Matt Baldwin is a very funny guy. Right!

Matt Baldwin, belatedly, on the Eliot Spitzer saga:

Well, my opinion on scandals of this nature has remained fairly consistent throughout my adult, political life: I DO NOT WANT TO THINK ABOUT OLD WHITE GUYS HAVING SEX SO STOP TRICKING ME INTO DOING SO! I don't want to think about Spitzer having sex, or Larry Craig having sex, or Gray Davis having sex, or Jerry Falwell having sex, or Bill Clinton having something that was not strictly sex pursuant to the legal definition provided in statute §§21050, etc. I don't care who or what they are having sex with because thinking about this aspect of the sex would involve thinking about the sex, which, as I have stated previously, I do not wish to do. Please, can we just assign a taxpayer-funded hooker to every member of congress to ensure that these liaisons become so routine that they are no longer newsworthy?

If you don't read Defective Yeti, you should feel terrible about all the funniness you've been missing up to this point in your life. Go there now so you can catch up.

Edwards Endorses Obama

It's official, of course. See the video here.

Read the analysis here, there, and everywhere.

My wildly speculative comments, with regards to this being the beginning of the endgame, still stand. It's clear, from Edwards' kind words about Clinton, that he's trying to close the primary in a way that Hillary can hold her head high. All that stuff about how her campaign made Obama a stronger candidate? He just handed Hillary a thumbnail sketch of her concession speech - should it ever come.

Edwards Endorsement Rumored ... Suggested ... Expected

The internet is alive with speculation that John Edwards will endorse Obama this afternoon (west coast time - 7 pm Eastern time.)

Edwards has been on the sidelines of this fight for a very long time, and my instinct tells me that this isn't a random event. I wonder if this is a very deliberate strategic decision to end the primary (which, for all intents and purposes, is already over) by getting the heavyweight Dems into Obama's corner.

If that's the strategy, expect an announcement within days that either Al Gore or Jimmy Carter is also endorsing Obama.

I'm totally pulling this out of my ass, so don't assume that I have any inside sources or special knowledge. I am so not that guy.

Summer Soundtrack: My Brightest Diamond

I'm completely rocking out to the new song by My Brightest Diamond. It's everything that makes Shara Worden great: her soaring voice, fuzzed-out rock guitars (louder and crunchier this time). Plus there's a string section that roars and thunders (think of the string section on Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir"). The lyrics are swirling and mystifying, poetic in the best possible way.

God, what a great song. Here, have a listen.

Inside a Boy

The remix by Son Lux turns the original inside-out in astonishing fashion. Pitchfork describes the remix (and the remixer):

Son Lux's Ryan Lott brings a composer's craft to the techniques of underground hip-hop, and his chopped-up "Inside a Boy" charts a similar path. The string-draped original has drama and grandeur enough, but Lott dismembers the rhythm section, opening with little more than skittering strings, stabs of electronic percussion, piano, and Worden's pristine voice. Other rumbling beats, muscular guitars, and all manner of additional orchestration soon return, but the context is more abstract and disorienting than on the album version. "We crash like lightning into love," Worden sings, repeating the word until all is full of that stuff. Boy meets girl, song goes supernova.

God, I cannot wait to hear the rest of this album. And, if she follows the pattern she set with Tear It Down, there will be plenty more remixes of her new stuff.




For those who also worship at the altar of My Brightest Diamond, there's a preview of her new record here.

NPR Music

Tony Stark: Behind the Music

Saw "Iron Man" on Saturday.

It was one of the best comic adaptation movies I've ever seen. And yes, I've seen the latest Superman (via Bryan Singer) and Batman (via Christopher Nolan) movies. It was better than Superman Returns, and very close to topping Batman Begins.

Superhero movies typically take one of two paths: they work hard on the effects, to the detriment of the plot and character development, or vice versa. It's very hard to get both the effects and the characters right. This is a damn shame, because to get a great comic right, you have to get both parts balanced perfectly.

Effects are clearly important. Comics are the realm of the imaginary. It's easier to draw an adamantium claw or an invisible force field or a repulsor ray on a page than it is to create one on the big screen that looks convincing. The best movies can be killed in an instant if the effects are wrong. They can be too hokey (see the 80's Spider Man tv show) or rely on CGI to create comic-realistic effects that look slick yet inhuman (see any of the recent Spider Man movies).

When you're talking about superheroes, it matters if their powers are believable. But all of the best comic characters rely not on a great power, but a great story. I grew up on Marvel comics, so I'm talking about the guilt that Peter Parker carried, forever haunted by the death of his beloved Uncle Ben that he could have prevented. I knew about the tensions between each member of the Fantastic Four - the complicated family dynamics, the relationship drama, the jealousies that flew in every direction. I knew from Frank Miller's brilliant run on Daredevil that Matt Murdock was a lonely and haunted man, his faith in both God and humanity shaken at the core. I knew that Tony Stark was an alcoholic and a troubled man.

The best comics are about people, not effects. I saw the first Fantastic Four movie, and what I remember was Ben Grimm, the Thing, stopping a bus with his shoulder. I should have remembered the awkward tension between Reed Richards and Sue Storm, but instead I remember being blown away by the way that Mr. Fantastic's arm slipped under a door like liquid. They got the effects right, but they missed getting the characters right.

The Iron Man movie gets Tony Stark perfectly. He is a dynamo of raw energy - creative, sexual, charismatic in the extreme. He is essentially hollow, bouncing like a pinball from one affair to another, one dance club to another, with nothing to anchor him in the world. He is someone we've already met before - the millionaire playboy, rich without seeming to have earned it, famous without seeming to deserve it. He is rich because of technology that kills people across the world. His livelihood relies on the myth that military technology saves lives.

In a moment, his life changes. He channels his brilliance into fighting for good - truth! justice! the American Way! With a healthy dose of revenge (a bit stomach-churning) mixed in for good measure. He is a damaged man who tilts awkwardly toward goodness. He is not perfect. He is not heroic, yet he is a hero.


The movie shows Tony Stark in all his muddy brilliance. He is not made to be someone admirable. Often, he is unpleasant and piggish, greedy and libidinous, even after his transformation. He mistreats the people who work for him. And yet, even against all of this, he becomes a hero. "Iron Man" is a story of redemption, of triumph against the most relentless demons. "Iron Man" is a hopeful movie about humanity.


And no one could have played this part but Robert Downey Jr. He makes Tony Stark come alive - the genius and the self-destructive behavior come alive in every glance, every gesture, every line that he speaks (often muttering, as if speaking to himself throughout the movie). He is given a cast strong enough to stand up to his relentless performance - established actors like Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges, and Terence Howard fill out the cast.)

And about those special effects? Brilliant. The technology kicks serious ass. As I said earlier, comics are as much about the visual effects as they are about the plot. "Iron Man" requires a man who is brilliant with technology, the kind of guy who can build a doomsday suit in the middle of a desert. The suit has to look like a technological marvel, but one we can believe. The director, Jon Favreau, pulls it off by relying on "live" effects over CGI whenever possible. Tony Stark is a billionaire, after all - he can afford the best tools available, and he uses them in brilliant and unexpected ways. Half of the fun is watching "the suit" come together - the trials, the spectacular failures, and the breathtaking successes. (Note: there is a robot that provides some of the funniest moments of the movie, without saying a word.)


