Political Rantings
How I Voted…
Wednesday, November 8th, 2006Since Jeff accused me of voting by foregone conclusion, I said I’d mention who I voted for and why. Looking at the results this morning, it seems just about everyone I voted for lost. No one ever listens to me…
Senator: Tom Kean, Jr (Republican)
Both candidates played extremely dirty pool throughout. All I knew about these two guys were that Kean was with Bush on the war (according to Menendez) and Menendez was corrupt (according to Kean). My vote here was, ironically, to keep the Democrats in check over the next two years (see my Pre-Election Thoughts). As expected, Mendendez walked away with it, though…
Congress: Linda Stender (Democrat)
I don’t know much about Ms. Stender either, but my wife met Mike Ferguson recently, and he acted like a absolute, total idiot (quick summary, before someone thinks he did something illegal: my wife was meeting me at Yankee Stadium with the kids and had car trouble. With everyone dressed in full Yankee regalia, she made it to our local mechanic, who was figuring out the car, when in comes Mike Ferguson – big smile on his face – and wants to campaign for Congress. Apparently, it took several “now’s not a good time” messages before he left her alone to deal with the crisis at hand). Party affiliation aside, I see no reason to send an idiot to Congress. That said, he won, so whatcha gonna do…
Freeholders: Her, him and the other gal (Republicans)
I’ve never heard of any of these folks, nor can I honestly say I know what a Freeholder does. My guess is not much. As a New Jersey resident who works in New York City, I’m much more interested in local politics in the city than I am in my home town, but they don’t let me vote in NYC. So I went Republican on the off chance they vote my way on some tax increase down the line. Meanwhile, the Democrats won. Ah, well.
Township Council: The grey-haired guys who I met at the train station four times leading up to the election (Democrats)
Again, these folks are low impact as far as I’m concerned, but they seemed nice enough, and the one guy actually recognized me after a couple of meetings, so it seems like his heart is in the right place. Good enough for my vote on town council. Apparently, two of them won and one of them lost. So, technically, I’m batting more than .000, although I’m pretty sure the one that lost was the guy who recognized me.
On the upside, I’m 4 for 5 in picking Presidents, so there’s that…
Anyway, I hope this little tour will convince Jeff to revoke my knee-jerk, neo-con status… Jeff???
Categories: Political Rantings | 5 Comments »
2006 Election Thoughts (Post-Election)
Wednesday, November 8th, 2006First it must end, and then it will begin.
Here we are again at Election Day+1, and there are still significant races to be decided. The voters are done, and now it’s up to the lawyers and the conspiracy theorists. All I have to say is this: Please, God, let the Democrats take the Virginia and Montana senate seats. Although I prefer a Republican senate and know next to nothing about any of the four candidates involved , I just can’t bear to listen to the result of two Democratic leads turning into Republican victories in a recount. Mark my words: people will blame everyone from Karl Rove to the CEO of Diebold.
As it turns out, all the carping about how totally disastrous the first major election with electronic voting machines was going to be has proven to be nothing more than paranoia and fear-mongering. I’m happy to see the other party take the senate in exchange for a vote of confidence in the election process. Forgive me, for I am weak…
In either case, it’ll all be resolved by January, and that’s when it all begins. The question everyone’s asking this morning, of course, is the one I asked last night: What, exactly, is about to begin? If it’s significant progress in Iraq, progressive policies around immigration, stem-cell research, gay marriage, etc. then I’ll be glad to see it (and happy to vote for a 2008 Democratic nominee who will continue that progress). If it’s a series of subpoenas and congressional hearings, followed by emboldened terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere, then we’re in for a world of shit: including sweeping Republican victories in 2008 with a mandate to blow the crap out of just about everything. I’m exaggerating, of course, but I do believe that quite a bit rests on Ms. Pelosi’s ability to restrain herself. We’ll see what happens…
One other note: my iPod spit this out on my way into work this morning:
Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call;
Don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall.
