At the Harvest Café...

... if you're rad, dish.

(Photo by Meade.)

Ridiculous "anti-rape" clothing that's getting crowdfunded.

"The creators hope to develop various styles of underwear, running shorts, and 'traveling shorts' that will be comfortable to wear — and virtually unnoticeable — under clothing and 'during normal activities.'"

They also note that the garments will ideally be “resistant to pulling, tearing and cutting”... but difficult for another person to remove — which is particularly important “in situations where the victim cannot resist because she has had too much to drink, was drugged, or is asleep.”

What kind of garment is difficult for another person to remove but would allow a person who "has had too much to drink" and "cannot resist" sex to take care of the "normal activity" of using the bathroom?

Of course, there are other criticisms of this product... this nonexistent, stupid product. But crowdfunding is crowdfunding. Check out this story of a woman getting people to pay for her high-priced Uber cabfare to get home from a party and "avoid drunk driving." One naysayer says:

Really… it’s her own fault for being too drunk to realize. Uber makes you type in what the current fare increase is so you’re aware that you’re requesting a ride during a price hike.

"There are very few cases I can ever think of where the Court has said the President can act contrary to a statute."

Said Justice Breyer, 3 years ago, in the oral argument of a case that has returned to the Supreme Court for oral argument today.

Ever since the founding of Israel in 1948, the U.S. has taken the position that no country has sovereignty over Jerusalem until its status is negotiated in a Middle East peace deal. Israel's supporters in Congress, however, have tried to force a different policy, passing legislation that would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and require the State Department to allow U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to list Israel as their place of birth on their passports.

The Bush administration and the Obama administration both refused to do so, contending that the passport mandate unconstitutionally infringes on the president's foreign policy powers.

There are very few cases where the President can act in opposition to a statute, but — as I suspect the Court will have to say — this is one of them.

"Hansi, the Girl Who Loved the Swastika" is only #9 on the list of "10 Most Ridiculous Comic Book Nazis."

What was I looking for when I found that?

You might guess that I'm going back to Saturday's topic: "Mary Burke's use of the swastika in her ad does the very thing defenders of the ad will say she's accusing her antagonist of doing."

But you would be wrong.

I just did a Google image search for "airplane as a cartoon villain" to try to find a funny picture for the Air-Force-One-as-Metaphor post. If you search only for "airplane as a cartoon character," you get a lot of smiley, nice airplanes. I guess people don't want kids to get the idea that planes are scary.

Unfair attack on Obama... by a metaphor.

Air Force One won't fly!

Remember when Air Force One eagerly stepped up to the demands of propaganda — even beyond the call of duty?

A civility matchup: Christie's "Sit down and shut up" versus Rand Paul's "The Republican brand sucks."

I greatly enjoyed Rand Paul's performance yesterday on "Face the Nation." At one point, I was moved to exclaim "He's very articulate," and Meade quipped, "And clean." Anyone other than Paul who's hoping to run for president better observe Paul carefully. He's setting a high standard in speaking skill. Now, Chris Christie also has his verbal ability, but it's different from Paul's, and Paul was invited to criticize the way Christie speaks, with that viral clip of Christie forcibly deflating a heckler:

GOV. CHRIS CHRISTIE (R), NEW JERSEY: There's been 23 months since then when all you have been doing is flapping your mouth and not doing anything. So, listen, you want to have the conversation later, I'm happy to have it, buddy. But until that time, sit down and shut up.

Now, when I hear that, I laugh and say something like "I love it!" But here's how Paul reacted, prompted by Bob Shieffer's question: "What do you think? Is that the right demeanor for somebody getting ready to run for president?" I'll boldface some notable word choices:

PAUL: I think this sort of bully demeanor may go over well in certain places. But I can't imagine that -- I grew up in the South. And we're, yes, ma'am, and, no, sir, and a little bit more polite. So, I don't think that -- I think people want someone to be bold. And there was a time when I thought, you know what? When he stands up and he says things boldly, that's kind of good. He's not taking any flak. But there can be [too] much of that too. We live in a world where we have so much cacophony of voices on TV sometimes of yelling back and forth. And I think there's a resurgence of people who want a little more civility and discourse.

Notice how subtle the critique is. We only need "a little" more politeness. He's not slamming Christie. He said the word "bully," but he didn't call Christie a bully. He referred to the "demeanor" as "sort of bully," and noted that in some regions of the country, it might not "go over well." He swapped out "bully" for "bold" as he continued, and he said that it was even "kind of good," but in the right dose, perhaps dispensed by someone with a better understanding of what the right dose is, which would, of course, be Dr. Paul. Paul deftly offers himself as the man with the good balance of boldness and politesse. He doesn't directly say that, but he's from the South, and the people in the South have more of a culture of polite speech.

And I love the form of his call for "civility," which is also indirect. He tells us that there are "people who want a little more civility." It's not that there's no civility now or that we need much more civility. We just need a little more civility. And, note, Paul doesn't even say that he likes or wants civility, only that he understands those people who want more civility. Best of all, he links "civility" with "discourse." It's not mere blandness that people want. They want the "cacophony" and "yelling" to give way to back-and-forth substantive conversation to make us more informed, thoughtful, and able to interact with those who have differing beliefs and preferences.