So yeah - go see this movie. And stick around through the credits - there's an extra treat that you won't want to miss.

Lookin' Out My Front Door

Lookin' Out My Front Door
Originally uploaded by Sky Bluesky

It's rainbow weather tonight - the sun is streaming through our windows, and it's pouring down a cold steady rain.

The only good thing is that the rainbows are spectacular, when you can find them. I found one, right outside my door.

Soulja Boy Hated It, Too.

I didn't see the debate, but the aftermath is not to be believed. The ABC debate has been widely panned by television critics, political pundits, and underground rappers alike.

(Note: I wouldn't recognize Soulja Boy if he stepped on my tennis shoes on the street, so I don't know if this is a parody or not.)

In Memoriam--George Stephanopoulos: Political Hack

Saying farewell to a political career.

Watch the Count

I've added a new element to the blog. Note the fancy superdelegate counter in the top right corner. (Thanks to the Superdelegate Transparency Project for the nifty widget!)

The clearest indicator of the Democratic primary's outcome is this: if Obama gets more than half of the superdelegates in his pocket, it's over.

There are 794 supes, and half of that would be 397. Obama currently has 221 superdelegates in his pocket. So all he has to do is convince another 176 superdelegates to commit to him, and that's the ball game.

Clearly Clinton can't catch up in pledged delegates in any realistic way, and so she's staking her dwindling hopes on superdelegates. (Well, all right, she also seems to think that pledged delegates are going to flop over to her side, but I don't see that happening in the real world.) So the way to end it is to get commitments from enough remaining superdelegates to clinch the nomination.

Obama appears to have gained nine superdelegates in April alone, after picking up around 2 dozen in March. The supes are going to start declaring with more speed as the voting draws to a close, and this thing will wrap itself up neatly.

Eventually, I feel certain the conclusion of the primary race will become apparent to all participants.

Mark Penn Has Not Been Fired

This just in: Mark Penn has not been fired.

The news is all over the story that Mark Penn, after embarrassing himself by going to Columbia to promote a "free-trade" agreement that Hillary Clinton opposes, has been fired as Hillary's chief strategist. Fired. Right?

Nope. Look closely, chilluns. Mark Penn is still with the campaign.

The New York Times has the scoop on Penn's actual status. Sort of. And they ... bury it.

The headline trumpets" Top Clinton Aide Leaving His Post Under Pressure." And then, way down in the fourth paragraph, they explain what's going on:

Mr. Penn’s shift — he will continue to do some polling — is the latest upheaval in a campaign that has seen its manager replaced, faced critical money shortages and has often lagged behind Senator Barack Obama of Illinois in a cohesive message and ground strategy.

So it's a shift in position - not a firing. (Josh Marshall speculates here about what's actually going on.)

Let's be clear about what "firing" really means. Usually in politics, firing means asking for a resignation. So Samantha Power was fired. (From a volunteer position, no less.) Amanda Marcotte was fired as John Edwards' blogger (which I still think was a mistake). Mark Penn has not been resigned, and he has not been fired.

Even Maggie Williams never said that Penn was terminated:

"After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as Chief Strategist of the Clinton Campaign; Mark, and Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates, Inc. will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign."

So he was the chief pollster and chief strategist, and now he's only "providing polling and advice"?!?! Give me a fucking break. This is a shell game. Nothing has changed except for Penn's title. Hillary Clinton is perfectly happy to have an top advisor who is directly working against her interests. Not just someone with philosophical differences - someone who is getting paid to undermine her. (Not to mention someone whose brilliant strategy decisions - most notably the Super Tuesday knockout punch that wasn't - have been a case study in how to lose a campaign.)

Mark Penn deserves to be fired. But it hasn't happened yet, and it probably won't actually happen until Clinton's campaign comes to a grinding halt sometime in the next few months.

Our Little Punster

Oliver was eating strawberry shortcake earlier, and taking an eternity to eat. As usual.

I mentioned to Mrs. B what a gift he had for stretching out a meal.

Oliver looked up, and then did the strangest thing. He took a strawberry in each hand and held them out as far as his arms could stretch, in opposite directions.

"What are you doing, Oliver?" we asked.

"Stretching out my meal."

The laughter could be heard for miles. I think my little boy just made his first pun.

Those pesky 3 AM phone calls.

So who's really likely to be calling Hillary in the middle of the night? The Jed Report has an idea.

James Bond Themes

The new James Bond movie, Quantum of Solace, is due to be released in October. The only part of this movie that really interests me is the theme. There are have been amazing Bond themes (Goldfinger! Live and Let Die! Thunderball!) and less-than-amazing (Duran Duran? A-ha? And what was that Madonna song about?)

10 Artists Who Would Do An Unforgettable Theme for the Next Bond Movie:

1. Gnarls Barkley
2. U2
3. Radiohead (who would refuse the offer)
4. M.I.A.
5. BT
6. Devotchka
   
7. The Go! Team
8. Mark Ronson (and Anybody He Wants to Work With)
9. El-P
10. Robert Plant (and hell yes, anybody he wants to work with)
    

Who Will Probably Do the Next Bond Theme:

1. The Killers
2. Fall Out Boy
3. Timbaland
4. Justin Timberlake
5. Moby (who's kinda, you know, what am i trying to say, over)
6. Linkin park (see Moby)
7. Fergie
8. Sheryl Crow (hey, she already did one!)
   

Who's missing (off either list)?

Obama's "White Problem"

Just yesterday, I heard another pundit on NPR talking about how Obama has to prove that he can win over white voters. And, like any story that's repeated over and over in the news, I wondered if it was actually true.

His campaign has already addressed it once. Now, one of the Kossacks offers an interesting take on he subject.

Most of the analysis has overlooked one important fact, however: Hillary Clinton has a bigger problem with white voters than Barack Obama.

New data from the Pew Research Center illustrates my point: although Hillary Clinton leads McCain among white women by three points, she trails among white men by twenty-three points. Meanwhile, Obama trails among white women by just one point, and trails among white men by fifteen. Obama's net margin relative to Clinton drops by four points among white women, but increases by eight points among white men.

Overall, that means Barack Obama is doing slightly better with white voters than is Hillary Clinton.

More here.

Happy Easter - get outta my way!!!!

Easter 2008.jpg
Originally uploaded by Sky Bluesky

Here's Oliver posing with the Easter Bunny at our local supermarket. (We were standing in the produce aisle.) Feel free to add your own caption in the comments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{rant alert}

People at Easter egg hunts should have some goddamn manners, that's all I have to say.

Not the kids. The adults.

We went down to our local grocery store, which was doing a super blowout Easter egg hunt all throughout the store. Over 15,000 eggs! Madness!

