness absent some figure of authority telling us it was good to do so.
Come to think of it, that probably says something of significance about what we might politely call their thought processes.
Following a link from the sidebar on Rachel Maddow's blog, I was led to this short clip from her show, "Free press confounds man who can buy anything." This is a delicious bit of snark directed at David Koch, who simply does not care for those people who report on his less savory activities.
As you'll have noted, Maddow mentioned a piece about Koch in The Daily Beast, which is not the Tucker Carlson webzine but that other one. Turns out the piece was written by one Elaine Lafferty. We will now go off on a brief tangent to examine this member of the Liberal Media, So Called.
On her DB bio page, we see that she is "a former staff correspondent at Time magazine." Also from there, we see that Lafferty has authored several other DB posts, two of which are "Palin's Smart Move" and "Sarah Palin's a Brainiac."
Trust me. You don't want to click those links. They are about as fawningly nauseating as you could imagine.
I am reminded of another journamalist who can't stop gushing about Palin, what's her name, that Scientologist from FoxNews … Oh, here, back on that Lafferty bio page: "She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren."
Okay, now that we have some sense of where Elaine Lafferty is coming from, let's get back to David Koch and his butthurt.
First, a little context. You might recall that in late August, Jane Mayer wrote a long New Yorker piece on the Koch brothers -- "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama." Mayer was unable to get an interview with either David or his brother Charles:
The Kochs and their political operatives declined requests for interviews. Instead, a prominent New York public-relations executive who is close with the Kochs put forward two friends …
After the piece ran, Koch Industries put out a press release ("Response to Recent Media Attacks"). At the same time, Nick Gillespie, the editor of the glibertarian rag, Reason magazine, attempted to debunk Mayer's piece. (For both, see here.) Reason, as you may or may not know, is also largely funded by Koch. Evidently, this double-barreled response didn't suffice, and so, amazingly, Lafferty was able to get an interview with David Koch.
But, he says, no one from the Tea Party movement has ever approached him for money, and when I ask him straight up if he’s funding the Tea Party, all he says is, “Oh, please.”
Hard-nosed reporter that she is, she asks a series of penetrating follow-up questions quickly moves on to another topic: his donations to Democrats.
To which I will pause to say, y'know, Ms. Lafferty, I'd think someone in your position would not be shocked, shocked to find out that rich people give money to both parties, especially when they're aware that the one they favor less is about to be in power. It's called buying access and future consideration. I might also observe that David Koch giving politicians or anybody else a couple hundred thou over the years is about like me buying a piece of penny candy and getting back change.
There is one useful thing in Lafferty's piece, though: as part of her description of the "media attacks" on poor David Koch, she mentions another profile, written about a month before Jane Mayer's New Yorker piece. This one is by Andrew Goldman, and it ran on NYMag.com on 25 July 2010. It's worth a read.
Lafferty wraps up her fluffery with several paragraphs of glowing description of the donations Koch has made to fund cancer research. To which I say, BFD. This doesn't make him a saint or even necessarily altruistic. He has cancer. He's undoubtedly acting, at least in large part, out of self-interest. A more honest reporter, like Andrew Goldman let us say, might have mentioned something like this:
“I’ve been living with it for sixteen years,” he told me two years ago. “I look pretty healthy, don’t I? My doctor thinks the treatment I’ve been getting will work for many more years, but eventually it will fail. So I’ve been financing the development of other treatments that could kick in when the traditional treatments I’m getting stop working.”
Oh, and let's just have a couple of other bits from Goldman's piece, to illustrate some other things Lafferty did not address. How about the oilman's view of global warming?
"The Earth will be able to support enormously more people because a far greater land area will be available to produce food," he says.
“That I was saved when all those others died. I felt that the good Lord spared my life for a purpose. And since then, I’ve been busy doing all the good works I can think of.”
Further comment here, as they say, would be superfluous.
And to close out, let's get back to the Koch bankrolling of the teabagger movement, and observe Goldman doing a bit more than just obediently typing, "Oh, please."
