The sales site has been replaced with this:

An Apology

We are very apologetic to all who were upset by our toy idea.

We will not be proceeding with the manufacturing of this toy.

Thank you.

Very respectable of them.

Please forgive the low-content post; it's more of a comment really, but putting it up in nearly every thread would get tiring.  Here goes:

The candidates are not running to be your friend, and posters on TPM aren't even running for anything at all.

Like 'em, dislike 'em, think they're arrogant or think they're pandering, whatever - It's the policy, stupid.  If you want to vote for McCain in November, it's your right as an American.  Just be certain that you know what you're voting for:  Pro-War, Pro-Life, Pro-Tax cuts for the rich, Pro-Business, Pro-Privatization, and Anti-You.

Because, doc, everyone's out to get me!

This campaign season has taught me three things:

a) Obama's supporters are a messianic mass of young people, ignorant of history and eager to slander whoever stands in their path toward a nebulous 'change'.

b) Clinton's supporters are of two stripes, both elderly and blind to reality. One sort is old women, bitter and clinging to their cats and genitalia. The other sort are old bluebloods, cynical and clinging to their power and kickbacks.

c) McCain's supporters are ancient and intolerant.  They seek nothing but the nuclear eradication of the Middle East, much of Europe, and godless heathens both foreign and domestic.  (Well, this one might be true. /snark)

Is America truly a land filled with nothing but people with ulterior motives?  When did we get so suspicious of those who disagree with us?

Here's an honest, and dare I say it, accurate summary of each candidates' supporters:

a) They want to improve America.
b) They want to improve America.
c) They want to improve America.

No matter whom we support, our goal is ultimately the same.  We might disagree (often vehemently) over the methods, but last I checked no candidate was running on a platform of destruction or vilification.  To assume or suggest otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

Couching your arguments in hostility and flaming strawmen is self-defeating.  Doing so is choosing to cheerlead instead of fostering discussion; no one's mind will be changed, but I can guarantee some who may have otherwise been open to your point are pushed away.

Can we attack policy without referring to the lack of scruples the Clintonistas show?  Can we dig into a gaffe without mentioning the Obamatons' sense of entitlement or sneering superiority complex?  Can we discuss issues responsibly, forgoing ad hominems?

Can we at least assume our opposition has good, if misguided, intentions?

Quite simply:  Yes.  And we must.

The 'blogosphere' (a grating term, but I have none better) has long since jumped the shark on this campaign season.  It hasn't been about the issues or the candidates for months now.  It's all about who called this supporter that name, and which guy managed to derail that thread with a zinger.  It's about sweeping generalizations, us vs. them, and hate, hate, hate.

It's all irrelevant and petty mental masturbation.

If you've just got to show those jerks on the internet a thing or two, here's a suggestion:  Victory is the best revenge.  Go phonebank.  Go fundraise.  Go wave a campaign sign on a streetcorner wearing nothing but a stars-and-stripes thong.

Shut off the computer and go be a productive ambassador for your candidate.

Early in the primary season, Rudy Giuliani commented, "I’m not sure [waterboarding] is [torture]. It depends on how it’s done. It depends on the circumstances. It depends on who does it. I think the way it’s been defined in the media, it shouldn’t be done. The way in which they have described it, particularly in the liberal media. So I would say, if that’s the description of it, then I can agree, that it shouldn’t be done. But I have to see what the real description of it is. Because I’ve learned something being in public life as long as I have. And I hate to shock anybody with this, but the newspapers don’t always describe it accurately."

An accurate description of waterboarding?  Ask and ye shall receive.  This comes from a gentleman on straightdope.com (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=448717):

Next up is saran wrap. The idea is that you wrap saran wrap around the mouth in several layers, and poke a hole in the mouth area, and then waterboard away. I didn't reall see how this was an improvement on the rag technique, and so far I would categorize waterboarding as simply unpleasant rather than torture, but I've come this far so I might as well go on.

Now, those of you who know me will know that I am both enamored of my own toughness and prone to hyperbole. The former, I feel that I am justifiably proud of. The latter may be a truth in many cases, but this is the simple fact:

It took me ten minutes to recover my senses once I tried this. I was shuddering in a corner, convinced I narrowly escaped killing myself.

Here's what happened:

The water fills the hole in the saran wrap so that there is either water or vaccum in your mouth. The water pours into your sinuses and throat. You struggle to expel water periodically by building enough pressure in your lungs. With the saran wrap though each time I expelled water, I was able to draw in less air. Finally the lungs can no longer expel water and you begin to draw it up into your respiratory tract.

It seems that there is a point that is hardwired in us. When we draw water into our respiratory tract to this point we are no longer in control. All hell breaks loose. Instinct tells us we are dying.