It started out fine - they handed out coffee, cookies, and other treats while we stood in line. They announced a rule that I thought was sensible - each kid should limit themselves to 25-30 eggs each.

They did mention that about 100 of the eggs would have a special treat inside them - a numbered slip that the lucky kid could redeem for free stuff: a Wii, an iPod nano, and other cool stuff. Good idea, right?

Except this: the kids didn't care so much about the prizes, they just wanted to get to the chocolate-filled eggs and run around the store.

The parents all went crazy looking for the prizes.

And as far as the limit goes, forget about it. People were walking around with giant-sized baskets and grocery bags filled with a hundred eggs or more. The hoarding was clearly being coordinated by the adults.

Parents - not the kids, mind you, but the parents - were sitting on the ground, eagerly opening the eggs to see if they won anything. Because, y'know, it was their party, not the children's. (The kids could be seen looking uncomfortable or wandering far away from their wild-eyed parental units.) It was a rather disgusting display of greed and selfishness and crappy sportsmanship.

I'll admit - we did shake a few eggs on the shelves to see if they contained paper instead of treats. and we did peek inside all of our eggs to see if we won a prize, but once we found that no prizes were there, we quit and went home. We only took home around 2 dozen eggs. I'd be surprised if the people who won all the big prizes even have children.

{/rant}

Anyway, despite the bad behavior from some of the grownups, we still managed to have a good time.

Happy Easter, everybody.

Best Letter to the Editor Ever

Re “Soft Shoe in Hard Times” (column, March 16):

Surely it must have been a slip for Maureen Dowd to align the artistry of my late husband, Gene Kelly, with the president’s clumsy performances. To suggest that “George Bush has turned into Gene Kelly” represents not only an implausible transformation but a considerable slight. If Gene were in a grave, he would have turned over in it.

When Gene was compared to the grace and agility of Jack Dempsey, Wayne Gretzky and Willie Mays, he was delighted. But to be linked with a clunker — particularly one he would consider inept and demoralizing — would have sent him reeling.

Graduated with a degree in economics from Pitt, Gene was not on

ly a gifted dancer, director and choreographer, he was also a most civilized man. He spoke multiple languages; wrote poetry; studied history; understood the projections of Adam Smith and John Maynard Keynes. He did the Sunday Times crossword in ink. Exceedingly articulate, Gene often conveyed more through movement than others manage with words.

Sadly, President Bush fails to communicate meaningfully with either. For George Bush to become Gene Kelly would require impossible leaps in creativity, erudition and humility.

Patricia Ward Kelly

Los Angeles, March 16, 2008

The Things He Says @ 33 Months

Once, we had a sticky note that listed all of the words that we'd heard Oliver say. Once upon a time - when he was around two years old - we wanted to make sure his verbal skills were developing on target. So we started listing the words he'd said, because at that age he was supposed to develop between 50 and 100 words in his vocabulary.

We filled up a sticky note with about thirty words, and quickly went to another. We ended up with seventy words before we ran out of room on the second, and decided that he was developing fine.

And then we just lost the ability to keep up with the flood of new words.

I don't talk much about Oliver's speech development anymore because he's such a moving target. As soon as I sit down to write about the new speech patterns he's developed, he's moved on to new and more exciting speech patterns. (Plus, there's the exhaustion. That's the other reason I don't blog much about his development.)

But here's where he stands, at 2 years, 9 months. Now, none of this may seem like big, groundbreaking stuff to you - the big adult, who knows who to form articulate sentences and read on your own and stuff. But we've watched him develop to this point, from a kid that was speaking in grunts and gasps less than two years ago. He started learning words a year ago, ladies and gentlemen. Just a couple of months ago, in fact, none of these things were coming out of his mouth. These are all very recent, and all surprising, developments.

1) Big Words. He used to have trouble with multi-syllable words. Now, he not only understands them, but he can parrot them back instantly. "Recognize" was one that he got immediately. "Complicated" was another. Tonight, it was "mozzarella." I think he just enjoys the sound of certain words and keeps saying them so he can get used to the feel of them. It's his way of branding the words into his little brain.

2) Opposites. Sounds like a small step, but he will flip around statements using opposite words. If one of us is cold, he proclaims that he's hot. If something is short, he'll point to something else and announce that it's tall. Seems like a big step.

He also understands the concept of intensifiers and uses them to hilarious effect. He was building a long line of blocks on our living room floor, and started telling us that it was going to be "a very very very very very very very lo-o-o-ong line."

3) Catch phrases. No kidding. He falls in love with phrases and uses them at the oddest moments. Sample catch phrases:

"I need that!"

"There's no way!" (As in, "dere's no way the kitty can jump onto da counter. Dere's no way, kitty! Dere's no way!")

"I'm having trouble!" (He was working on a puzzle one day, and hollered out to me, "Daddy, please help me with da puzzle! I'm having trouble!")

4) Sentences. He can assemble a sentence with all the right parts: a subject, a verb, some adjectives sprinkled around in more or less the right places. A couple of months ago, we would ask him to "please" when making a request. Now, we tell him to form a question.

"Mommy, read story, read story, read story!"

"Oliver, ask me the right way."

"Pleeeeeeeeeease?"

"No, make it a question. Please, mommy, can you read me a story?"

"Mommy please can read me story."

Like I said, most of the words land in the right place.

The Free Ride

Paul Krugman is only the latest person to suggest that Barack Obama's gotten a free ride from the media.

What we do know is that Mr. Obama has never faced a serious Republican opponent — and that he has not yet faced the hostile media treatment doled out to every Democratic presidential candidate since 1988.

Yes, I know that both the Obama campaign and many reporters deny that he has received more favorable treatment than Hillary Clinton. But they’re kidding, right? Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, told the truth back in December: “The press will savage her no matter what ... they really have the knives out for her, there’s no question about it ... Obama gets significantly better coverage.”

The WNYC show "On the Media" spent ten minutes discussing how the press was in love with Obama. It's the new riff on Obama - Hillary's said it, the talking heads are saying it, your uncle Bob in Cincinnati is saying it.

Except it's not true.

I took a few minutes to look at the media watchdog website Media Matters and found over 1200 incidents of media bias involving Obama. Samples:

The Politico called Obama a flip-flopper on the origin of his name, of all things; branded him a "rookie;" suggested he borrowed rhetoric from John Edwards; wrongly claimed that he changed his position on health care mandates and flip-flopped on whether President Bush has made us "safer;" diagnosed him with a "Jewish problem," and allowed a "Republican strategist working on the 2008 presidential race" to attack Obama anonymously.

On Nightline, Terry Moran reported, "The Obamas got the home [their house in Chicago] for $300,000 below the original asking price. To critics and even some friends, it looks like a sweetheart deal." This was his own comment - not a quote from anyone involved in the story.

On Glenn Beck's program, Jonah Goldberg compared Obama and Franklin Roosevelt to Hitler.

CNN had an online poll that asked if Barack Obama was patriotic enough to serve as president.

