The New Yorker creates a cartoon lampooning what it thinks are the stereotypes on the right about Barack Obama.

The right, for the most part, snickers over the clumsy smear attempt by the lefty magazine.

The left goes apesh*t over the contemptable depiction of St. Obama.

Who's got a humor deficit here?

Or that's apparently what the Kansas City Star wants you to think with their laughable headline:

Bond now a McCain chieftain

No, you don't really need to click on the link--there's really not much of a story there, anyway. 

Let's play Flip the Bias, shall we?

McCaskill now an Obama matriarch

Nice, isn't it?  Sheesh.

Yeah, I rip on Barry a lot, mainly because I think evidence currently available indicates he's either an classic unprincipled Chicago machine win-at-all-costs politician, or a truly dangerous cult-of-personality hardcore leftist (I vacillate between those two positions).  But if he'd pull his leftie head out of his butt and say things like this more often, I might lighten up a bit (quote from the Kansas City Star):

"If we're serious about reclaiming that dream, we have to do more in our own lives, our own families and our own communities," Obama said. "That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework and setting a good example."

He added: "I know some say I've been too tough on folks about this responsibility stuff. But I'm not going to stop talking about it. Because I believe that in the end, it doesn't matter how much money we invest in our communities, or how many 10-point plans we propose, or how many government programs we launch - none of it will make any difference if we don't seize more responsibility in our own lives."

Even I could vote for a Chicago pol who sounds this way often enough.  But it's still McCain, or even Barr, before I'd go for Obi-Wan right now.

There's already enough unease in certain circles about Obama's neo-fascist tendencies without him going and saying scary crap like this:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set," he said. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

So . . . Obama wants . . . a domestic army, not subject to posse comitatus?  Brownshirts?  What, exactly?  The people picking up the pieces after the Civil War didn't think that would be such a good idea.

Or this is, perhaps, another "inartful" statement by the master of oratory?  I'm not sure which is scarier . . . an Obama that actually means what he says, or an Obama as President who can't get out of his own rhetorical way.  When you're dealing with foreign leaders who don't necessarily have the best interests of Americans at heart, can you afford to be "inartful?"

The political left is fond of denouncing the "fascism" of the political right.  Do you suppose they will notice, creeping up on them, putting an arm around them and saying soothing and uplifting words, telling them to Hope for Change, the very thing that they most fear, but with a smiley face?

Via the Baltimore Sun's blogs through lonewacko.com and Protein Wisdom.

Michael Benson writes in the Washington Post:

Although NASA officials will never quite say so, their current attitude seems to be that the station is essentially a high-maintenance distraction, even a mistake. Their plan is to finish assembling the thing ASAP and hand the keys over to the Russians, Canadians, Europeans and Japanese, with minimal continuing U.S. involvement. This should happen by the shuttle's mandatory retirement in 2010. Meanwhile, we're still writing a lot of high-denomination checks and preparing the two remaining shuttles for risky flights to finish something we then plan to be largely rid of. This seems absurd. I have an alternative proposal:

Send the ISS somewhere.

Hat tip:  Instapundit

From the Butterflies and Wheels philosophy blog (a possible candidate for a new must-read blog), via Reason Online:

The alternatives, the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut suggests, are simple: ‘Either people have rights or they have uniforms; either they can legitimately free themselves from oppression… or else their culture has the last word.’

A right means nothing if it applies only to the group, not the individual.  There is no such thing as a "group right."  No such thing as "civil rights."  Only individual rights are true rights.

Culture is by its nature oppressive.  Culture requires conformity--any culture.  The words "black culture," "white culture," "American culture," "Chinese culture," and "Islamic culture" all bring to mind different things.  Call them stereotypes if you want, but what is a culture but a collection of behaviors that are unique and distinctive to a particular group?  Within any particular culture, certain behaviors are encouraged, others are discouraged, and some are taboo.

The problem, of course, is that things that one culture encourages, another culture discourages, or even declares taboo.  Eating dog meat.  Chopping off the heads of your enemies.  That kind of thing.

So, then, how can an individual be "multicultural?"  (Unless, of course, that individual belongs to the "multicultural culture."  Left as a thought exercise to the reader are the contradictions inherent in a "multicultural culture.")

Can a person hold two cultures to be equally "valid" without, at some point, choosing between the cultural dictates of one or the other?  If you kind of like pork chops, but don't eat pork because you're respecting Islam, are you being multicultural, or are you submitting to one culture's taboos over another culture's permissions?

Snookums claims that I sometimes have "intellectual" tendencies.  I guess she's right.

She's generally immune to the gizmo-faddism that afflicts me and most men that I know, but I showed her this article on Gizmodo and she said she wanted it.

Photo credit:  Amazon via Gizmodo

Sean Fallon writes at Gizmodo:

. . . this weird Progressive International Microwavable S’Mores Maker claims to make 2 perfect s'mores in 30 seconds flat because the little "arms" keep the marshmallows from expanding to much. I still think you need a fire to make perfect s'mores, not some gadget that looks like a melted Mr. Potato Head—but if you insist on throwing your money away, the PIMSM can be had for $6.95. [Amazon via Unclutterer via Technabob]

That's my Snookums . . . practical and a cheap date.  What guy could ask for more?

That's all that the Democrats have for an energy policy.  Quoted in The Hill (via PowerLine):

Exactly when Democrats will change their present course and bring an energy bill to the floor remains uncertain.
“Right now, our strategy on gas prices is ‘Drive small cars and wait for the wind,’ ” said a Democratic aide.

Enjoy your $6 a gallon gasoline, coming soon to a gas station near you courtesy the Democratic Party of the United States.

And no, McCain isn't much better, either, although some Republicans are trying to push increasing the supply.  Drill here, drill now.

Dog is off the menu for the Olympics in China, reports a news organization which shall not be named.

No namee, no linkee, so sorree.

Iran shoots off three, no four, no FIVE missiles.  AT ONCE!

Photo credit:  Little Green Footballs

Bow down, infidels, to the superior Photoshopping ummah of the Islamic Republic!  Bow down!

I think someone's been watching YouTube a bit too much.