On October 3 of last year, at the Crystal Gateway Marriott hotel in Arlington, Virginia, Koch spoke from a podium at the Defending the American Dream Summit, a convention put on by Americans for Prosperity Foundation. The convention had brought out 2,000 attendees and an impressive roster of speakers from the right, from Senator Jim DeMint to Newt Gingrich to the Wall Street Journal’s John Fund. There was little doubt as to Koch’s importance to the group. “Right from the beginning,” said AFP president Tim Phillips, “it was David’s vision that launched our organization.” Then Koch took the microphone. “When we founded this organization five years ago,” he said, “we envisioned a mass movement …"
And:
“David Koch likes putting his name on all his things that aren’t evil,” says Lee Fang, a blogger for the liberal Thinkprogress.org. “He’ll put his name on his theater at Lincoln Center, but look at the Americans for Prosperity website and his name is virtually missing. All of his groups have used these same tea-party tactics before they actually had the tea-party brand.” Americans for Prosperity, AFPF’s political arm, has certainly not shied away from joining arms with the tea party. In April of last year, AFP took credit on its website for helping to organize Taxpayer Tea Party rallies in Sacramento, Austin, and Madison, and told visitors to “save the date” for National Tea Party Tax Day in Washington, which AFP would be hosting.
That's probably as much attention as Elaine Lafferty deserves. However, you might be interested in reading more about about the Koch brothers and their less well-publicized funding activities. For example, Goldman says towards the end of his article:
In April, Fang posted a dossier on Koch that attributes to his groups a decades-long pattern of “Astroturfing”—funding movements designed to look grassroots, but which in fact represent corporate interests.
KK, via email, points to an announcement on the Ask.com blog that says "we will shut down Bloglines on October 1." It's mostly suit-speak; the gist is, Ask.com wasn't making enough money off of Bloglines to want to keep running the service.
That post, and others, tell us that the coolkids have proclaimed the death of feed readers, due to the Twitter and other services. I can accept that there are other options -- I track some bloggers via their Twitter feeds myself -- but I think it's a little early to start shoveling dirt into the hole. Not everyone I want to follow pipes announcements of his or her new articles and blog posts onto Twitter, for one thing, and for another, it's nice to be able to browse a bunch of posts in one place, without having to click a clicky to read each one.
So, what to do? There are still a number of other feed readers out there. The only one I have any real experience with, besides Bloglines, is Google Reader, and I like that well enough. (Truth is, even though Bloglines has long been decaying, I have resisted moving to Google Reader just because I sometimes get nervous that the Google handles too many of my web services for me already.)
Anyway, preliminaries aside, it is easy to move from Bloglines to Google Reader and bring your feeds with you. Here are the steps:
Visit your Bloglines page, go to the Additional Features section at the bottom of the left-hand column, and click Export Subscriptions. This causes a file named export.opml to be saved to your local machine. (Note that this does not delete your feeds from Bloglines or close your Bloglines account or anything like that.)
Yeah, I have a taste, too. And yeah, they make the big money, and you can argue that this is part of what they get paid for. And then there's the freedom of the press argument.
Still, anyone who doesn't think there's something seriously wrong here is definitely part of the problem.
It's one thing to take some snapshots of, let's say, a celebrity acting like a celebretard at a nightclub. It's quite another to pull this level of harassment on a mother and her child just trying to collect their luggage and be on their way. And not to go all ZOMG TEH TERRISTS on you, but is that how we want a dozen airport security personnel spending their time?
Jezebel (via) says there's shortly going to be an anti-paparazzi law passed in California in response to episodes like this. I am dubious about any law restricting press access, but I have to say, there gets to be a point where abuse of rights and privileges causes the jackboot to come down, and while I don't like it -- people should just behave decently without threat of legal sanction -- the gossip rags, websites, and their audiences have no one to blame but themselves for this one.
Remember the last couple of weeks in August, when one Gallup poll showed a ten-point edge for generic Republicans over generic Democrats in the coming Congressional elections, and how much media attention that got? How even Nate "I don’t usually like to comment on individual polls" Silver was pleased to comment on this individual poll?
(That's a 46-46 tie, for those of you blocking images or not interested in donning your graph-reading nerd glasses)
Oh, wait. I forgot. Not only is it not news to the so-called liberal media unless it can be framed as Democrats In Disarray™, we also have some assclown minister from Florida who demands wall-to-wall coverage. And we must have equal parts fawning and chin-stroking over Beck and Palin doin' that 9/11 griftin', also, too.
The Balloon Juicers have a tag called Our Failed Media Experiment, and they don't just mean FoxNews and hate radio.
Sometimes it seems a little hysterical. Other times …
A big part of why we're in the mess we're in is that the wingnut media makes ever more insane claims and the so-called liberal media responds by asking, "Is there anything to this? Maybe not, but to be safe, we should say the truth lies somewhere in the middle."
Very smart post from Gunnar Hellekson, pushing back against the shouty types who think transparency should equal instant reform of everything everywhere. It's not long, so you have no excuse not to read it.