And how many news stories have been written about how he's all style and no substance, despite the wealth of information that's available about his positions and views?

And let's not even get into the cult slur. Let's not even get into Obama/Osama. Let's not even get into the "halfrican" slurs from the right-wing nutjobs. Let's not even get into using his middle name as often as possible for maximum scary effect. Let's not even get into the madrassa smear.

So STFU already about how Obama has gotten a free goddamn ride from the press.

Wakabama

I've been slowly indoctrinating my little boy into politics. A couple of weeks ago, we went to a massive Barack Obama rally in Seattle. The next day, he and I went down to the state caucus. (I caucused for Edwards, but I told him people would be voting for Obama there, too. I didn't tell him much about the process, because he's only 2 1/2, and he probably doesn't even get the idea of voting yet.)

And occasionally, I've seen a picture of Barack Obama in a magazine and pointed it out to him, particularly if it shows Obama with kids. Like this. Or this. (He loves seeing other daddies and other kids.)

At the same time, Oliver has been developing a great sense of the absurd. He takes glee in declaring that his daddy is actually a dolphin, or a camel, or an elephant. Some days he'll call me "mommy" and Mrs. Bluesky "daddy." One time, he called me Santa Claus and started giggling furiously.

Last weekend, he shouted that I was something, but I couldn't quite make it out. I asked him to repeat it.

"Daddy Wakabama!"

I thought for a second.

"Oliver, did you call daddy Barack Obama?"

He nodded, with a huge enormous grin.

I guess I've been called worse.

Shame on Who?

"Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?"

"Ready on Day One"?

From tonight's debate, a question from Univision's Jorge Ramos:

Senator Clinton, yesterday you said -- and I'm quoting -- "one of us is ready to be commander in chief." Are you saying that Senator Obama is not ready and not qualified to be commander in chief?

Apparently she didn't take the bait during the debate, even though she was handed the opportunity on a silver platter. But Hillary Clinton has said on a number of occasions that Obama doesn't have enough experience to serve as President.

On 60 Minutes a few weeks ago, Hillary Clinton said it slightly differently - Barack Obama isn't ready to be president because she hasn't faced the kind of attacks that she has. In essence, she's 'run' for president once already and is able to withstand the expected assault.

"...you know, Senator Obama has never had, I don't think, a single negative ad run against him. He’s never been on the receiving end even in this campaign. It’s been incredibly civil by any modern standards," Clinton said. "Until you have been through this experience, you have no idea what it's like. And he hasn't been. He's never, ever had to face this. And I think that I am much better prepared and ready to, you know, withstand whatever comes my way."

"Are you saying he couldn't handle it?" Couric asked.

"I'm just saying that I've been there and I know how to handle it. And I think that one of the factors the Democrats should take into account as they make their decisions in these upcoming elections is who could be the best nominee to, you know, take us to victory in November," Clinton replied.

So the only person who should run for president is someone who has already run for president. And so the entrenched powers stay in place.

This is also the thing that pisses me off about her whole "ready on day one" approach. She's saying, in essence, that someone who hasn't worked within the White House can't be ready for the job.

This means that the only people who should be running for president are:

• former presidents;
• former vice presidents;
• chiefs of staff;
• spouses of presidents (if they have acted as advisors during their spouse's presidency);
• former top advisors of presidents;
• and maybe some cabinet-level secretaries like Sec'y of State.

In essence, only the people who have already touched the top echelons of power are entitled to run for the presidency.

It's an elitist argument. Moreover, it's the argument of the entrenched power structure. Only those who have already held power could possibly argue that only those in power are qualified to serve.

This is the way that outsiders are kept out of the reins of power. It's time to turn the page. The established players have failed us and think that they're entitled to stay at the top of the power structure simply because they've already been there. To hell with all that.

Barack Obama for President.

Caucasing for Edwards

Now that Washington has had its totally meaningless beauty-contest primary, I guess I should let you know what I did during my state's caucus a couple of weeks ago.

On February 9th, I went down to my caucus location with one goal: to stand up for my man John Edwards.

Our precinct breakdown on the first vote: 24 Obama, 3 Clinton, 1 Edwards (yours truly), and 3 uncommitted.

Final tally: 26 Obama, 1 uncommitted, 1 Edwards, 3 Clinton.

I did my little one-minute speech for Edwards. No one changed their vote, but a couple of people came up afterwards. Edwards had a lot of support in the room, but no one besides me was willing to put it on the line.

Did Edwards get any delegates? Nope. I don't even think they counted caucus votes for Edwards.

Was it worth it? Hell yes. I was a Dean supporter in 2004, but chickened out and supported Kerry because of the whole electability crap. I felt liberated this time by voting for the candidate I really supported. Obama didn't need my vote, and Edwards deserved it.

I still think Edwards was and continues to be the best candidate on the issues, but I'm coming around to believing that Obama is the best candidate for this race, for our nation right now, at this moment in history. We need a genuine uniter, someone who can change the dynamic and the way we're perceived around the world. Obama is the only one who can do it.

"Yes We Can"

Yes We Can

I've never had a lot of fondness for will.i.am or his work with the Black Eyed Peas. But he, and filmmaker Jesse Dylan, have quite possibly made the best political ad in the history of politics.

And it's not actually a political ad. As far as I can tell, there is no intent here to raise money for Barack Obama's campaign. It's a pure tribute to one man's eloquent words and inspiration.

Works for me.

You can see a full-size high quality version of the video, and see a list of performers, at this website.

Rumors

The rumors are flying that John Edwards is going to drop out of the race today.

I hope it's not true. But if it's true, I hope he doesn't endorse another candidate. Not yet.

John has raised important issues during his campaign, and he has showed himself as a true progressive. Obama's closer to him on several issues than Clinton - and I expect him to eventually endorse Obama - but he's not there yet.

So I hope Edwards gives him a little bit of the ol' treatment before he offers an endorsement. And i hope Obama takes him seriously. He's earned that much.

John Edwards for Attorney General!

Reality Check - Should Edwards Drop Out?

Well, Barack Obama just killed his remaining two opponents in South Carolina. We've all seen the headlines - Obama wins more votes than both Clinton and Edwards combined. He won in every conceivable demographic (except over 65 - what's that all about?)

But then there's John Edwards - my candidate. Poor, poor, maligned, ignored John Edwards.

Edwards placed third in South Carolina (although he apparently surged more than ten points in the polls before Saturday, while Clinton plummeted). He's been in four races and hasn't won one.

So should he drop out? Is he, in fact, not a viable candidate? Is he just getting in the way of the "real" candidates? Is he wasting time and money and energy by running for a nomination he cannot win?

Well, let's think about it for a minute.

The Democratic nomination is not decided by wins in states. It's decided by total number of delegates. There are a total of 4049 Democratic delegates up for grabs during the campaign. The nominee must win 2025 delegates in order to close the deal - just over half.