I'm carefully parsing this and am impressed with the detail and the balance to these remarks that just rolled out of the man. But when I listened to the interview the first time, I'd thought I'd heard a contradiction. I wrote down 2 words to find in the transcript for this blog post. The words are "hell" and "sucks." "Hell" actually doesn't appear in the transcript. Seconds after hearing Christie's "sit down and shut up," I'd remembered it as "sit the hell down and shut up" or "sit down and shut the hell up." But "sucks" is in there, and it's Rand Paul who said it. This was an earlier part of the interview which became relevant to me after I heard what he said about polite speech:

SCHIEFFER: You know, you had a somewhat surprising comment the other day. You said -- and this is your quote -- "The Republican brand sucks." That's a pretty unusual rallying cry in an election year. What do you mean by that?

PAUL: Well, you know, what I meant by that is that, if I were to go into a college campus today and I were to talk to a young person and say, hey, you want to be part of the Republican Party, or let's say I go and talk to a young African-American male or woman, do you want to be part of the Republican Party, the initial perception of our brand is, hmm. Like, for example, I had a meeting with some conservative African-Americans recently. And I said, let's try to get something moving nationally. And they said, well, yes, but we may not want to put the word Republican in it. So, that means essentially our brand is broken. I don't think what we stand for is bad. I believe in what the Republican Party values. But we have a wall or a barrier between us and African-American voters. So, I have spent last year trying to break down some of that wall and say, look, maybe what the Democrats have been doing for you or maybe you're being taken for granted. Maybe it's not working. Maybe we could look at some of these Republican proposals for poverty, for long-term unemployment.

That was a great answer on what was the real substance of the question: Why is "Republican" considered a bad brand? But he did say "sucks." If Christie shouldn't say "sit down and shut up," why is Paul saying "sucks"? One answer is that Paul wasn't in the South. He was in Detroit, speaking in what the newspaper called "a predominantly middle-class African-American neighborhood." He said:

"Remember Domino's Pizza? They admitted, 'Hey, our pizza crust sucks.' The Republican Party brand sucks, and so people don't want to be a Republican, and for 80 years, African-Americans have had nothing to do with Republicans."

It's smart to talk about Domino's in southern Michigan, where the big brand got its start. And it's entertaining to remind us of the old campaign that featured Domino's haters insulting the brand: "Worst excuse for pizza I ever had," etc. I don't think the word "sucks" ever appeared in those ads, but "sucks" sums it up quickly and sharply, and those ads are the classic example of a "mea culpa ad campaign":

Domino's very public admission of its own awfulness might represent the most elaborate mea culpa ad in history. But it's hardly the first. Companies sometimes admit their flaws and faults in a bid for public empathy. The strategy usually has two parts. Part one: Fess up. Part two: Vow to do better. While Domino's never quite expresses remorse, the crusty comments in its commercial do set up the company's promise to improve, with better ingredients and a new pizza recipe.

Airlines such as United and JetBlue have prostrated themselves in public to mollify travelers enraged by scheduling snafus. Fast-food outfits have done it, too; Hardee's trashed the poor quality of its hamburgers in an ad campaign a few years ago. Domestic car manufacturers have practically made an art of acknowledging their shortcomings; General Motors went on an apology tour starting in late 2008 when it began lobbying for billions of dollars in federal bailout funds. Last summer, as it went through Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, it flooded the airwaves with a commercial that acknowledged, "General Motors needs to start over in order to get stronger."

So Rand Paul seems to be doing some deep thinking about restoring the GOP brand. He's openly talking about it, inviting discourse on the subject. "Sucks" may be a bit strong. Even if it's not too strong for northerners — as Mitt Romney learned — whatever you say anywhere will be heard everywhere.

It's possible — and don't freak out, stay calm! — that Rand Paul is using the word "sucks" to create anxiety about the likely Democratic Party nominee, Hillary Clinton. Do people want Bill Clinton back in the White House? I hasten to note that the "sucks" in phrases like "that sucks" does not have its etymology in blow jobs. That creates nice deniability if anyone ever corners Rand Paul about saying "sucks," but etymology isn't enough to keep people from thinking about blow jobs.

Predict an upset.

There are many ways to have fun watching the election returns, and one way it to place some bets. I've told you about the bet Meade and I have about the Wisconsin gubernatorial election, but yesterday I came up with another topic for betting. Predict an upset. This led to some boring discussion of what counts as an upset, and I came up with the boring idea that it's an upset if a candidate with a predicted 58% chance of winning loses. By this standard, in the Senate races, there can be no upset in Kansas, but all the other races have a predicted winner whose loss would be an upset.

So pick an upset to bet on. I picked Scott Brown to beat Jeanne Shaheen in New Hampshire, and Meade picked Thom Tillis to beat Kay Hagan in North Carolina.

City invites kids to paint the snowplows, ends up with an Establishment Clause problem.