I am glad to see Ken Layne, and via him, Oliver Willis, Matt Yglesias, Jason Linkins, and Alex Pareene, calling attention to your boss's latest racist insanity, but I want to hear from you. It is long past time for you to speak out against Marty Peretz. Yeah, I know he signs your paychecks, but come on. Enough is enough. Same for your colleagues, but you're my favorite writer at TNR. So please, do the right thing.
Probably only of interest for obsessives, so, yes, naturally I read the whole thing. And so did your Ken Layne.
The funniest part concerns some PR person, also a Christian talk show host and (better sit down for this part) contributor to one of Breitbart's Big sites, "Gina Loudon, an acquaintance of Palin’s," about whom MJG says, "Let me state this as unequivocally as possible: Loudon’s accounts have no basis in reality."
There's also a little bit of a backhand delivered to the new Matthew Continetti, Ben Smith of the rePubOLITICO.
The gist: Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera all had it, too. They have all patched it. Microsoft is "looking into it." And only after the security researcher who discovered the bug went public, after finding he was "unsuccessful in persuading the vendor to issue a fix."
New Jerseyans are hardly alone in paying for stadiums that no longer exist. Residents of Seattle’s King County owe more than $80 million for the Kingdome, which was razed in 2000. The story has been similar in Indianapolis and Philadelphia. In Houston, Kansas City, Mo., Memphis and Pittsburgh, residents are paying for stadiums and arenas that were abandoned by the teams they were built for.
P.S. You'll be delighted, however, to note that teabagger darling Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey is showing the sort of take-charge, responsible, don't-blame-your-predecessors attitude that the Republican Party promises to deliver, come 2010:
“Believe me, I’m not unaware of the debt situation that was left here in my lap by decisions made by previous administrations,” Gov. Christie said, speaking from the 50-yard line at New Meadowlands Stadium.
Where he was no doubt shoving hotdogs into his face.
I just happened upon the latest edition of your … my … hell, everybody's favorite feature of the New York Times: "The Conversation." As in, that recurrent (as in chronic) thing between Gail Collins and David Brooks about which Doghouse Riley once said:
Anyway, whenever I read one of these things I'm tempted to imagine the Slow News Monday last December some time when Brooks and Collins were spotted firing paperclips at a Dixie Cup, and a passing supervisor told them if they couldn't find anything to do he'd find something.
Nothing against Gail Collins, but I do not usually read those -- in fact, I usually run as fast as I can away from them -- but something (hathos, perhaps) made me start reading the latest. Oh, no, wait, I remember why I started -- the NYT tricked me by putting a link to it in a sidebar and only giving the headline: "What the Tea Party Really Wants." (I guess it was hathos that made me read the whole thing.) Here's how it starts.
Gail Collins: David, did you go to the Glenn Beck rally in Washington last weekend?
David Brooks: I did and I have to confess I really enjoyed it. I’m no Beck fan obviously, but the spirit was really warm, generous and uplifting. The only bit of unpleasantness I found emanated from some liberal gatecrashers behaving offensively, carrying anti-Beck banners and hoping to get in some televised fights.
If that doesn't fulfill every dark thought you had about David "Salad Bar at Applebee's" Brooks and his utter disengagement with reality and the hoi polloi, I don't know what will. I guess he never saw this video, for example.
Yes, that was shot at the same event Brooks ostensibly visited.
To her credit, Gail Collins does spend the entire conversation ridiculing him, at least as much as is possible in that context. The part about Sweden was pretty good.
Yesterday, I noted some Flickr photographs of James Bridle's The Iraq War: A Historiography of Wikipedia Changelogs, which is a printed collection of every edit of the Wikipedia page for the Iraq War, a twelve volume set.
I mentioned in one of the afterthoughts to my post, about the creator of that work who had spoken at a recent conference:
Sounds like the rest of us really missed a good talk. Hope they taped it.
Today, I went over to booktwo.org, one of James Bridle's web sites, and what did I see but a fascinating post on the Historiography and his thinking on history as a process, and then this line at the very end:
Between The Alexandrian War of 48 BCE and the Muslim conquest of 642 CE, the Library of Alexandria, containing a million scrolls and tens of thousands of individual works was completely destroyed, its contents scattered and lost. An appreciable percentage of all human knowledge to that point in history was erased. Yet in his novella “The Congress”, Jorge Luis Borges wrote that “every few centuries, it’s necessary to burn the Library of Alexandria”.
In his session James will ask if, as we build ourselves new structures of knowledge and certainty, as we design our future, should we be concerned with the value of our ruins?
