the Urban Dictionary definition ("The act of changing your mind on a subject matter because Obama agrees with you") was much too wordy - 15 words. By using the verb form, rather than the noun, I could cut out "The act of".
Whoever thought of the concept made a pretty good start, though, and I urge you to go upvote the word on the Urban Dictionary.
The Obama image I use is one I hadn't seen before. I flipped it horizontally so that it fit the text better.
Will Rogers was one of America's subtlest thinkers. He made his living as an entertainer and died far too young. To comment on the Syria situation ... about which I am very conflicted ... I started with his full quote...
....and then trimmed and added the "What it...." demimeme to fit the visual presentation. I love that picture of him - the cowboy-theme of his more common photos, while honest about the self he chose to present to the world, would distract from the message.
There were several political rallies in DC this week. About the motorcycle rally on September 11 there's not much to say; various groups tried to claim it for their political purpose but that's not news. Two other rallies amused me, and I used actual photos to comment on their impact.
Meanwhile, the War On Women continues with hysterical attacks on politicians that, while no doubt prompted in part because of their stands on the issues, prompt mockery of the underlying fear of gender:
Also newsworthy was a claim by Ted Nugent that 9/11 happened because our military and political establishments had been infilitrated by "mindless stoned punks". While Poopy-Pants Ted really has no credibility when it comes to attacking our armed forces, he does let me match his words to a famous punk whose infiltration did occur:
All of the above could, in a rational universe, make a little bit of sense. The week's craziest news is that the man caught returning from the child prostitution capital of the Caribbean with an opened box of Viagra, and who said about this vacation, "I had a great time. Wish I could talk about it." has published a children's book. From the structure of the title it's obvious he's hoping to create a series, so I helpfully offer the next title (a prequel)
Notice the title is an afterthought.
...quite apart from the sheer ickiness of letting Rush near children unsupervised is the sheer incompetence of the series concept. The cover has a talking horse ... which is a winner ... and various books in the series can simply change the words after "and the..." with any old thing, letting ghost writers fill in the text with formula adventures. This could work; it's a winning formula (see: Nancy Drew.)
However the idea is peddled as a way of teaching history to children. To do that, you don't want someone named "Revere" appearing anywhere except around the time of the Revolution. If any children were actually to read this book ... a questionable proposition ... they would remember that Paul Revere came over on the Mayflower. Giving the title character a more neutral name would have been the first job of an editor. "Little Rush" or "Gotta Rush" or "Johnny Rush" or ... well, almost anything would be better.
Another flaw is the cover illustration. Children don't pick up books because they have a picture of a creepy old man on it. If "Little Rush" had been drawn as a child, the might actually attract a child.
The biggest, most easily-read words on the cover are the name of the author. Kids don't care about Limbaugh; the target audience is their parents. Unless the ghostwriter has done a better job on the text than they did on the cover, this book will teach Teabagger children to hate reading.
Well, it's a competitive world out there. If today's "conservatives" want to disadvantage themselves ... please proceed!
(More to come ...)
(More to come ...)