This means that the winning candidate can't just get a plurality of the delegates - they need a straight-up 50%. South Carolina is the first state where any candidate won by over 50% of the vote. (There are 45 delegates tied to the primary, and another nine who are superdelegates.) Obama will receive 25 delegates from the primary, Clinton 12, and Edwards 8.

(I'm not some kind of idiot savant, by the way. All of this stuff is available on several websites, including CNN's Election Center.)

Edwards is gathering up the delegates he can, in hopes of making a play at the convention. He hasn't won a state yet, but he is winning delegates in each race. If he wins enough delegates to keep either Clinton or Obama from winning 50%, then he goes into the convention with a tremendous amount of power. Right now, this is a three-way race, not a two-person race.

Hillary Clinton, according to some reports, ignored South Carolina so she could campaign in New York, New Jersey, and California in hopes of racking up delegates. That way, even if she wins less states than Obama, she'll end up with more delegates and be in a position to take the nomination.

This is the way the game is played. This is the system that the Democratic Party has in place with all of the states that have proportional delegates systems vs. winner take all.

No one is gaming the system. No one is cheating the system. Each of them is winning delegates and votes. Each candidate is competing, in their way, with legitimate hopes of winning the nomination. No candidate is out until someone reaches 2025 delegates. Until and unless that happens, each of the three candidates remaining has a shot at the nomination.

If no one gets to 2025 by the time the convention happens, then all bets are off. A brokered convention is not entirely out of the question. It's happened before: as recently as 1976, for the Republicans, when Gerald Ford beat an ex-movie actor named Reagan on the first ballot.

Right now, Clinton has won two states and Obama has won two states. Clinton apparently leads in overall delegates, counting superdelegates, but Obama leads in delegates won from state primaries and caucuses.

But let's look at the numbers.

In the overall race for the nomination, Clinton has 230 delegates, followed by Obama with 152 delegates and Edwards with 61.

So the one who's closest to the nomination - Hillary Clinton - is nearly 1800 delegates short of the mark.

This race is far from over. And it'll be over when all of the voters - not just those in the early states, and not just those voting on Super Duper Double-Scooper Blooper Tuesday - cast their votes. (52% of all delegates will be up for grabs on that day, but no one is expected to win half of those delegates cleanly. It'll be a few here, a few there, some over here, and everybody get out yer blackboards.)

It's over when it's over, and until then, none of the three viable candidates has an obligation to step out for the sake of the party, or for the sake of the "realistic" candidates, or for any other reason.

And lest it be forgotten - John Edwards is talking about issues that the other candidates have only touched upon. He talked about predatory lending before Countrywide collapsed. He launched his campaign, not from New York or Washington, D.C., but from the devastated landscape of New Orleans. Edwards is moving the other candidates to the left, and that is a good thing. He is a unique voice in this campaign, and one that should keep speaking until he is no longer a candidate. That day has not arrived.

Ice Cream Puddles, Anyone?

I think we may have accidentally killed our refrigerator last night.

What we know is this: last night, the fridge was running. Last night, one of us stuffed some things in the top shelf of the freezer compartment - behind which lives a fan that apparently runs the whole dadblasted thing.

Great big refrigerator. Leetle tiny fan.

Well, something happened and the little cheap plastic wall separating the fan from damage got caved in, and the fan was blocked or stopped or damaged.

We woke up this morning to a dead fridge, and puddles of water and black oil on the floor. We did the appropriate thing - we flipped out. I ran out to get a cooler and some ice. We saved everything we could - which was mostly condiments and cheese. (This USDA fact sheet proved to be a great asset.) I assumed the fridge had just croaked overnight and called the landlord to let him know that it was a dead parrot.

While I was unpacking the freezer, I noticed the caved-in panel. I moved the broken plastic panel away from the fan and whirrr! It started working again! Miracle of miracles! Saints be praised! We let it get down to temp again and jubilantly went out to buy some foodstuffs.

When we returned home, I unloaded the cooler and our brand new foodstuffs back into the fridge.

And then ... I noticed how warm the fridge was. And I noticed more oil leaking out onto the floor.

And then, Oliver said to me, "what daddy doing?"

"Daddy's going downstairs to curse."

Apparently, when the fan's running, it works fine. When the fan's off, it's not retaining cold. Fuckity.

So tonight, all of our cold stuff is sitting in a cooler on our back porch. The landlord's been called again. Hopefully, 1) we'll have a fresh refrigerator by Monday, and 2) the landlord doesn't see fit to charge us for breaking the fridge.

I don't really think that second part is either likely or legal. My guess is that it was damaged already, and that it was a matter of time before it died. It's just a little weird that moving a few frozen foods around would kill a perfectly healthy fridge, don'cha think? Anyway, I've got the Tenants' Union on speed dial just in case.

Radical Love Gets a Holiday

As a public service, I'm recommending that everyone - everyone - read Sarah Vowell's excellent column on the legacy of Dr. King.

I already love Sarah Vowell more than should be allowed, but this cements her place as one of my favorite writers.

Stay Awake

Today is a holiday to celebrate the life and legacy of Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (King Day?) I want to offer one of his speeches for consideration today.

In church yesterday, our minister quoted a sermon that Dr. King delivered at the National Cathedral in 1968, attacking the folly of the Vietnam war. The words, delivered forty years ago, ring as true today as they did then.

I want to say one other challenge that we face is simply that we must find an alternative to war and bloodshed. Anyone who feels, and there are still a lot of people who feel that way, that war can solve the social problems facing mankind is sleeping through a great revolution. President Kennedy said on one occasion, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind." The world must hear this. I pray God that America will hear this before it is too late, because today we’re fighting a war.

I am convinced that it is one of the most unjust wars that has ever been fought in the history of the world. Our involvement in the war in Vietnam has torn up the Geneva Accord. It has strengthened the military-industrial complex; it has strengthened the forces of reaction in our nation. It has put us against the self-determination of a vast majority of the Vietnamese people, and put us in the position of protecting a corrupt regime that is stacked against the poor.

It has played havoc with our domestic destinies. This day we are spending five hundred thousand dollars to kill every Vietcong soldier. Every time we kill one we spend about five hundred thousand dollars while we spend only fifty-three dollars a year for every person characterized as poverty-stricken in the so-called poverty program, which is not even a good skirmish against poverty.

Not only that, it has put us in a position of appearing to the world as an arrogant nation. And here we are ten thousand miles away from home fighting for the so-called freedom of the Vietnamese people when we have not even put our own house in order. And we force young black men and young white men to fight and kill in brutal solidarity. Yet when they come back home that can’t hardly live on the same block together.

The judgment of God is upon us today. And we could go right down the line and see that something must be done—and something must be done quickly. We have alienated ourselves from other nations so we end up morally and politically isolated in the world. There is not a single major ally of the United States of America that would dare send a troop to Vietnam, and so the only friends that we have now are a few client-nations like Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea, and a few others.

This is where we are. "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind," and the best way to start is to put an end to war in Vietnam, because if it continues, we will inevitably come to the point of confronting China which could lead the whole world to nuclear annihilation.

The speech was titled "Remaining Awake Through a Great Revolution." Read it in its entirety here. Don't sleep.

