This is just too funny. The Supreme Court ruling yesterday on the New Haven Fire Department has just got the conservatives kerfuffled. They are trumpeting the case to show that Judge Sotomayor truly is a racist, she hates white men. It's obvious from her decision on the case, though you have to read between a very small number of lines.
But if you read those lines you'll find that what she, and the other members of the panel, did was to uphold the law. No judicial activism here. And what do you find when you read the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy in the case? Uh oh!
Yes. Judicial activism. Justices Roberts and Alito committing the cardinal sin. They swore they wouldn't. Every one of their conservative sponsors touted them as strict constructionists.
And they are all full of shit. Truly. They are.
At least we should now all see that there is no such thing as being a strict constructionist. That it is the responsibility of the judiciary to change laws at times. We should also see that the conservative movement is truly racist. They are all fearful of the decline in the power of the white male.
The best comment was from Mike Barnicle, an old white man. He applauded the court for eliminating employment in the workplace and ending the bias that has been applied for, as he said, these past few decades. These past few decades!
We've been subjugating women, men of color, gays, people with handicaps for millennia. More than just subjugating, abusing, torturing, killing. Long past the time when Jesus told us not to do it anymore.
And poor Mike Barnicle and the other old white males have been having to go through this for decades. Well not Barnicle, he's only been denied employment for his plagiarism.
So the Right will only stand for activist judges when it props up their racist system.
Leonard Pitts had a great column last week on the racist Right. You should read it.
On a personal note to my good buddy Glenn Beck. The US didn't buy Alaska in the 1950's, you ignorant dolt. It was the 1860's. Read a book. Hit yourself in the head with a book.
And don't try telling me that you misspoke. You were saying the reason we bought Alaska was for oil. We didn't know from oil, where to find it, what to do with it when the deal was negotiated by Secretary William Henry Seward, who may have been the last living righteous Republican.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Effective Communications
So I'm reading where Ahmadinejad is saying that President Obama is acting just like Former President Bush. Imagine what he'd be saying if Obama had foolishly listened to the Grahams and McCains and Krauthammers. He'd probably be saying the same things, but it would've made him sound believable. Quite a feat at that!
But maybe President Ahmadinejad is listening to that fatuous, farcical phony, Monica Crowley. I saw Dr. Crowley on the O'Reilly Show last night. She was actually trying to give the credit for the demonstrations in Iran to Bush. She said it is the democracies now established in Afghanistan and Iraq that are leading the Iranian people to force their own democracies. The governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were democratically elected, but with the insurgencies, the violence that has been there since, well since we started it, one could hardly hold them up as the ideals free and peaceful countries of the world are hoping for in the Middle East.
But maybe President Ahmadinejad is listening to that fatuous, farcical phony, Monica Crowley. I saw Dr. Crowley on the O'Reilly Show last night. She was actually trying to give the credit for the demonstrations in Iran to Bush. She said it is the democracies now established in Afghanistan and Iraq that are leading the Iranian people to force their own democracies. The governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were democratically elected, but with the insurgencies, the violence that has been there since, well since we started it, one could hardly hold them up as the ideals free and peaceful countries of the world are hoping for in the Middle East.
Also, we all have to remember that even if the Islamic Republic in Iran is overthrown, the people wearing the green still do not trust the United States. Even the people under thirty have heard all about the Shah and Savak. This is an area where Admadinejad does not have to lie. And we were the ones who installed the Shah.
O'Reilly had a conversation with Barney Frank on his show last night. In Bill's typical debating style, he was constantly interrupting his guest. And Congressman Frank called him on it. Bill's response was that there will always be interruptions.
He's a jerk. But at least he's an honest jerk. He openly admits that he's rude, crass and was brought up with absolutely no common courtesy.
But of course the best example of effective communications yesterday was Governor Sanford. I truly believe he was trying to put the entire crowd into some kind of trance with his stream of consciousness rantings. It might have worked if The State did not have copies of his e-mails.
I used to say that the difference between Republicans and Democrats was that they were both trying to do the same thing, but the Democrats were doing it one woman at a time. I believe the right is trying to usurp that strategy.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Fear Factor
Last week, Ed Schultz started a brouhaha when he said that Former VP Cheney wanted an attack on the US so that he could come back and say I told you so. I think Cheney is the devil. Actually I think the devil is Cheney's henchman. But I disagree with Ed. This is just part of the Republican platform, and has been for years. They just want to scare everyone, and then repeat the mantra that Democrats are soft on defense, soft on terrorism, ill-advised in foreign affairs.
