We talked about the best RB of the modern era the other day (I chose Barry Sanders, but I could easily put Sweetness there and Barry #2), but here is my favorite running back of all time:

I loved that twinkle-toed fat man. Oh yes. I love that fat man and I am unashamed.

In the Detroit Free Press piece about Hoekstra’s reaction to yesterday’s airplane incident, Hoekstra was identified as a “Holland Republican” since he is from the town of Holland, Michigan.

The first comment from the Colonel Mustard post John wrote about:

What is a “Holland” Republican? Did they mean to say “Dutch”? Are they implying that he is a tool for Holland? Fearing that readers might miss the Dutch-Holland connection if they used “Dutch”, did they also fear that they would miss the subliminal implication?

Can someone please explain what Col. Mustard is talking about:

The fear that conservatives would point out the obvious about this terrorist attack seemed to be a common first reaction:

“[The attack] means Greater Wingnuttia is going to get the very special happy Christmas they most desire, because what they like best of all is to wet their pants in an ecstasy of hysterical screeching …. “

John Cole of Balloon-Juice immediately lined up his preemptive attack:

I’m not going to speculate about what happened because the reports are all over the place, and I do not want to minimize the seriousness of it, but I will state that I think we all know the kind of media freak-out we are about to have over this event.

How was it an attempt to “politicize” terrorism for Hoeksta to point out the obvious? Al-Qaeda activities in Yemen are a problem, and this incident may prove that those activities have the ability to reach our shores as in the Fort Hood shooting.

I’m honestly baffled. Does anyone not think there is going to be a media freak-out over this? Has he not turned on the tv? Is he saying that it would be irresponsible for me to not speculate? Is he claiming I’m trying to downplay the event despite including the statement “I do not want to minimize the seriousness of it?” What is he “obviously” trying to point out- that people still want to attack the United States? I never even mentioned Hoekstra. What is he talking about?

And in order for me to launch a pre-emptive attack, wouldn’t I have to have written the post before someone tried to blow up a plane?

Conservatives are just weird. I swear to God half the trackbacks I get from wingnuts look like they just went through memorandum and linked to people randomly, no matter what they have said, and try to make it fit their post. All of the conservative blogosphere reads like a Palin tweet these days.

I made an attempt:

The cute is definitely counterbalanced by the sad face.

James Joyner reacts to the new TSA “security” efforts:

We’re simply going to make people miserable for no apparent reason. There have been precisely three attempts over the last eight years to commit acts of terrorism aboard commercial aircraft. All of them clownishly inept and easily thwarted by the passengers. How many tens of thousands of flights have been incident free? And, yet, we’re going to make hundreds of thousands of people endure transcontinental flights without reading materials or the ability to use the restroom?

Pretty much. What we are dealing with is a country who has been force-fed a steady diet of fear-mongering regarding terrorism for years and a highly charged political climate. It doesn’t matter if the new security efforts do anything, what matters is that it looks like something is being done. No one wants to be accused of having done nothing when someone finally is successful.

What makes me laugh is that we are now going to do all sorts of new stuff to people here in the states, when the flight originated overseas.

This is a weird reaction from law enforcement:

In a ritual nearly as familiar as Santa Claus and crowded stores, police agencies again have stepped up enforcement of drunken-driving laws this holiday season, setting up sobriety checkpoints that studies show reduce alcohol-related crashes because drivers who’ve been drinking stay off the road, fearing arrest.

But some public-safety officials say those efforts are now being thwarted by technology, with drivers now using text messaging, Twitter and other tools to keep each other informed about the location of sobriety checkpoints.

I’m not sure how this is that big of a deal, because around here the police publish where the DUI checkpoints will be ahead of time in the newspaper. Do they not do that everywhere else?

(via Kevin Drum)

I heard this the other day and thought it was really funny:

Christmas isn’t a national holiday in Japan but many Japanese celebrate the 25th with a special meal: fried chicken – specifically, Kentucky Fried Chicken. Colonel Sander’s chicken is considered a Christmas tradition there. The fast-food chain is so popular long lines form outside Japanese stores.

You can listen to the whole piece at the link- apparently KFC dinners are so popular in Japan that they take reservations for months ahead of time.

I was stunned to see this from Bobo yesterday:

The most powerful essay I read this year was David Grann’s “Trial by Fire” in The New Yorker. Grann investigated the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in 2004 for murdering his three children by setting their house on fire.

In the first part of the essay, Grann lays out the evidence that led to Willingham’s conviction: the marks on the floor and walls that suggested that a fire accelerant had been splashed around; the distinct smoke patterns suggesting arson; the fact that Willingham was able to flee the house barefoot without burning his feet.

Then, in the rest of the essay, Grann raises grave doubts about that evidence. He tells the story of a few people who looked into the matter, found a miscarriage of justice and then had their arguments ignored as Willingham was put to death. Grann painstakingly describes how bogus science may have swayed the system to kill an innocent man, but at the core of the piece there are the complex relationships that grew up around a man convicted of burning his children. If you can still support the death penalty after reading this piece, you have stronger convictions than I do.