My Son Convinces Me to Keep Him Around for Another Week

I was in bed, laying next to Oliver in his toddler bed, waiting for him to fall asleep. The bed's small, so my head was on the mattress instead of his miniature-sized pillow.

He scooted over on his pillow and indicated that I should lay down on it. "My friend lay down on pillow."

"Daddy's your friend?" I asked him, bemused.

"Yeah."

I tucked my head on his pillow. "Daddy likes being your friend."

After a minute, he responded, "Oliver likes being daddy's friend."

Another minute. Then he added, "Oliver likes being daddy's Oliver."

He fell asleep shortly thereafter. I stayed for a few minutes to watch him breathe, wondering what heroic act I had committed in another life to be blessed with such an amazing little boy. It must have been a big one.

What Roger Clemens Should Have Said

Did you see Clemens on 60 Minutes last night?

Yeah, I didn't believe him either.

Bill Dwyre, columnist for the L.A. Times, offers some sage advice that Roger Dodger should have gotten from his lawyers, but didn't. Here's his first suggestion on how to fight off a story like this.

* You don't wait three weeks. You call a news conference the next day, or maybe the day after. You need only enough time to read the report and prepare to respond to each and every accusation. You are innocent, after all, so you want everybody to come and ask their questions. You want it open, free-wheeling, immediate. Not sanitized in some TV studio with only one questioner. Not used for a network ratings bonanza and edited for time.

Read the rest here.

What Dwyre suggests is a perfect path to clear your name - if you're innocent. If you have nothing to hide, then you hide nothing. Maybe that's why Roger chose the other path - shouting, pouting, glaring, but offering no other proof than his own word.

Dentist

I'm posting very late - like a few weeks late - because I forgot to report back from Oliver's first! dentist! appointment!

(The appointment was back in the first week of December, so forgive me for my tardiness.)

The dentist, first of all, was amazing. I thought he was going to have to sit back in The Dreaded Chair, or else he'd sit on my lap while the dentist poked and prodded in his mouth. But no. Instead, while he was standing up and playing with a fire truck, she came over and started playing him and talking about the fire truck. She befriended him. He smiled at her. Then she showed him the flashlight. She shone it on the fire truck, through the windows, and then while he was smiling, she aimed it in his mouth. The dental assistant furiously took notes while she called out all the teeth she saw. (She used the letters for each tooth, so it sounded like - "oh, look, Oliver, those windows are really cool. Look at that. K, F, C, L! What a great truck you have! A, D, G!")

He barely knew he was being examined. Then she brushed his teeth and flossed them. The whole thing was over before he realized that "the exam" had begun.

Exciting news #1 - all of his baby teeth are in!

Exciting news #2 - not a single cavity!

We were really worried because his cousin had a bunch of cavities around this age, when she went for her first dental appointment. I don't know what we did right, but it's working!

Song(s) of the Year

Our local NPR affiliate did a bunch of those end-of-the-year shows. You know the way these work - pick the story of the year! Sum up your year in thirty seconds! Write a haiku! Write a limerick!

And then there was this - pick your song of the year.

And that idea worked for me. What was the one song that will always scream 2007 when I hear it? It's not quite the same question as best song of the year, which makes it more interesting.

So, what the hell. Songs of the year, in no particular order:



Britney Spears - "Gimme More." Possibly the worst song of the year, from its terrible intro ("It's Britney, bitch!") to its lame-ass club retread beat to the faux-edgy lyrics to the entire artifice of the song. The video, if anything, makes it worse. But I will always remember Mrs. Spears' trials and travails when I hear this song, which hopefully, will be never again in my lifetime. (I can't link to the VMA performance, but you can find it if you know how to look. It just hurts even to think about it.)

Radiohead - "Down is the New Up." This isn't on the CD that I downloaded for $7.38 from Radiohead's website, but is on the second CD of material that is supposed to be released early next year. Here's a nice acoustic version with just Thom Yorke, and here's a great live version. No, I haven't heard the studio version, but I can't wait. (I'm weirdly amused by the idea of a song that hasn't officially been released making the SOTY chart.)

Radiohead may not have changed or destroyed the music industry this year, but they sure put a shock to the system. The album needed to be good to live up to all the hype and speculation, and it is.

Björk - Declare Independence. I loved "Earth Intruders," particularly the live version from SNL. But this song is the one that will stay with me- a kick-ass, glitchy, screechy anthem to be played at max volume. (This live version from Jools Holland's show will appeal to the people who already love the song. If you don't get it, you really won't get it after watching this. It's also worth watching to see the ReacTable in action.)

Arcade Fire - "Windowsill." The audio equivalent of "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore." Sums up perfectly the frustration and outrage that so many of us are feeling, four years into this useless and endless war, nearing the end of the Bush administration's reign. The Arcade Fire is one of the greatest bands working today. (A stirring live version here.) Also check out "Intervention" if you like this one.

Wilco - "On and On and On." I love the new album, Sky Blue Sky (I swear that I like the album regardless of its title). This song is deceptively simple and inexplicably comforting to me. A great song from a great album. (Live performance here.) "Impossible Germany" is another new song that slays me, but this is the one I want to learn to play on guitar.

But what's the one song that will always bring me back to this moment, this moment in time, this moment in music? That's an easy pick.

Battles - "Atlas."

I remember walking to work the first time I heard this song. I remember the giddiness in Bob Boilen's voice as he introduced the song, and then those insane munchkinland vocals kicked in, and I was hooked. This is the weirdest and most effective and most memorable song I heard this year, and I never get tired of hearing it. (In case you missed it, here's the mindbending video. From Warp Records, natch.)

Battles is not a rock band. They're not jazz, not hard rock, not "alternative," not anything I've ever heard before. I've got them categorized on my iPod along with Sonny Sharrock and Pharoah Sanders and the Bad Plus. They're beyond categories. They fracture boundaries and almost challenge the definition of music itself, which seems like as good of an anthem as 2007 is going to get.

Happy New Year, everyone. May you get an abundance of the things you want and only a fraction of what you deserve.

You Are Getting Very Sleepy...

I think I just hypnotized my son.

We were driving home from a busy day. I had a board meeting, so I left him at the (awesome) drop-in daycare center. I picked him up, we went to eat lunch. Well, we drove around the parking lot for twenty minutes, trying to find a parking spot. Then we ate lunch.

And then we were driving home around 1:00, and that's around his nap time. So I was hoping that he'd fall asleep in the car so he wouldn't be a basket case by the time we got home. He didn't seem ready to sleep - he was happily jabbering away and singing songs.

I leaned back toward him and said, "Oliver, if you need to go to sleep, you can. It's okay."

I kid you not - he closed his eyes five seconds later and fell asleep.

Five seconds.

I was a little worried that he had passed out instead of, y'know, going to sleep. I kept stopping at stop lights and listening for breathing sounds.

The boy fell absolutely stone cold asleep. And all I had to do was say two sentences to him.