That is what's going on with the Republican leadership and the neo-con talking heads in response to the President's words on the situation in Iran. He's tepid. He needs to make a stronger response. Listen to Senators McCain and Graham on yesterday's talk shows. Their statements are eerily similar. Almost as if they are just parroting proscribed talking points.
Charles Krauthammer's last column stays on message in his recent column, "Showing Weakness Toward Iran's Fate". He states that we are missing a chance to capitalize on events such as the ouster of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He says that a revolution in Iran right now would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism. His logic is a little specious, as communism as a socio-economic system has collapsed, yet the totalitarian rule in China and the former Soviet Republics is still rampant.
That political vermin, Dr. Monica Crowley, has also been cackling about the tepid response. I saw her on McLaughlin this weekend and she was bemoaning that Obama should be like Reagan in dealing with the USSR. She was impassioned in screaming how this administration could abandon those huddled masses yearning to breathe free in Iran.
One of my favorite people in the world, Lawrence O'Donnell, demanded of her that she give an example of what she thought Obama should say. She quickly started talking about some piece in the NYT, she repeated "the New York Times, even" as if to show that liberals supported her theory. Of course the piece she was talking about had nothing to do with her theory. She never did, and I'm betting never will, answer O'Donnell's question What a bitch!
Funny, for the previous two weeks the bitch was lumping every Muslim, from the nut who shot the recruiter in Arkansas to al-Qaeda to the other 1.5 billion of them into one group who were only concerned with destroying the United States. Hey bimbo! They're Muslims in Iran.
These doofi are not just preaching to their choir. They are trying to convince the independents, the Joe Six-Packs in the Democratic party that the Democrats, as the GOP has done for decades, can't handle National Security issues.
It is great that Hezbollah has lost power in Lebanon. And how did that happen, because the US hadn't intervened. Reagan challenged the Soviet Union, but not on elections. Neither Carter nor Reagan did anything when the Solidarity movement had it's roots. That's why it was successful. Had we endorsed Lech Walesa, the government would have had a reason to quash it.
We should not intervene, nor unduly comment on this situation in Iran. If for no other reason than what happened in 1953. When we intervened in "disputed" elections in Iran, and foisted the Shah on the Iranian people. Americans tend to forget that that happened, but not the consequences. The Iranian people remember it all. With hate and anger.
That is what's going on with the Republican leadership and the neo-con talking heads in response to the President's words on the situation in Iran. He's tepid. He needs to make a stronger response. Listen to Senators McCain and Graham on yesterday's talk shows. Their statements are eerily similar. Almost as if they are just parroting proscribed talking points.
Charles Krauthammer's last column stays on message in his recent column, "Showing Weakness Toward Iran's Fate". He states that we are missing a chance to capitalize on events such as the ouster of Hezbollah in Lebanon. He says that a revolution in Iran right now would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism. His logic is a little specious, as communism as a socio-economic system has collapsed, yet the totalitarian rule in China and the former Soviet Republics is still rampant.
That political vermin, Dr. Monica Crowley, has also been cackling about the tepid response. I saw her on McLaughlin this weekend and she was bemoaning that Obama should be like Reagan in dealing with the USSR. She was impassioned in screaming how this administration could abandon those huddled masses yearning to breathe free in Iran.
One of my favorite people in the world, Lawrence O'Donnell, demanded of her that she give an example of what she thought Obama should say. She quickly started talking about some piece in the NYT, she repeated "the New York Times, even" as if to show that liberals supported her theory. Of course the piece she was talking about had nothing to do with her theory. She never did, and I'm betting never will, answer O'Donnell's question What a bitch!
Funny, for the previous two weeks the bitch was lumping every Muslim, from the nut who shot the recruiter in Arkansas to al-Qaeda to the other 1.5 billion of them into one group who were only concerned with destroying the United States. Hey bimbo! They're Muslims in Iran.
These doofi are not just preaching to their choir. They are trying to convince the independents, the Joe Six-Packs in the Democratic party that the Democrats, as the GOP has done for decades, can't handle National Security issues.
It is great that Hezbollah has lost power in Lebanon. And how did that happen, because the US hadn't intervened. Reagan challenged the Soviet Union, but not on elections. Neither Carter nor Reagan did anything when the Solidarity movement had it's roots. That's why it was successful. Had we endorsed Lech Walesa, the government would have had a reason to quash it.