With a background in both computing and traditional publishing James Bridle attempts to bridge the gaps between technology and literature. He runs Bookkake, a small independent publisher and writes about books and the publishing industry at booktwo.org. In 2009 he helped launch Enhanced Editions, the first e-reading application with integrated audiobooks.
So there's that. Downloading now.
[Added] Note that clicking the dConstruct link in the above blockquote (or that one, obvs.) will show you some of the other talks from the same conference.
Roy Edroso's latest round-up is now available. Intro here, full column here. Every time I think they can't possibly get any more willfully stupid, they eat another handful of paint chips. [Added: and a pre-Labor Day post here.]
And from the comments under the column, also see commie atheist's Labor Day remembrances.
Apparently, this woman believes that because she is one of "the voices of those who oppose the tyrant," her voice is being "eliminated."
And such strongly seems to be the case of the techniques now utilized by the two major Internet search engines — Google and Yahoo. It appears that when they are told by The Obama to delete an opposer's name from their files, like Pharaoh Seti I is said to have deleted Moses' name from everything in the Egyptian New Kingdom, my name has now almost been completely deleted from Google and Yahoo is following close behind the leftist leader. Are plans to eradicate other truth-tellers on the way?
Note: For regular readers, this additional sabotage will come as no surprise. This has been occurring steadily over the past 2-3 years. I have gone from over 1.5Million entries on each search site to — now — under 8,000 entries on Google and about 22K on Yahoo.
We do not, of course, have any way to verify that she used to get "1.5Million" hits in her previous moments of ego-surfing, although we can confirm Googling Sher Zieve at this moment does indeed return "about 7870" hits. We will also note that Googling Sher returns 35 million hits, Googling Zieve returns 473,000, and one of the top hits for the latter is Zieve's Syndrome, which "is an acute metabolic condition that can occur during withdrawal from prolonged alcohol abuse."
You will want to read Tintin's take, for sure, but true connoisseurs might want to start at the source. Here are some of my favorite passages.
For my Uber-leftist critics, no I am not equating myself to the Deliverer Moses. First, I simply wouldn't do so. Second I'm a woman and third I doubt even The Obama would yet have the audacity to take on a known messenger from God; although I have no doubt he might actually consider it.
The reason I'm writing this has nothing to do with either self-pity or self-aggrandizement. […] Instead, I am writing it to let you know the depths to which this administration — and all Marxists — will stoop to silence their critics. Historically, when these totalitarian governments remain unchallenged by any effective means — and are allowed to remain in power — will, in time, begin to use more brutal and perverse tactics; from placing their opposition into prisons and eventual outright mass "exterminations." […] After Obama & Co has completed its experiment on me, which of you will be next for speaking up against the planned demise of We-the-People?
And then there are her … references, I guess she'd call them, at the bottom of the page: links to "Moses, Ramses and Seti," "Worst Genocides of 20th Century," and "Stalin Atrocities (pictorial)."
For a little perspective, let's note the headline of a few of her previous columns: "Obama's August surprise: turning AZ and 22 other states over to the UN." "Obama vacations: destroying a country is hard work." "ObamaGov establishing Islam as official USA state religion?" "Midterm elections 2010: Marxists vs. Americans." "Will Obama 'persuade' Americans their slavery is inevitable?" "Obama doesn't want America's recovery." "AZ ceded to Mexico and the rise of the Obama police state?" "Obama's 'fundamental transformation' means total annihilation." "Dictator Obama reaches day 70 of his Gulf destruction."
Which only gets us back the end of June. There are gobs more. Hard to believe we haven't run out of purple crayons yet.
Oh, and what's this, back in April? "Obama's Google deleting me?" Good lord. And it's actually a different column. Well, different word arrangements, same great paranoid flavor; e.g.:
And although my column output continues to be even greater than in has been in the past, within about a year and a half I have gone from between 1-2 millions of Google entries to a few thousand after last week. Note: Google knocked off 60,000 entries after I wrote and had published my article "Barack Hussein Obama: Marxist Ideologue or Evolving Madman?" Guess it struck a rather large nerve. Retribution and retaliation against my continuing to tell the truth? You betcha'!
And then there are her fellow inmates site colleagues. Let's have a quick look at the ledes from the latest from some of them, shall we? Start right off with their rock star, Bryan Fischer, whose fear of Muslins (NO MORE MOSQUES, PERIOD) is matched only by his homophobia. What's the latest from ol' BF?
Here's something you wouldn't expect unless you were an Islamorealist (as opposed to an Islamophobe):
President Obama's surrender in Iraq is more popular in America than in Iraq.