For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled;
The battle outside raging will soon shake your windows and rattle your walls,
For the times, they are a changin’
Heh…
Categories: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »
2006 Election Thoughts (Pre-Election)
Tuesday, November 7th, 2006OK, so I’ve been blogging so much about politics lately, I guess I should say something about the election. It’s hard, though, because my feelings are very conflicted this time around.
If the Republicans hold on to Congress, I have a pretty good idea of what to expect over the next couple of years: continued slow progress in Iraq, tough talk (or worse) with North Korea and Iran, continued tough policies on preventing future terrorism, tougher immigration laws, no change in tax policy, continued over-spending at the federal level, and lots of “sound and fury signifying nothing” over social issues like abortion, stem cell research, and same-sex marriage.
As a general rule, I’ve never bought into the whole “Republicans are evil, especially Bush” meme that the Democrats have been selling. If anything, their decision to constantly pound that message has made it more difficult to stay informed on world events, especially in the last two years. That said, I think the Republicans are drunk with power. And while the criticism flung their way is often distorted or unfair, I hate the fact that they’ve got so good at using it to distract us from valid criticism. I get the sense that this strategy has left them feeling immune to criticism of any stripe, which gives them an “above the law” mentality. Also, if nothing changes today, the 2008 presidential election will be more of the same “vote for us, we’re not them” messages, which won’t help me pick the next president at all. So, on balance, I’m for throwing da bums out.
But…
If the Democrats take control of Congress, I really don’t know what to expect. Their position on Iraq seems to be “Bush is wrong on Iraq.” Their position on immigration is “Bush is wrong on immigration.” Their position on taxes is “the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich.” And the list goes on. With this much time on the sidelines, it’s absolutely reprehensible that I’m not aware of 3-5 bills that will be sent to the President on inauguration day if the Democrats take control. Ironically, I can draw direct parallels to their criticism of Bush in the Iraq war: they have a plan to win, but then no plan for what to do after they’ve won.
Also, there’s this: the level of vitriol coming from the Democrats right now has me worried that if they gain control, they’ll spend the next two years ripping Bush to shreds in the form of investigations, hearing, and possibly even impeachment proceedings.
As I’ve said many times before, one of the unfortunate side effects of defining yourself solely by the shortcomings of your opponent is that you find yourself rooting for your opponent to fail, in order to reinforce your message. When your opponent controls the Presidency and both houses of Congress, though, this amounts to rooting for your own country to fail, which is subsequently perceived by the rest of the world as what Lincoln called a “house divided against itself.” Up until now, I’ve generally bit my tongue and accepted this sorry state of affairs as the price we pay for freedom of speech. Now that the enemy has CNN (and CNN.com) just like we do, our choices are either to crush dissent out of fear of emboldening our enemies, or assume that they’ll eventually understand our bickering as politics and not policy. And so while the consequences are real, we accept them in exchange for the benefits of the American way of life.
When the bickering becomes congressional hearings, though, a whole new legitimacy is granted, and the message to our enemies becomes very different. So aside from my opinions on whether or not the President deserves to be impeached (he doesn’t), I worry that steps in that direction will strongly embolden our enemies – either in the form of additional attacks, or in the form of a recommitment to keep fighting in hopes of America eventually backing down.
The bottom line: the Republicans are the devil known, the Democrats are the devil unknown. I’m sufficiently disenchanted with the Republicans to vote them out, and would probably do so if I could be assured that the Democrats would act like adults over the next two years – governing in the best interests of the country, rather than using the opportunity to institutionalize six long years of Bush-bashing.
Now if you’ll excuse me, it’s time to go vote…
Categories: Political Rantings | 6 Comments »
Penn President Trick is no Treat
Sunday, November 5th, 2006Dr. Amy Guttman, President of the University of Pennsylvania, who is Jewish and the child of holacaust-era parents, hosted her annual Halloween party last week for roughly 700 students. At the party, one of the students, Saad Saadi, dressed up as a suicide bomber, had his picture taken with Dr. Guttman, and then posted it on his personal website. He also posted other pictures of himself conducting mock hostage executions, etc. with other students.