I know there's probably a good reason for this. There's a good rational explanation involving child psychology and developmental stages and things like that. But right now, I feel like I just pulled off a magic trick.

Angel of Darkness, Angel of Light

Angel
Originally uploaded by Sky Bluesky

Our Christmas tree was a foot too tall. I had to chop some length off the top just so it would stand up, and then some more so that our angel would fit on top of the tree.

This left our angel mere inches from the ceiling. I noticed one day that the angel (which is illuminated by several light bulbs) was casting some unusual light and shadow patterns on the ceiling. So I decided to try and capture this.

I love the way this picture came out. The shadows seem to suggest some mystical presence just lurking over her shoulder. Hope you like it.

Ellen Crosses the Line

No, I'm not talking about her and that dog. Ellen DeGeneres isn't honoring the writer's strike. From MTV.com:

Ellen DeGeneres has also made her feelings about the strike known — she has crossed the picket line, People reports. While her talk-show peers have taken an indefinite hiatus, the TV host is continuing to film her daytime program, "Ellen." She skipped her monologue on Friday (November 9), saying she was doing so in honor of her writers. As for the rest of the show continuing, she qualified on her show, "It's sweeps, which is a very important time in television, because that's when you do your best shows, your funniest material." The Writers Guild of America responded to DeGeneres on Friday, saying it was "extremely disappointed to see that Ellen has chosen not to stand with writers during the strike," according to UsMagazine.com. "Ellen's peers who host comedy/variety shows have chosen to support the writers and help them get a fair contract, Ellen has not. On her first show back, Ellen said she loves and supports her writers, but her actions prove otherwise." ...

Guess I won't be watching her show anymore.

The WGAE (Writer's Guild of America East) wrote this blistering letter in response to Ellen's actions:

"We find it sad that Ellen spent an entire week crying and fighting for a dog that she gave away, yet she couldn't even stand by writers for more than one day -- writers who have helped make her extremely successful," the letter said. "We ask Ellen to cease doing shows immediately."

No More Nummies

It's been almost a week, so I feel like I can say this safely. Mrs. B has weaned Oliver.

She cut off "nummies" (our little word for nursing) except for nighttime feedings a month or two ago. Last week, as we were driving home from something-or-another, she told him that the nummies were all gone.

He started negotiating with her - "almost gone?"

"No, honey," she said, "all gone."

"Almost gone," he insisted.

"No, baby, all gone." We both started worrying, and I found myself a little teary. He really seemed upset at this sudden development.

And then, that night, he was fine. He asked once for his nummies, and Mrs. B told him they were all gone, and he just turned over and went to sleep.

The next night, he got a little upset in the middle of the night when he couldn't nurse. But it's gone surprisingly smoothly. She's thinking we could have done this a long time ago, but maybe we just waited until the right time.

Best Etymology Ever

sar·don·ic /sɑrˈdɒnɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciati[sahr-don-ik] Pronunciation Key

–adjective

characterized by bitter or scornful derision; mocking; cynical; sneering: a sardonic grin.

---

[Origin: 1630–40; alter. of earlier sardonian (influenced by F sardonique) sardoni(us) (sardónios of Sardinia) + -an; alluding to a Sardinian plant which when eaten was supposed to produce convulsive laughter ending in death]

Red Sox 4, Rockies ... um ... Zero

Well, so much for that.

The Red Sox are this year's champions. They pummeled the Rockies, fair and square, in four straight games. You can't say the Rockies didn't fight - they threw a couple of good scares into the Red Sox, especially in game three, when they clawed their way back (almost) from a 6-0 deficit.

But then the Sox scored another three runs. And then another one for good measure.

The Rockies kept trying to fight back, only to be squashed again and again. But give them credit for fighting.

I live in Seattle, and I feel a little bit like a bandwagoner - at least I feel like some people might accuse me of that. But I can legitimately claim the Rockies as one of my teams. I've seen them live, after all. I saw them before Coors Field existed, back when they were playing in Mile High Stadium (the first one, not the new Invesco Field or whatever). And I saw them back when Vinny Castilla and Andres Gallaraga and Dante Bichette were the Blake Street Bombers - lots of home runs, not so much with the wins.

Mrs. B and I had been going out for only nine months when we took a road trip from Seattle to Denver. We saw the sights: the badlands in Wyoming, Grand Tetons National Park, and Rocky Mountain N.P. in Colorado. And we want to see the Rockies at Coors Field.

I've been following these boys since their first season. I remember their history. I haven't been following them much this year, but watching them now brings back all the memories from their early years. I'm thrilled for their success, regardless of the World Series outcome. The Rockies are a hell of a team. They've got a great group of players who all play as a team and pull for each other. They've developed a spirit of winning and camaraderie that has turned the Rockies into a serious contender.

They'll be back.

There will be pennants won in the future. Matt Holliday have a couple more MVP seasons. There are superstars in the making on that team.

The Rockies will be back in the World Series. They have to go back and avenge themselves.

Congrats Red Sox! (Who my wife was rooting for the whole time - even though she hasn't watched an inning of baseball all season.)

Red Sox 1, Rockies 0

Things to remember:

• It's a seven-game series. Winning by twelve runs does not give you an automatic lead in any of the next six games.
• If they were going to lose, it was going to happen against Beckett.
• The Rockies hadn't played a live baseball team for eight days. Now they have, and they've got their blood flowing again. Scrimmages and practice sessions are no substitute for the real thing.
• They got embarrassed last night. This is the most important thing to me. Last night left them bruised, battered, and embarrassed. A team in that condition is a dangerous team to face.

The Rockies hadn't lost in over five weeks before last night's debacle. Now they remember what it feels like to lose. They also might be remembering that feeling of ... well, failure. The Colorado Rockies have been also-rans since their inaugural season in 1995. Now that they got spanked in their first World Series game, pundits and commentators all around the country are questioning whether they even deserve to be there. (This came out before game 1, but here's a particularly noxious column savaging the Rockies.) So they've got something to prove - again, that only makes them a more dangerous team.

The Red Sox are feeling proud, cocky, confident. The Rockies are feeling angry, humiliated, and hungry for revenge.

Advantage: Rockies.

Let's see if they can bounce back tonight and make it a series.

Something Like a Review - "In Rainbows"

You really don't want me to post a song-by-song review of this album, do you? I mean, seriously, people. There's scads of reviews all over the internet. My two cents won't change your mind one way or the other. But I'll share a few random observations with you.

Random Observation #1: Around 6:30, I was driving home when I was seized with the urge to hear "Bodysnatchers." Usually, the Radiohead songs that inspire me in this sudden-urge way are crunchy numbers like "Electioneering," "Just," or "The National Anthem." "Bodysnatchers" is a fun, crunchy song and will make you accidentally drive over the speed limit.