Wow. Pushing that "surrender" line already, huh? Oooo-kay. Who's next? Oh, hello, Wes Vernon!
Before Communist Howard Zinn died in January, he was actively spearheading an effort to inject his lying version of American history into the innocent heads of little tots almost as soon as they are able to talk.
Ever since Karl Marx lied that he based his ideas upon science — for example, his "scientific socialism" — a defining characteristic of leftists has been an insufferably arrogant bragging about their exquisite rationality.
Now, if it were true that leftist ideology is based upon reason, it would qualify for inclusion in science textbooks. However, as every honest person knows, it can't be because it isn't.
But really. Only a million dollars? Pikers. I mean, compared to …
Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Petroleum Corporation, two Texas refining companies, [who] have together donated more than $4.5 million to the campaign to repeal AB 32, the state’s clean air and energy law.
But! Good news! The AP also reports:
According to the Los Angeles Times, a spokeswoman for Flint Hills Resources said the company "may consider additional support."
And why are the Koch brothers and these other Good Corporate Citizens™ giving so much money to this proposition? Because they care about the little guy! Not about whether he and his kids can breathe or stay out of floods, but his "jobs!"
This proposition to overturn California's Global Warming Act of 2006 is called the "California Jobs Initiative." You know, kind of like the tobacco lobby-backed proposition from 1994, which was spun as an "anti-smoking" proposition that would Protect the Children™. And more recently, like George W. Bush, who gave his environment-killing agenda items names like "Clear Skies" and "Healthy Forests."
Hurrah for not being bullshitted by billionaires, who only care about Your Best Interests™!
Oh, one other thing: you'll also be delighted to know that despite a concerted effort to avoid getting pinned down about where she stands on this, Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina finally announced -- on the Friday before Labor Day Weekend, but that's probably a coincidence, amirite? -- that she stands with Big Pollution and supports Prop. 23. And we know Carly Cares™ about jobs. After all, when she was running Hewlett-Packard, she added, what, negative ten thousand of them?
If you want to learn more about where the money is coming from and going to, here are some starting points:
Ballotpedia Prop. 23 page: a good executive summary of the issues and the players, with lots of solid reference links.
Cal-Access: the California Secretary of State's official database of campaign contributions. Layout is a bit clunky, but if you're willing to dig, the information is there. Start here or here, perhaps.
OpenSecrets.org's page on the oil and gas industry. This is a national effort, so you'll also be able to find out where, and who, else the likes of Valero, Tesoro, and the Koch brothers are seeking to buy.
One final note: Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, said in back in spring it's likely campaign spending on this ballot measure will set a new record. That means well more than $150 million burned up on buying ads and politicians. I wonder how many jobs we could create for that. With bonus cleaner air thrown in.
(h/t: TC and PF, via email, for the heads-up about the Koch AP story | pic. sources: Wonk Room and Open Salon)
Two of them, actually. During a delightful sun shower.
I've been thinking since then that never mind the colors, the shape had to be really startling to early humans -- so simple a curve, so unlike the cragginess of rocks and trees and clouds. That, perhaps, even looks like it's holding up the sky. So it just occurred to me: I wonder if the original impetus for the arch as a structural element came from marveling at rainbows?
While my so far uncancerous throat, let me rush to assure my Christian correspondent above, is not at all the only organ with which I have blasphemed.
Christopher Hitchens has a new piece up on Vanity Fair: "Unanswerable Prayers." In which he answers those who claim to be Christians, among other things.
And don't miss this sidebar thing, "Dear Hitchens." Way cool.
... but this red panda is pretty darned cute by any name.
This picture is one of a series called "15 animals that are living fossils," featuring sixteen slides but who's counting, and it's well worth a look. Here's what they have to say about the little one above:
Hailing from the temperate forests of the Himalayas, these adorable creatures are the only surviving members of the family Ailuridae.
Despite the name, red pandas are barely related to the giant panda. They represent a lineage that more closely marks a cross section of bears and skunks, weasels and raccoons. They are truly in a world all their own.
Their association with the giant panda may have to do with the animals' similar diets, which includes a lot of bamboo, than it does any sort of evolutionary relationship.
Not all of the "living fossils" will give you a warm fuzzy. The purple frog? The mantis shrimp? The hagfish ("the only living animals that have a skull but not a vertebral column")? The goblin shark? Whoa. Way cool, even if not unanimously cuddly. But there are koalas. And no end of interesting-looking related links. So click on over.
No, no, come back. This is not about the ex-Preznit. This is considerably more likeable, although it may take you two minutes to see why, if you haven't seen it already.