Stupid? Maybe. Funny? Not really (although I’ll give him props for using uncooked hot dogs as the dynamite sticks). Bad Taste? Most definitely. International news? Ugh…here we go again.
The Jerusalem Post found the picture and ran a story about it. The Drudge Report linked to the story. Dr. Guttman posted a response on Penn’s website, as did Saadi on his personal page. Both of the principle actors seem to be keeping level heads about it:
Dr. Guttman:
The costume is clearly offensive and I was offended by it. . . . The student had the right to wear the costume just as I, and others, have a right to criticize his wearing of it.
Saadi:
We wish to make it clear that we do not support terrorism, violence, or anything that is against society. . . . The costumes are meant to portray scary characters much like many other costumes on Halloween. We are deeply sorry for anyone who has been hurt or upset.
He might have gone on to say, “and I didn’t realize anyone outside my circle of friends would find out about it.” So, since college is all about learning, I think we can safely say that Saadi learned a few things this past Halloween:
Lesson #1: There is no “just between us” in a public place. If a picture is taken these days, you almost need to assume that it’s going to be seen by everyone in the world. Casual, stupid humor has consequences that it didn’t have, say, when I was in college. That’s not to say you should refrain, but you’ve got to be aware of the consequences of your actions.
Lesson #2: People are wound very tightly about certain subjects. One would think the concept of a “costume” would be well understood by most rational adults in the world. The guy dressed as a flasher isn’t condoing sexual harrassment, the woman dressed as a stripper/prostitute isn’t really willing to take her clothes off for money, and the folks with sheets over their heads aren’t dead, nor are they advocating certain religious beliefs about the afterworld. In fact, if you wanted to make a political statement by altering your clothing, Halloween is the worst possible day to do it, since your message would be obscured amongst all the revellers. That said, there are people in the world, particularly people who strive to sell advertising on TV and in newspapers, who seek out opportunities to point out offensive activities to others. By doing so, they draw more attention to the supposedly offensive thing than it would otherwise have received, and weaken their own (stated) goals.
So, to sum up: Saad Saadi – quite a fine mess you’ve gotten yourself into. Rest of the world – lighten up, it was just a costume…
Categories: Political Rantings, University of Pennsylvania | Comments Off on Penn President Trick is no Treat
Oops, He Did it Again (and again and again…)
Thursday, November 2nd, 2006
Much has been made of this already, but let me just add one small point: I don’t believe for a second that John Kerry thinks our troops are dumb. Nor do I believe that he has anything but the deepest respect for those in uniform, especially given his own military history. It seems clear to me that he meant to say one thing and said another, and it earned him some justifiable embarrassment in a “Gotcha!” sort of way.
If he ever laughed at a George W. Bush clip (“Fool me once, um…er….you can’t fool me again”), then we can chalk it up to karmic balance and move on.
But there’s still something that bugs me about the whole thing, and it’s this:
Here’s what Kerry actually said:
You know, education, if you make the most of it, and you study hard, and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.
Ouch. Now, here’s what he intended to say, as per his prepared remarks:
Do you know where you end up if you don’t study, if you aren’t smart, if you’re intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush.
So rather than implying that our troops are dumb, what he meant to do was to jokingly imply that our President is dumb (not to mention irresponsible and lazy). I can just imagine him reviewing his prepared remarks for the California speech and telling the speech writer, “it’s a little dry – how about we start with this, move that to the end, and insert a one-liner calling Bush a moron right there? Great, perfect. Thanks.”
This kind of thing bugs me every time I see it. Bush, like all prominent politicians, has what I like to call a “Late Night TV Caricature,” that of a simpleton and/or bad public speaker. Al Gore had “stiff,” Bill Clinton has “slick,” Dan Quayle had “stupid,” Ronald Reagan had “forgetful,” and the list goes on. These memes made for some funny talk show monologues and Saturday Night Live skits, all of which were generally in good fun, even if they seemed a little bit mean at the time. Either way, they were delivered by comedians on television shows that were intended to be funny.
