Lambert de-front-paged my post about the Confluence's response to the whole quoting-Liebowitz-on-the-mortgage-meltdown brouhaha, and I understand why he did it even if I don't at all agree, and it is his site. So I hope he'll leave me the liberty of linking to a version of the post that I've put on my own personal blog, where I used to do this sort of thing on a more regular basis. (But now just post tourism photos from my handheld, mostly.)

Please take your comments there.

[Welcome, Conflucians! For two other perspectives, see here and here -- lambert]

There's lots for me to criticize in this Confluence post about the relationship between race and the subprime market, including a certain amount of PC policemanism which I am not at all averse to inflicting. Let's just say that it's pretty much well known around both here and there that my threshold for a racism accusation is a lot lower than theirs, and for that reason, the PUMA phenomenon as a movement seems rather tone-deaf to me about race issues.

Mountain Lion Spotted Around College Park

COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- A large cat believed to be a mountain lion has been spotted by several people around College Park.

Under the circumstances, I thought this was just plain funny.

Salon's Rebecca Traister writes a thumbsucker on PUMAs without interviewing or even quoting a single, solitary soul except -- making assumptions here -- MSNBC chief Phil Griffin. Nice work if you can get it.

It has been kindly pointed out to me that there is an error (in good faith, based on not checking the facts on another post and/or misreading the post) in my last post on flags. I feel obliged to correct this with another post, because I feel the content of my post still stands even after the factual error has been corrected.

Hillary Clinton did not participate in the attempt at adding a flag-burning amendment to the Constitution. She instead attempted to defuse it by proposing a non-amendment that very narrowly fit the Constitution as interpreted generally by the courts. Consequently, this paragraph,

There are reasons to prefer Clinton to Obama. There are easily arguable reasons to be angry that Clinton is not presently likely to be a Presidential candidate in the general election. You can even make a case for not voting for Barack Obama. You can make an even better case for not voting at all.

But there are a few moderately popular reasons for preferring Clinton to Obama that disturb me. A variant of one of these is present in this post at The Confluence.

(reposted from a comment on Avedon's blog)

How can leverage be built, or used, without the threat of a negative outcome?

If votes from Clinton supporters are desired, doesn't someone have to ask for them?

Doesn't someone have to stop insulting them by continually saying their opinions are invalid, that their power is either illusory or unimportant, or that they are delusional for wanting to wield that power in the first place?

Since there are no third parties worth even that much of a damn to consistently field downticket candidates in every state, how else should Clinton supporters -- who have been called everything from bitches, dried-up divorcees, to racists -- behave, but to offer their votes to the McCain campaign if their policy concerns are not discussed with respect?

Never mind, they’ll come back. They always do, you know. Women get cruelly battered and still keep returning to their batterer. BUT NOT THIS TIME!

"No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self." - Susan B. Anthony, 1872

http://www.flickr.com/photos/26966166@N0...

We still support Hillary despite the combined power of the Democratic Party hacks, the Media Whores, and the illicit money men of the Obama campaign who have waged a vicious, nasty, hate filled, sexist campaign against her.

They continually battered her and when they battered her, they battered us.