Wednesday, 04 June 2008

Tuesday, 04 March 2008

Thursday, 21 February 2008

  • RumpusGoopus.wordpress.com

    Well, it’s finally done.  The RumpusGoopus Xanga Weblog is officially no more beginning today.  It’s not going to be deleted or anything, and the blogging will continue, just no longer with Xanga.  During the last few months I’ve been rather aggravated by the intrusiveness of the ads, particularly when they twist the words of my posts to come up with advertisements for things that are completely opposed to what I was writing about. 

     

    However, that’s not the only reason I’m moving.  I’ve always found Xanga to be far too MySpace-like.  It exists more for social networking than it does for any serious discussion or writing.  Back on July 15, 2003, I really only chose Xanga because it was the first “Weblog” site I had heard about.  I stuck with it over the years for reasons of laziness and comfort, far more than anything else.

     

    But today, that is over.  The new location of my Weblog is at RumpusGoopus.wordpress.com.  The RSS is RumpusGoopus.wordpress.com/feed/.

     

    I chose Wordpress for its multiple features, its lack of any advertising, and because I can eventually transfer the Weblog to my own domain, should I want to do that one day.

     

    So, farewell Xanga.  You’ve served me fine for the last 4.5 years, but it’s time to move on.

     

    Cheers,

    Charlie

Tuesday, 19 February 2008

  • Another Slate.com Link! Another Obama Post!

    Hey!  You know what this weblog needs, don’t you?  More stuff on Obama!  In fact, it needs more links to Slate.com!  It basically has had none of those in the past couple months!

     

    Okay, so I’ve been actually very focused on the feminist response to the respective campaigns for a few weeks, but I’ve never written about it here for fear of being seen as a misogynist, sexist white male as apparently all Obama supporters are (sexist and misogynist, that is).  I came extremely close to commenting on the Huffington Post editorial titled "Patriarchy: 1000, Clinton: 0” after Obama’s sweep, but I refrained.  I refrained even though when I told my wife the name of the article, she laughed and thought that it was a headline of the kind you would find on The Onion.  And yet, even though females I know found the editorial to be rather abhorrent, I still didn’t comment.

     

    And finally, after all this time, I finally have decided: I’m still not going to comment.  It’s actually probably a mistake for me to not express my actual feelings regarding this issue since it’s much easier to read into what I think, but I’ll simply say this.  Slate.com’s “XX Factor” blog has usually supplied the appropriate feminist commentary on the election.  As such, I will rely on them in general, and a recent post in specific, to express my ideas on the election in regards to feminism.

     

    Obama's Sexist Dog Whistle

     

    Barack Obama brought up Hillary Clinton's period! "I understand that Senator Clinton periodically,'' (See? He said it!) "when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." Clearly, he was saying his rival ought to look into hormone replacement therapy…

     

    Make sure to click on the link and read the entire post, and also check out the rest of the blog.  And, with that, I shall leave to rest many rants I’ve held in my head in regards to this topic.


    Cheers,

    “I Swear I Don’t Hate Women” C.

Monday, 18 February 2008

  • Much Ado About Nothing And My Ado About Something

    I had a very long spiel prepared today in response to yet another last-ditch mud-slinging effort from the Clinton campaign on Obama’s “plagiarism,” which, since the person he plagiarized essentially is a writer for him, isn’t plagiarism at all (not to mention Obama’s two books and the entirety of almost all of his speeches except the few lines Clinton points to were penned by Obama)…

     

    Okay, that just devolved into the rant, albeit the very short version.

     

    Anyway, the charge is so absurd, and so common of the Clinton campaign that even bothering to write a whole post about it is just repetitive and unnecessary.  Instead, I shall link to a story that shows the media finally picking up on the sentiments of most people who don’t want to see a Republican as President in the next term.

     

    Sadly, it’s only a CNN.com Ticker Post: Cafferty: Clinton allies question reliance on superdelegates

     

    Now, it’s clear I’m an Obama supporter.  However, if Clinton does get the most pledged delegates by the end of the campaign, I’m willing to accept her as the Democratic nominee.  I find it incredibly misguided and foolish to vote her as the nominee, but I am very much convinced that if the superdelegates overturn the will of the voters, many, many people will become disenfranchised, and McCain will surely win.

