I found out this week that the ticker symbol for Crocs, Inc. is CROX. I like that, for some reason.
I have to speak out in support of Hilary Clinton, of all people, regarding her "outburst" in the Congo a few weeks ago. I don't actually think what she said was all that much of an outburst, and not a serious problem. I think anybody can understand why she was annoyed at the question -- what a weird question, in any case -- and why she answered it as she did. She could have given a better answer, of course. The best would have been to pass quickly over the reference to Bill and state her opinion, rather than making that the center of her answer (and not answering). But she didn't yell or attack the questioner.
I think similarly about Barbara Boxer's comments to the general who called her "ma'am" instead of "senator." I don't view her comments as favourably, chiefly because there is nothing wrong with being called "ma'am," and nothing in the title "ma'am" that conflicts with the title of senator. The speaker was using a normal form of polite address. I don't know the finer points of etiquette, but I'm not aware that there's anything unusual about calling someone sir or ma'am if they have another title. After all, people in the army frequently call their superiors "sir" rather than using their ranks, and I'm pretty sure I've heard people call the president "sir" instead of "President" or "Mr. President." Her words were not, however, really harsh. In fact, they were quite polite, as written. What I don't know about Boxer's incident is the tone of voice that she spoke in. It's easy to imagine the same words being spoken with bitterness, which would be totally uncalled for in the circumstances. Just reading them, however, they didn't strike me as especially rough.
I wish I had something interesting to add on the Obama as joker posters and all the brouhaha over town halls recently. Most of it seems pretty clear to me. I don't particularly like the poster -- I just don't like images like that -- but liberals have no ground to stand on in criticizing it unless they criticized the image of Bush as joker that came out a few years ago -- and I doubt a single one of them did. Democratic hypocrisy over the town hall protests is rife, obvious, and predictable. Anyone on the right could have guessed that Democrats would suddenly turn against opposition and protests once they controlled the government, and they have. It's galling, because apparently they are completely unaware of what they are doing, or else perhaps they are just unrepentant hypocrites who don't mind changing their values when their interests change. Also, of course, one doesn't read the sort of outraged accounts in the news that one would if it were Republicans talking. I suppose it would bother me even more if the Democrats were only now taking a popular stance that got the American populace behind them. Instead, however, they are railing pointlessly at American citizens and making fools of themselves, so the fact that their comments are also hypocritical does not contribute much additional frustration.