More recently, the line has begun to blur. We’ve got shows like The Daily Show, The Colbert Report and Real Time with Bill Maher, which toe the line between news and entertainment. There’s enough real content in them that when they refer to Bush as stupid, some folks start believing it, rather than writing it off as a joke, or at least the opinion of a single talk show host. We also have actual candidates/politicians who appear on these shows, and attempt to fit in by trading quips with the host (if I see one more presidential candidate appear on Letterman with their own Top Ten list…) In the end, though, these shows are still just entertainment vehicles and on their own, probably don’t do too much damage. For example, had Kerry made the above statement while appearing on The Tonight Show, it probably would have passed without comment. “Time and place” and all that…
But that’s not what happened. This was a sitting senator, a former (perhaps future?) presidential candidate, and arguably the most prominent member of a major political party, telling jokes at a campaign appearance on behalf of a congressional candidate.
What makes him think this is a time for jokes (botched or otherwise)? The best case scenario for this kind of thing is a cheap laugh from the crowd. The worst case is a national political incident, a distraction from his message (or, in this case, the message of the candidate he’s stumping for), and another small bite out of whatever’s left of the respect people have for the office of the President. It also reinforces the theory that John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say about himself or his party, and can only ask for our vote by telling us how terrible the other side is.
And don’t get me started on the whole, “I was against an apology before I was for it” bit…
Stick to governing, Senator, and leave the jokes to the professionals, OK?
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on Oops, He Did it Again (and again and again…)
If you don’t do as you’re told, I’ll turn this chamber around RIGHT NOW…
Wednesday, October 25th, 2006A quote from our potential next Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi:
The gavel of the speaker of the House is in the hands of special interests, and now it will be in the hands of America’s children.
Heh…well, she certainly acts like it sometimes, that’s for sure…
Does this mean we can give Congress a “time out” if we don’t like how they handle things?
Categories: Political Rantings | Comments Off on If you don’t do as you’re told, I’ll turn this chamber around RIGHT NOW…
Another Lancet Report – Let the Misinterpretations Begin…
Monday, October 16th, 2006The new Lancet Report is out, and the media headlines are saying “Study estimates 655,000 deaths due to Iraq war.”
The last time Lancet issued a report (November, 2004), the headlines said “Study estimates 100,000 deaths due to war.” At the time, though, very few articles were talking about confidence factors. What the 2004 report actually said, was that with a 95% confidence factor, the number of excess deaths (deaths over and above the amount expected to die in the same time period prior to the war) was somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000. Quite a range, huh? At the time, this reflected the poor conditions in Iraq, the difficulty in collecting the data, the lack of a random sample, etc. In order to narrow the range of the estimate, researchers would have had to lower the confidence factor. Logic dictates that pinning the number of dead to a single number (100,000) makes the confidence factor approach zero. In other words, it was just as likely that 8,000 people had been killed as it was that 194,000 were killed, and we had absolutely zero confidence in a single number like 100,000.
This time around, the confidence ranges are better, but still large: Total excess deaths is estimated at somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 (95% confidence factor again). Violent deaths are estimated at somewhere between 426,369 and 793,663. The report also re-examines the first 18 months of the war (the span used for the 2004 report), and has narrowed the estimate to somewhere between 69,000 and 155,000. Better, but still a ~50% swing in both directions from the publicized 100,000 number.
No matter, though. Years from now, the only thing we’ll remember is “655,000 killed due to Iraq war.” File this one away with the NIE that said the war was creating more terrorists, even though that’s not what it said at all.