     

    Don’t get me wrong, I still believe Obama can win the election should he lose the pledged delegates and the superdelegates overturn, but I couldn’t help agree that it would be unfair for him to get the nomination.  And also don’t get me wrong on this, I really, really, really don’t want to vote for Clinton in the general election. 

     

    Should she legitimately win the nomination (and if MI and FL are allowed to change the outcome, it’s anything but legitimate), I might still vote for her.  I would hate it, but there’s a possibility (but what does this say about independent voters?  Not good for Clinton).  If she won it with superdelegates overturning the will of the people, I can’t say that I will.  And believe me, Clinton argues that given time she can persuade me, well, I’m anything but persuaded now.

     

    That said, it’s looking like Obama just might wrap up the pledged delegates, as he should.  The question is whether the superdelegates are dumb enough to destroy their chances in the election by overturning the outcome.  I’ve seen Democrats do very stupid things politically, but I don’t think they’d make a mistake such as this.

     

    Cheers,

    C.

Friday, 15 February 2008

  • I know, I know, every time I link to something lately it’s almost always from Slate.com. They’ve just had fantastic coverage of the election, and when I’m too lazy to write something myself, they do a nice job of filling in. This time, however, I link to them just because I found this thoroughly amusing.


    Slate.com’s Obamamatopoeia:


    "It's hard to imagine that Barack Obama would be as big of a phenomenon if his name were, say, Tom Smith. As numerous fans, detractors, reporters, and bloggers have demonstrated, it's a name that lends itself to neologisms—everything from Barackstar to Obamania to Omentum.


    "We present the unabridged Encyclopedia Baracktannica, a list of words that have been Obamafied by Slate."

     

    Cheers,

    C.

Thursday, 14 February 2008

Wednesday, 13 February 2008

  • Obama v. Clinton: The Win/Loss Record

    I’ve been trying to find an excuse to post this here, but hey, it’s good stuff in itself.  From (yet again, apparently) Slate.com’s Trailhead blog:

     

    If politics was sport, then the Democratic division standings would look something like this:

     

    W

    L

    PCT

    Streak

    Obama

    23

    12

    .657

    Won 8

    Clinton

    12

    23

    .343

    Lost 8

     

    (These tallies exclude Michigan and Florida, which we’ll treat as exhibition games.)

     

    Cheers,

    C.

  • Obama/Clinton Cartoon

    While not terribly enlightening, there’s just something about this editorial cartoon that amuses me:

     

    content_cartoonbox_slate

    Make sure to click on it to get a less distorted version.

     

    Cheers,

    C.

  • More Important Than The Former Clinton Campaign Manager Endorsing Obama...

    Yes, this has been printed everywhere, but I have a reason to post it here other than the simple endorsement issue.

     

    Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign chief backs Obama's presidential bid

     

    And yes, the endorsement is important, but there’s a line in the story that is especially important to keep in mind when deciding which candidate even has a chance against McCain in the general election:

     

    "Wilhelm said the Democrats could never win a contest about experience over Sen. John McCain, the likely Republican nominee, but could win — with Obama — an election that was framed around change."

     

    Democrats can’t win an "experience" argument against McCain with Clinton, and that’s even if you buy the "experience" argument. 

     

    And one more thing, says Wilhelm:

     

    "The only reason this race appears to be closer than it actually is is the number of superdelegates that bought into Senator Clinton's inevitability early — too early, it seems."

     

    Cheers,

    C.

Top Tags - Weblog

[no tags]

RumpusGoopus

  • Visit RumpusGoopus's Xanga Site
    • Name: C.
    • Country: United States
    • State: Minnesota
    • Metro: Minneapolis
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 7/15/2003

About Me

  • "...This means that the country really does want change. They really want someone who can bring together people from the right, left and center, not just from the left. And they certainly don't want people who just co-opt the "change" message because it's popular. They want someone who is truly a messenger of change, who can make this country what we hope it can be. Clinton, unfortunately, is not that person. Obama, thankfully, is."