Random Observation #2: This is a headphone album. Some songs work on speakers, played at top volume, like "15 Step" and the aforementioned "Bodysnatchers." But you'll want to savor this record like fine chocolate. Put on the headphones. Sit in a comfortable chair. Enjoy it. There are moments on this album that will pass right by you if you're not paying attention, and these are the moments that you want to appreciate. The killer bass work throughout the album. The gentle pulsing beat of "Reckoner." The mesmerizing, haunting ebbs and flows of "Nude." This is an album in which to invest time and attention.

Random Observation #3: I read one review that described "All I Need" as Thom Yorke fronting Boards of Canada. I hate those "it sounds like x mixed with y" lines, but that one seemed particularly well chosen.

Random Observation #4: I never heard the early versions of "Reckoner" or "Nude" (once called "Big Boots) or "Videotape," so I'm not offended by any versions here. The artist always has the right to change songs any way they wish. Hell, I've heard at least four versions of Patty Griffin's "Top of the World" and I like all of them.

Random Observation #5: There isn't a second of dead or wasted space anywhere on this album. You can see the five guys in a room together, staring intently at each other, nodding or exchanging knowing smirks at each other. This is a band that is playing its heart out.

Random Observation #6: The guitar work on several songs is almost unfathomable to me. I once looked at the chord patterns to early Beatles songs, and couldn't believe how many chord changes George Harrison would cram into a dozen beats. Jonny Greenwood is playing out of his mind here. Especially check out the tasteful if bewildering work on "15 Step" (I find myself thinking of Wes Montgomery's clean style) and the baffling chord progressions on "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi".)

Random Observation #7: Is there a singer out there with the range of Thom Yorke? Imagine anyone else swinging from screaming banshee to churchlike whisper. Very few singers would even attempt what he does effortlessly. Again, break out your headphones and check out his vocals, especially on songs like "Weird Fishes" where he layers multiple vocal tracks behind his lead. The effect is often otherworldly.

Thom Yorke is a man in complete control of his instrument here.

The verdict: I love this album. There - I said it. I love it. I've played it maybe a half-dozen times, and I think it's right up there as one of my favorite Radiohead albums. Right up there. The boys did good.

Can't wait to hear the second CD of songs they've recorded.

Radiohead - In Rainbows

I haz it.

I'm going to give it a few listens before I post a review, but I like what I've heard.

From the Times of London:

Quite how it all ranks alongside other Radiohead albums – well, let’s be honest. It’s far too early to tell. In time, the excitement of waiting for a new release by one of your favourite bands to land in your inbox will separate from the role it will go on to play in your life.

For what it’s worth, In Rainbows was sent to me at 6.30am. Three hours later, this insidious index of sonic surprises is stacking up in my mind, like planes waiting to land. The trick, I guess, is to give your fans what they didn’t know they wanted. Radiohead, old hands at this, have been doing it for over a decade now. With In Rainbows, they appear to have done it again.

How to Double-Swaddle a Baby

It's time for a trip back in time. We're going to go back, ladies and gentlemen. Way way back. Back to the days when this was how Oliver slept.

That's right. It's time to revisit the popular topic of double-swaddling.

I'll confess - I learned about the magical art of the double swaddle through a parenting class. I've never seen it described in any book. It seems like one of those secrets that's been passed down from mother to daughter (because, until recently, most fathers just never got that involved) for generations. I learned about it when Oliver was wiggling and wriggling around for his naps, and the customary swaddling technique just wasn't cutting it. Someone in the parenting class suggested double-swaddling him.

I said - and I remember this distinctly - "Hunh?"

She proceeded to take her own little ball of squiggleness and demonstrate the technique, bundling her kiddo up into a perfect knot of swaddle. It was astonishing. She was wrapped up tight as a mummy and looked happy to be there. After a little practice and trial-and-error, I got down my own technique, which I will demonstrate for you right here and now.

Let's begin with the basics. You need two blankets. You'll want large blankets because you're going to be wrapping both of them around your baby. Don't skimp on length. (See the end of this post for my personal recommendation.)

Lay the first one down in a diamond shape, like this. Fold the top corner down.





Lay a second blanket down over the first one, and fold the top corner down in the same way.

(Pay attention to how far you fold these corners down. If you've got a little kiddo, you can fold these down a fair amount. The bigger your kiddo, the smaller you want this fold to be because it affects the length of blanket remaining.)




At this point, I should introduce our stand-in baby, Winnie T. Pooh. (Oliver's entirely too old to be swaddled these days.)

Take your baby and place him/her on top of the blankets, right at the top. The shoulders should be just about level with the top of your blankets, as shown here. Fold one side of the first blanket down over your baby's arm - and here's the important part! - tuck it under your baby's body. (I found it helpful to rock Oliver to one side gently while I tucked the blanket under him.) Make it snug.

Then fold the other side over your baby's other arm (the order doesn't really matter - here, Pooh gets the left arm swaddled first and then the right arm). Don't forget to tuck the blanket down and under the body, also. Make sure it's snug on both sides.

Notice now that baby can't move their arms! Here's why this method is sheer genius: your baby's own weight is what keeps their arms from getting loose. (Snicker snicker.)


Pull the remaining blanket up under baby's legs, so it sits loosely over the diaper area and maybe on top of his/her tummy. (Don't worry: unless your baby is ten inches long, like Pooh, you won't have this much material remaining.)








You have now secured your baby's arms nice and tight. Use the second blanket to swaddle your baby in the usual way. You can also use one of those Miracle blanket deelyboppers, provided it wraps around the first blanket. Make sure you swaddle your baby nice and tight.

Presto - it's a double-swaddled baby!

The arms are being held tight by the first blanket. The second blanket holds the first one in place and also holds the legs in place. Your baby should now look like it's in a soft cotton cocoon.

Now let's see what a real baby looks like in a real double-swaddle.





See? Snug as a bug!

(Pardon me for a moment. I just got all misty-eyed seeing little Oliver like that. I miss those days.)

This lasted us well into Oliver's second year, when he just plain outgrew swaddling altogether. You'll know when it's time - Oliver started wrestling his way out of both blankets when it was time to give it up. But it took a long long time to get there.

Now let's talk blankets. We got the best swaddle blankets imaginable from the Birth and Beyond store in Seattle - you can order them online here. The blankets are large (42 x 42), thin, and soft as any blanket you will find anywhere.

Email me with any corrections, tips, or thoughts. One last tip: practice on your baby while they're awake. They'll think it's hilarious. Have fun bundling your baby!

Rockies win!!!

I don't believe it. I just watched the game unfold on ESPN's GameCast, and I still can't believe they won.

The Colorado Rockies won their one-game playoff with the San Diego Padres in 13 innings. They were tied after 12 innings. They fell behind by two runs in the top of the 13th. And then they came roaring back, scoring two quick runs and completing the comeback with a sacrifice fly. Game over.

They did it for the fans who were lined up at 7 a.m., filling every parking spot on Blake Street. They did it for the folks who hold up the purple Helton sign underneath the Rockpile on anonymous summer nights. They did it for Ed the parking attendant who didn't have to tell the arriving players what he wanted for his birthday. They did it for those who didn't leave after four hours, whose voices were gone from screaming and arms cramped from clapped.