The report itself is only 8 pages long, but as is typical, most people will gladly read dozens of pages of commentary, rather than read the actual 8 pages in question. If we take the time, though, we notice Page 3, which provides the raw data from which the estimates were drawn. And when we look at the raw data, the numbers don’t seem to add up:
Researchers interviewed 12,801 people in 1,849 households and recorded 629 deaths in the past 54 months. Of these, 82 (13%) occurred prior to the invasion, and 547 (87%) occurred after the invasion. Of the post-invasion deaths, the raw data says that 247 (46%) were non-violent (e.g., heart disease, cancer) and 300 (55%) were violent (e.g., gunfire, explosive device, car bomb).
Now, if the 629 deaths, extrapolated across all of Iraq, comes to an estimated 654,965, then the number of post invasion, violent deaths should be 654,965 x 87% x 55%, which is 313,400 (as opposed to the 601,027 that is mentioned in the oft-quoted report summary). Either I’m missing something big here, or something is drastically wrong. Either way, I’m amazed that no one in the blogosphere has noted and/or explained this discrepancy…
Categories: News and/or Media, Political Rantings | Comments Off on Another Lancet Report – Let the Misinterpretations Begin…
John Kerry: Still Crazy After All These Years
Friday, October 13th, 2006I blogged recently about how intelligent Bill Clinton sounds today, now that we’ve spent the last six years listening to George W. Bush mangle the art of public speaking. So imagine my surprise when I watched Bill Maher interview John Kerry on his HBO show, Real Time, and began longing for the content-rich, issue-oriented nature of a good Bush speech? Seriously. Many things have happened since the 2004 election that made me uncomfortable with the fact that I voted for Bush, but listening to this interview removed any “buyer’s remorse” (Maher’s words) that I might have felt. Not that I’m suddenly pleased with Bush’s performance, but I had forgotten just how vapid and digressive Kerry could be.
Let’s walk through it, shall we? News Busters has posted the transcript.
Maher: You took the high road [in the 2004 campaign], and lost. If you took the low road, do you think you would have won?
Kerry: I thought Americans really wanted to hear more about health care, the environment, energy independence, the real war on terror. And, obviously, [Republican] attacks make a difference. The great lesson is, and it’s a lesson for everybody in ’06 is don’t give ’em an instant. Don’t give ’em a breath of daylight, and if I ever do anything again I never will.
Really? Kerry thought we wanted to hear more about health care and the environment? Could have fooled me. I guess he’d claim that the Republican attacks on his character/war record forced him to constantly debate Homeland Security and the War on Terror, and ignore issues like health care and the environment. Fine. Let’s set aside the concept of “controlling the message” as a qualification for being President, and assume that’s true. Then certainly, in an interview with the left-leaning Bill Maher, he’ll take the opportunity to discuss these things, right? All he needs is for Bill to ask him an open ended question, so he can segue into one of these important issues…
Maher: So, what can you do differently when you run in 2008?
There it is! Here comes the platform speech…
Kerry: Look, um, we’re in a very different place from where we were two years ago. We were one year away from the start of the war. Katrina has just torn away the curtain, and all of America is seeing that there clearly isn’t any wizard behind the curtain. This is a failed policy beyond anybody’s imagination. And I think everybody understands that now. We have a Katrina foreign policy. I mean how can these guys possibly protect the United States of America from terrorists when they can’t even protect us from Congressman Mark Foley. These people are incompetent. I’ve never seen anything like it. You know, you have the Dubai ports, you have Katrina where CNN is broadcasting what’s happening at the Superdome, and they’re sitting there trying to pretend to America we didn’t know people were there. Every step you go here, there’s a disconnect to the real lives of Americans, and I think the American people know that now, so that we’re going to have an easier time making a clearer, simpler message.
OK, you know that sound that cartoon characters make after they’ve been hit in the head with a piano, and they need to make all the stars that are circling their heads disappear? Please imagine that sound now, because I don’t know how to spell it.