I have never been more panicked in my whole life. Once your lungs are empty and collapsed and they start to draw fluid it is simply all over. You know you are dead and it's too late. Involuntary and total panic.

There is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It would be like telling you not to blink while I stuck a hot needle in your eye.

At the time my lungs emptied and I began to draw water, I would have sold my children to escape. There was no choice, or chance, and willpower was not involved.

I never felt anything like it, and this was self-inflicted with a watering can, where I was in total control and never in any danger.

And I understood.

Waterboarding gets you to the point where you draw water up your respiratory tract triggering the drowning reflex. Once that happens, it's all over. No question.

Some may go easy without a rag, some may need a rag, some may need saran wrap.

Once you are there it's all over.

I didn't allow anybody else to try it on me. Inconceivable. I know I only got the barest taste of what it's about since I was in control, and not restrained and controlling the flow of water.

But there's no chance. No chance at all.

So, is it torture?

I'll put it this way. If I had the choice of being waterboarded by a third party or having my fingers smashed one at a time by a sledgehammer, I'd take the fingers, no question.

It's horrible, terrible, inhuman torture. I can hardly imagine worse. I'd prefer permanent damage and disability to experiencing it again. I'd give up anything, say anything, do anything.

The Spanish Inquisition knew this. It was one of their favorite methods.

It's torture. No question. Terrible terrible torture. To experience it and understand it and then do it to another human being is to leave the realm of sanity and humanity forever. No question in my mind.

Waterboarding is an act that, in the Spanish-American War, caused the interrogator to be court martial and receive 10 years hard labor.  Similar penalties for using it in Vietnam.  Our partners in waterboarding include Pinochet, the Khmer Rouge, and the Gestapo.

Waterboarding is torture.

Yet, officials at every level in the Bush White House have met to discuss and then sign off on this torture.
 
And that mentality, that detachment from humanity, might continue.

Throughout the primary season, John McCain spoke against controlled drowning:

"I am astonished that you would think such a – such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that's not torture. It's in violation of the Geneva Convention."
***
"[We] prosecuted Japanese war criminals after World War II. And one of the charges brought against them, for which they were convicted, was that they water-boarded Americans."
***
"We could never gain as much ... from that torture as we would lose in world opinion."
***
"Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak."
***
"People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that."

But when it really mattered, John McCain voted to uphold Bush's veto of the bill that would ban waterboarding.  He justified his vote by suggesting he was only against regular army grunts employing the technique, but the CIA shouldn't be tied to those same restrictions.

Somehow, I don't think the detainee being waterboarded cares what agency their tormentor represents.

A vote for John McCain is an endorsement of torture.  Remember that in November.

Not much editorializing here, I just wanted to share these videos by Ghaith Abdul-Ahad in case anyone hasn't seen them.  The third one in particular is just a gut-punch.  Ghaith Abdul-Ahad is an unembedded Iraqi journalist who is regularly published in the UK's The Guardian and, I believe, the Washington Post (as well as bit pieces in other major US outlets).

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

From the New York Times' politics blog, <i><a href=http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/16/mccain-stumbles-on-hiv-prevention>The Caucus</a></i>:

Reporter: "Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?"

Mr. McCain: "Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it."

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: "I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it."

Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy."

Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) "You’ve stumped me."

Q: "I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?"

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) "Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it."

 Q: "But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?"

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) "Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before."

Now, I can admire a man who admits he doesn't know something when asked a question about obscure policy or precedent, but about something like this -- wow.  The bolded section in particular is just crazy.  That's the language of a man too far gone into Washington doublespeak.  That's the dangerous McCain.

File under: alternate reality, never happening, wishful thinking, and disappointment

There may still be time for this, but pigs are more likely to evolve in the avian tradition.

Imagine if Obama and Clinton had never campaigned against each other, but instead campaigned for Democratic ideals, and against Republicans. If hounded for salacious commentary about each other by the press, they could blush and demure politely:

"Gosh, you know, we do have substantive policy differences of which our supporters are well aware. We trust the judgment of the people, and think the electorate will choose who they want to lead the country. On the most important of issues, however, we are in agreement. We stand together in our rejection of the malignant policies of the Bush White House, which our opponents endorse nearly wholesale."

Just picture it, the front-running candidates tag-teaming and high-fiving as they execute a ballsy clothesline maneuver on McCain!

While I realize the nature of the internet works against me here, I have a request. If you reply to this, don't reference either Democratic candidate. Instead, list a reason not to vote for McCain. Here, I'll get you started:

- Myopic vision of Iraq that would lead to further needless deaths of America's bravest.