Maybe I’m setting the bar too low here, but it’s surprising to me—in a good way—to see a conservative columnist write about this.

Decided I am going to a matinee today. What should I see? I’ve narrowed it down to Avatar, Nine, and Invictus. Sherlock Holmes looks like it will really suck, and It’s Complicated seems like it will be one of those cutesy films where you have seen every funny part in the previews.

Leaning towards Avatar, but I think 3 hours of 3D might make me vomit. Is there a non-3D option?

Patrick Ruffini aside, most of the wingnut attacks on Obama over yesterday’s attempted terrorist action center on word choice. RedState:

Even the White House is calling this an attempted terror attack.

Pete Hoekstra (via ThinkProgress):

Administration says attempted terrorist attack. No. It was a terrorist attack! Just not as successful as they (AQ) planned.

“It was great to see that the Attorney General said, `I know that we are at war,’” Rudy said. But he went on to lament that under current policy, we aren’t supposed to use the phrase “war on terror” anymore.

Just as clapping louder won the war in Iraq, using the words “terrorist attack” and “war” will keep Al Qaeda at bay.

Without a doubt, the dumbest attempt to politicize the event on the plane yesterday that I have seen so far:

I suppose me might as well impose a death penalty on all suicide bombers, too.

It never stops:

Landrieu said she would not support the final legislation if negotiators tinkered with the Senate proposal for taxing high-cost insurance plans.

“I can only support a bill if the Cadillac plans are taxed at the level they are in the Senate [bill,]” said Landrieu. “It’s not because I’m thrilled about taxing those plans, which I’m not, but it is the No. 1 cost-containment measure in the bill. It’s what is going to drive costs down over time.”

Nelson said he would not support the final bill if it included the House proposal to impose a tax surcharge on individuals earning more than $500,000 and families earning more than $1 million.

“I’ve already said that would be a deal-breaker,” said Nelson.

Lincoln also said she has great concern. “If it moves very much at all from where we are, it’s going to be hard,” she said.

Shorter blue dogs- it is imperative we tax union workers and others making 60k a year with good benefits, but leave Paris Hilton alone. I’m sure Broder and Hiatt will love this definition of “sacrifice.”

Why do we even have a House? They simply are not co-equal branches.

Good morning, fellow O-bots. I hope you all have your decoder rings ready, as the message from Obama central should be getting here soon.

Also, Happy Boxing Day.

By now you have heard there was an incident on a plane headed to Detroit. I’m not going to speculate about what happened because the reports are all over the place, and I do not want to minimize the seriousness of it, but I will state that I think we all know the kind of media freak-out we are about to have over this event. Peter King and the usual suspects are already running over people to get in front of cameras. With that in mind, I’d like to bring you the other message from the Vatican this holiday:

The Vatican will review its security procedures after a woman jumped a barrier and rushed at Pope Benedict XVI for the second time in two years.

But the Vatican’s top spokesman warned that it was impossible to guarantee 100% security around the pontiff. This time the woman managed to knock the Pope down before being pulled away by guards.

***

Vatican press chief the Rev Federico Lombardi said it was unrealistic to think the Vatican could ensure 100% security for the Pope, considering he was regularly surrounded by tens of thousands of people for his weekly audiences, Masses, papal greetings and other events. “It seems that they intervened at the earliest possible moment in a situation in which ‘zero risk’ cannot be achieved,” he said.

There are no zero risk situations in life for the Pope, and there are none for you, either. I hope our elected leaders keep that in mind.

Scanned some pics of the old Cole pets- one of my projects is to digitize all our old photo albums, but the current scanner is crap, so I will probably do that this summer. At any rate, here is a picture of two of my childhood pets:

Ajax was a scruffy mutt I got a week or so before Christmas in 1979. He was a great little dog, although a rotten dog. He could run away and get in the creek in 30 seconds, loved eating spaghetti and getting it all over his whiskers, and would refuse to come if you called unless he was convinced you could see him, which meant that you would find my mom in the yard yelling “AJAX, I SEE YOU.” His nickname was “swampfoot” because he could get get his feet uber filthy in no time.

The cat is the greatest cat who ever lived, named Mr. Purr Puff (my sister Devon named him). He was a big cat, and the most laid back cat ever. He only had a half a tail (as you can see here) because the rest got cut off in a dorm fire escape door. He lived for close to twenty years, mainly because he was the laziest cat to ever live (for the last few years of Purr Puff’s life, my father was fond of saying “All my kids are out of college, I’m close to retirement, and my only goal left in life is to outlive that god damned cat.” You can not tell from this picture, but he was actually bigger than Tunch, but not fat. Wait till I find some pictures of my sister dressing him up in doll clothes.