In one paragraph, Kerry has revitalized every flaw in his failed 2004 campaign. He was asked how he would differ from President Bush, and he spouted forth a laundry list of “bad for Bush” talking points. He never mentioned himself once, never mentioned a policy proposal, and never suggested a course of action. He also strayed away from the facts just enough to give even a below-average Republican spin-meister room to discredit what he’s said (examples: two years ago, we were one year into the war, not one year away from it. Also, Katrina was one year ago, so two years ago, it hadn’t torn anything away from anybody). For a guy who just finished telling us what he thinks we want to hear about, he is sure in no hurry to tell us. And this is what he calls a “clearer, simpler message.” Moving on:
Maher: What’s wrong with being like Western Europe in the ways they’re better than us? For example, you mentioned Katrina, I think if we could build levees like they do in Holland…
Kerry: I’m with you. I think that Americans have really realized that they’re not going to fall prey to the games these guys play anymore. I think the card has worn thin. You know, every time something happens in America, that begins to nibble away at the perception that these guys know what they’re doing they trot out the fear card. And they play the fear card again and again, and every time we did something, you’d turn around and there was an orange alert, there was a red alert. I don’t think there has been any fundamental alerts since the election. But, more importantly, I think what Americans really care about is what’s happening here. They don’t worry about Europe, they don’t need to worry about Europe. They’ve seen an administration that’s screwing up the marketplace, they’re losing jobs, their health care is disappearing, their pensions are disappearing, they see executives walking away with unbelievable golden parachutes while the average worker is struggling to pay the tuition, pay the gas bill and make things work. So, I’m not worried about what’s happening in Europe. I’m worried about what’s happening right here. And I think that’s what most Americans are concerned about today, Bill. And, I think there’s going to be a profound shift in about five weeks when we have the elections.
More of the same. A question about Katrina provides a good opportunity to talk about investing more in levee construction, improving the Army Corps of Engineers, or even restructuring our emergency response to natural disasters. Instead, we get “the fear card,” “screwed up marketplace,” “losing jobs,” “disappearing health care & pensions,” “golden parachutes” and “struggles paying tuition and the gas bill.” Vote for me because Bush is awful! At least he’s consistent. And again, the facts are suspect: The threat level at airports just went to “Red” for the first time in history this past August (when the London bomb plot was foiled). The economy’s added 1.7 million jobs in the last 12 months (and 6.6 million since August, 2003). And gas prices have fallen 74 cents since early August (source).
When is Kerry going to realize that the only votes he’s winning with this stuff are the people who already believe in President Chimpy McBushitler? When the campaign comes around, the Republicans will have answers prepared for each of these charges. Right or wrong, true or false, Kerry and his Republican challenger will debate these arguments for weeks on end, keeping the debate squarely where the Republicans want it. And at the end of the day, no one will have any idea what Kerry plans to do as President, and they’ll vote for the other guy (gal?). Then the moral outrage will begin, followed by claims of voter fraud, and we’ll spend another four years talking about the “stolen election” and Karl Rove’s dirty tricks. Yawn…
Categories: Political Rantings, Primetime TV | Comments Off on John Kerry: Still Crazy After All These Years
People…People who Curse at People…
Friday, October 13th, 2006Barbra Streisand is on tour again (for what Variety is calling her “return-farewell tour”). The reviews are generally good – lots of Broadway showtunes, heartfelt ballads and classic standards. The only complaint most critics have is, ironically, the political commentary. Streisand has long played upon the common misperception that famous people are automatically well-informed and intelligent people as well. And so, she insists on taking advantage of the microphone, the stage, and the media attention that always surrounds her to enlighten us with her views on politics, morality, and the American way of life. If you don’t believe me, check out her website, which contains several political “Statements” on the homepage, but requires you to click through to find out anything about her music or other entertainment-related ventures.
