Not art. Or maybe I'm just uncultured.

It looks like the "artist" took a can and crumpled it up. Why it's worth so much is beyond me. I suppose it represents beauty to someone, but that someone isn't me. Any idea how big these things are? There's no clue to their scale.

I looked through the linked slideshow, and the painting by Jean-Michel Basquiat, “Untitled (Boxer)” looks like something my 9-year-old doodled on the back of a church bulletin during a sermon.

@ Red:

Hate for Obama? No. I think you're reading a lot more into what I've said about Obama than you should. Pity is probably more accurate. That and disdain for his proposed policies and his philosophy on the economy & society. Also a bit of contempt for the system that would put someone that unqualified for the job on the ballot for President, and a lot of contempt for a media machine that helped him get elected.

Now that he's won the election, he'll be in charge, so arguing that he isn't qualified is pretty much wasted breath. I'll support him as best as I can, as I have respect for the office, if not for the man.

Does he normally cast a shadow?

Just 18 years ago? I thought it was older than that.

The funny thing is that Apple's Macintosh System 6 predated Windows 3 by two years, and surpassed Windows 95 in usability. Or maybe that isn't so funny.

I've still got several old Macs that run System 6 & 7; it's good to boot one up every now & then just as a reminder of how far things have advanced.

@ Oblivious Red

What I've written here about Obama is not venom; just how I see things. If you want venom, just look up some of the crap your leftist buddies wrote about Sarah Palin. And I could care less what color he is; it's his philosophy and lack of qualifications I despise. I only hear one side of this thread bringing up his race... Who is the real racist here, Red?

I don't believe I called him an idiot, just an amateur. The guy has spent a few years in the state senate and 140-some days in the US Senate. His greatest life accomplishment is apparently working as a community organizer, whatever that is. He's an amateur and had no business running for the highest office in the country. The country is divided in half, and the egg will be on your face when the situation gets nowhere but worse in the next four years.

Not neat.

I cannot believe how many people bought into his spiel of "hope" and "change" when he was so vague about what kind of change he had in mind. That combined with his complete lack of experience in getting people to work together will make the next four years interesting to say the least.

Any bets on whether he can even get the members of the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to work together long enough to accomplish anything? I didn't think so. Actually, his inability to lead will probably be a good thing in the long run; he'll do less damage.

Change? I hope to God we survive this amateur.

At this point in the campaign, if someone is truly undecided as to who to vote for, I'd urge them to stay home. The difference between the two major party candidates is staggering, and if you can't tell which most closely matches your beliefs, you either don't know what you believe or haven't been paying attention. Either way, do your country a favor and stay home.

If said Undecided Voter insists on voting anyway, I'd suggest a vote against Obama. True, you've got to vote for someone, but because of the questionable associations in his past, his socialist leanings, his inexperience, his tendency to say the wrong thing in the wrong place (when his teleprompter isn't in front of him), his constant flip-flopping (covering his tracks after saying the wrong thing in the wrong place), etc, etc..., Obama is the wrongest guy for the job. Although there are four other choices on the ballot (in most states anyway) the only guy with a chance of beating him is McCain. He may not be the perfect choice, but unfortunately we don't have much choice in this election.

http://www.nobamanetwork.com/

"I know I fit in that box, like... before. What's going on here?"

I think somebody dropped this cat on its head.

Price dropped a few cents this morning; it was $2.10 for 10% ethanol blend when I went by at lunchtime.

I tend to pay the extra to get the Regular though; my vehicles get 2-3mpg more using Regular instead of the blend. Probably works out to about the same cost per mile driven.

$2.13 at the stations on my way to work this morning. That's for 10% ethanol blend, thanks to the gubment subsidies. That only works in the corn belt because of the cost to ship it outside the area.

@A Noun: "Isn’t it amazing (she said sarcastically) how gas prices drop just before an election that republicans want to win? Or for that matter, how they dropped just after 9/11?"

Yeah; and isn't it amazing that the Republican magic has penetrated to the middle east markets to bring us oil at >$70 a barrel? There's about as much of a control connection there as Obama has to stopping the rise of the oceans. Give us a break.

Just look for the lady with the tabby-colored fur coat. Or maybe calico.

@Ominous Red: Wow, do you have it wrong (like way too many others.) Trouble with your little narrative is that when your pirates go to donate money to a politician, most of it goes to the DemocRATS because that's where they'll get the best return. The problem isn't deregulation, it's crooks getting away with murder because they've paid off the cops. And who's been in control of Congress for the last 8 years? Hmmm? Not saying that the Republicans are innocent in all this, but if you blame all this on them you're really, really missing the point.

Here's something for your edification: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487

Perhaps you should stick to your hiphop and leave the political commentary to thinking individuals. The Democrat talking points you've been spoon-fed are pretty easy to pick out.

The New Yorker already did something like this for Obama; it's not point & click Flash interactive cool, but it's at least as accurate as this one. Remember?

No worries, Tempscire; I had no intention of instigating a flame war, but things like that start around here with little provocation. It's just that when topics like this come up, the connection to the life issue seem pretty natural, and pointing out the inconsistencies in the story line coming from the left is pretty easy comment fodder. Entertaining too.

Besides, Tim W. started it. ;o)

@Nicholas Dollak
"I’m sure that at least some of the crowd arguing about whether a foetus is “alive” are joking…"

Yes, joking a bit, but with the intention of poking holes in the pro-abortion position, with the (sometimes vain) hope of convincing someone of the truth of the pro-life position.

"but, without dragging ethics into the equation, here it is: Yes, an embryo or foetus is considered to be alive in the scientific sense.

Not only is the fetus "alive in the scientific sense", it is also a unique individual in a strictly scientific sense. That's something the pro-abort crowd conveniently dismisses.

"However, it cannot sustain itself outside of the womb until it reaches a certain point in its development."

True enough, but even beyond that point a human child cannot sustain itself outside the womb; it requires care rendered by an adult in order to survive. The child is no less vulnerable before or after that magical moment of birth, but somehow the distinction is made that a child outside the womb is worthy of protection, but the one inside the womb is expendable. That makes no sense on any level.