It's hard to believe anyone would want the face of a snowplow covered with religious material. If religion is important and sacred to you, why would you want it on a snowplow? But 2 of the 27 snowplows in Sioux Falls, South Dakota got designs with the words "Jesus Christ" or "Happy birthday, Jesus."

Patrick Elliott of the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent Sioux Falls City Attorney David Pfeifle a letter Thursday telling him that the [Siouxland] Freethinkers want the religious artwork removed....

"It is inappropriate and unconstitutional for a government entity to display proselytizing Christian messages to its citizens, including on government equipment and facilities," he wrote...

Pfeifle indicated Friday that he hadn't read Elliott's letter yet. "I'll review it," he said, "kick it around a few days and respond."

4 views of the neighborhood.

1. Still plenty of Halloween decorations.



2. Action!



3. The strange new house.



4. Meade mows the semicircular lawn next to the giant collection of leaves that will be next spring's mulch.

"We'll find out who really is the party of no."

On "Fox News Sunday" today, Chris Wallace said to Mitt Romney, "you keep talking about breaking the gridlock — yes, a Republican Congress, House and Senate, will pass bills, but will they pass bills that the president will sign?

And Romney said:

Well, that's, of course, the test. And the good news is in many cases the president will sign them, [with] regards to, for instance, the economy, the president has asked for trade promotion authority. Harry Reid won't give him that authority. Republicans want him to have that authority.... With regards to health care, for instance, when Reince Priebus talks about adjusting our health care system to make ObamaCare work better....

And so, these kinds of changes I think you'll actually see the president sign. I'm absolutely convinced that you're going to see with a Republican-led Senate, if we're lucky enough to get that, you're going to see bills get to the president's desk, he will sign some. Some, he won't sign. No question about that, he'll veto some, but I think at that point, we'll find out who really is the party of no. 

If the "Don't Walk" guy dances...

... we don't walk.

"Why 2014 Isn’t as Good as It Seems for the Republicans."

Amusingly lame NYT headline.

It's also kind of a conundrum. Two days before the election, the author is only in a position to tell us how good it seems. What's with the seeming and not seeming? Either he's saying: I'm right and those other people are wrong. Or maybe it's more subtle: My notion of "good" is much more nuanced than the notions of those who think the coming big blow-out victory for Republicans is actually good for them.

Here's why that headline isn't as good as it seems for the NYT: I don't really give a damn what the author (Nate Cohn) has to say in his drearily long essay. It looks like a holding pen for people with the sads.

"Is there an app that detects bogus claims in a story pretending to be reporting?"

Top-rated comment on the WaPo story: "What happens when your friend’s smartphone can tell that you’re lying."

That reminds me of a question I've been meaning to ask: Have you been using "There should be an app for this" as a comic observation? If so, explain the context.

ADDED: Or just lie and make up a context for which "There should be an app for this" is the punchline. We won't know the difference. Not without our lie-detecting app.

"Massive drill bit nearly skewers New Yorkers in packed subway car."

"Somebody made a mistake; maybe a surveyor or a field engineer... They drilled into the street, but didn’t realize they were right over the F train tunnel. They weren’t supposed to be in that spot.”

How many posts on this blog have the "Obama the Boyfriend" tag? 54!

We were just talking about yesterday's "'Obama Courts Women in Campaign Swing' — courts women?! Not men?'" I was saying it's normal to say that a candidate "courts votes" — because he really wants to win the one-and-only vote the person has to give in a particular election — and that easily slips into the sloppier usage "courts voters," but when you slot in a single sex and say "courts women" — as the NYT did yesterday — the original connotation of wooing a lover becomes apparent. You can tell it's there because you know they wouldn't say "courts men."

I said to Meade: "You know, there's a reason I created the 'Obama the Boyfriend' tag. How many times do you think I've used it?" He answered "5." I knew it was a lot more than that, but even I was surprised to see that the answer was: 54. Obama has been sold to us on this theme for a long, long time. The most recent post with the tag before yesterday's was "'You're so handsome that I can't speak properly.' Said to Barack Obama by Gwyneth Paltrow...."

But when did it start? Whose gush first pushed me to create the tag?

Maureen Dowd has boyfriend trouble.

"He was going to be the kind of guy who whipped you up and then, when you were all excited, left you flat, and then, when you were deflated and exasperated and time was running out, ensorcelled you again with some sparkly fairy dust."

Absurd. And so mystifyingly anti-feminist. How did Barack Obama pull voters away from Hillary Clinton in 2008? You'd think that women would have felt a special attachment to the the woman on the verge of being the first woman President. There's a special attachment that is more special than the attachment of woman to woman: the boyfriend. What a deft political move for Obama! It was a fairytale romance.

As our old boyfriend declared — and it takes one to know one — it was "the biggest fairytale" he'd ever seen.

8 minutes of Prince on "Saturday Night Live."

Now, that was great.

Here's the long-version description in text (in the NYT) if you don't have the patience to watch video or you're a Prince-o-phobe.

And if you want to compare old Prince and new Prince, here's how he looked and sounded on "Saturday Night Live" in 1981.

AND: The music in the new performance is from his 2 new albums "Art Official Age" and "PlectrumElectrum."