All of this is well and good for the casual fan, who can buy her albums, listen to her music, watch her movies, etc. and ignore the political commentary if he/she wishes. But put a few thousand of them in Madison Square Garden, charge them anywhere from $150-$750 for the ticket, and watch how quickly the patience level drops when the music is interrupted for a lesson on representative democracy. Things get even worse when the commentary turns into sketch comedy (a la Saturday Night Live), complete with a George W. Bush impersonator. Here’s how E! Online described the scene:
[Babs:]”How would the President erase the national debt?
[Bush:]”Sell Canada; they don’t use half of it.”[Babs:]How does Bush feel about his low approval ratings?
[Bush:]”If I cared about polls, I would have run for President of Poland.”Some fans began to tire of the twosome’s routine, with one man going so far as to shout, “What is this, a fundraiser?”
Apparently, Babs can dish it out, but she can’t take it.
“Why don’t you shut the f— up?” she shouted back to the delight of her more sycophantic fans. “If you can’t take a joke, why don’t you leave and get your money back.”
Apparently, the man did just that. He left, and Streisand’s people refunded his money. The Daily Intelligencer spoke with some people about the incident after the show:
Among Streisand’s most natural constituency these things went over only somewhat better. “She’s got balls,” said George Gustafson, 49, of New Haven, after the show. He was there with his partner Gary Gustafson, also 49, but Gary wasn’t as forgiving. “He’s the leader of our country, and I think we should respect him.” Oy. On her way out, a woman behind us muttered, “We’re not paying money to see politics.”
And Variety panned it as well:
The angry audience member was a disgruntled Republican, responding to some ill-considered shtick involving George W. Bush impersonator Steve Bridges. No matter what side of the political fence you’re on, the material was lame. . . . The belabored spoken interludes don’t dampen the spell of Streisand’s singing, but they feel pat and counterfeit next to the real, expressive personality in her vocals. That’s why the lapse in self-control and the unleashed expletive were almost welcome.
The irony here is palpable. Streisand is in her hometown, New York City, where her popularity is arguably at its highest, and where the political climate is generally welcoming to anti-Bush or anti-Republican material. Nonetheless, people who are willing to shell out $750 to hear her sing are telling her loud and clear: We don’t care what you think of the President, the war, or the country. Shut up and sing another song.
Maybe this farewell tour should be the real deal, huh?
(SIDE NOTE: Blogger’s spell checker doesn’t recognize “Streisand.” It’s suggestion? “Stressing.” Hah!)
UPDATE: Audience members and other fans have begun writing to newspapers & websites with basically the same message: Shut up and sing!
Categories: Political Rantings, Words about Music | Comments Off on People…People who Curse at People…
Hastert’s Folly: Foley’s e-mails from last year
Sunday, October 8th, 2006Here are the e-mails that Congressman Foley sent to a congressional page back in 2005 (as reported by the Stop Sex Predators blog). These are the mails that Dennis Hastert alledgedly saw and didn’t react strongly enough to.
I gotta say, the text of these seems so innocuous as to suggest that there must be more, otherwise why would the Republicans be warning pages to stay away from Foley? The closest thing to inappropriate is “How are you weathering the hurricane? Are you safe? Send me a pic of you as well…” and that’s only creepy because “send me a picture” is read through the “child molester” lens. Absent other information, I can easily see how this could be read as “You had a hurricane in your hometown – send me a picture so I can see the damage/make sure you’re OK.” Not a particularly normal thing to ask for, but certainly not worthy of decisive action, right?
If this is really all there was a year ago, I can see why Hastert is refusing to step down. The Democrats are pushing the “he knew about it a year ago” line, and letting people assume “it” is the talk of masturbation, removing clothing, etc. that’s included in the instant messages, when really “it” is “what do you want for your birthday?” and “send me a picture.”
As I say, the fact that Hastert went as far as contacting the boy’s parents (who asked that it be kept quiet) and had other pages warned to watch out for Foley is the real smoking gun here, suggesting that there are either more e-mails, or that Hastert had other ways of knowing what a creep Foley was. ‘Cause the e-mails on their own just ain’t cutting it (at least not for me…)
Categories: Political Rantings | 1 Comment »