We should not intervene, nor unduly comment on this situation in Iran. If for no other reason than what happened in 1953. When we intervened in "disputed" elections in Iran, and foisted the Shah on the Iranian people. Americans tend to forget that that happened, but not the consequences. The Iranian people remember it all. With hate and anger.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Joe Wrote a Book!
I'm reminded of the Groucho Marx line - "From the moment I picked up your book, to the moment I put it down I was convulsed in laughter. Someday I intend reading it."
I've just been too pissed off to write the last few weeks. I've been watching a lot of Fox, so it's understandable. They have some of the stupidest people in the world on their shows. The brown haired guy who is not Steve Doocy has to be the dumbest. Two examples of things he said recently:
Talking about Chastity Bono going through a sex change he asked if a lesbian
becomes a man does he still date women.
On a story about a boy who disappeared fifty years ago, mentioning that the
boy's father had been assigned to Mitchell Field in New York, he said that is
where Lindbergh landed.
So I wind up watching more Morning Joe. For the past few weeks it has pretty much been an infomercial for his book while he was there. Fortunately, he's been whoring it around the country and has missed a lot of face time on the show. I'm not that upset.
But today, as the self-appointed new leader of the conservative cause, he got on his soap box about a new poll out that he says proves that he was prescient about the budget deficit situation. The poll shows that a majority of Americans want the administration to concentrate on reducing the deficit no matter how it affects the economy. Which is what Joe says he's been saying for months. When he was saying this, I must have been watching the Fox Nimwits in the Morning show.
Joe is in favor of reducing the deficit now. Or is it in the out years, his new favorite phrase? I'm not exactly sure how the poll question was phrased, but the answer, from Joe specifically, is crap.
I'll put it to you this way Mr. Scarborough, if you really feel we need to reduce deficits and you're not as concerned about the economic affects, let's do it. Let's start taxing the wealthy.
When I read your book, I'm pretty sure I will not find that scenario mentioned.
I've just been too pissed off to write the last few weeks. I've been watching a lot of Fox, so it's understandable. They have some of the stupidest people in the world on their shows. The brown haired guy who is not Steve Doocy has to be the dumbest. Two examples of things he said recently:
Talking about Chastity Bono going through a sex change he asked if a lesbian
becomes a man does he still date women.
On a story about a boy who disappeared fifty years ago, mentioning that the
boy's father had been assigned to Mitchell Field in New York, he said that is
where Lindbergh landed.
So I wind up watching more Morning Joe. For the past few weeks it has pretty much been an infomercial for his book while he was there. Fortunately, he's been whoring it around the country and has missed a lot of face time on the show. I'm not that upset.
But today, as the self-appointed new leader of the conservative cause, he got on his soap box about a new poll out that he says proves that he was prescient about the budget deficit situation. The poll shows that a majority of Americans want the administration to concentrate on reducing the deficit no matter how it affects the economy. Which is what Joe says he's been saying for months. When he was saying this, I must have been watching the Fox Nimwits in the Morning show.
Joe is in favor of reducing the deficit now. Or is it in the out years, his new favorite phrase? I'm not exactly sure how the poll question was phrased, but the answer, from Joe specifically, is crap.
I'll put it to you this way Mr. Scarborough, if you really feel we need to reduce deficits and you're not as concerned about the economic affects, let's do it. Let's start taxing the wealthy.
When I read your book, I'm pretty sure I will not find that scenario mentioned.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Empathy, Shmempathy
So all of the conservatives are now jumping on Jude Sotomayor calling her everything from biased to racist. They also have a problem with her supposed empathy, based on her comments about a Latina possibly doing better than a white male. They want a justice who will only use the rule of law in rendering decisions.
Bull!
No one uses only the rule of law. If it were that simple, if everything were so black and white, we wouldn't need lawyers. We could just program the facts into the matrix, and the rule of law would decide. Everyone making these legal decisions, from county judges to Supreme Court Justices, to the OJ Simpson jury, sees the same facts differently and makes different decisions. How else could Plessy v Ferguson, the "separate but equal" doctrine, have been the rule of law for so long? Because it was decided by seven white males who grew up in the 19th century and couldn't empathize with a black man.
As far as empathy goes, I love how the conservatives are handling it. They are all bringing up the now infamous Ricci case from New Haven where Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that did not remand the case back to the lower court. Every conservative columnist and talking head, from Dr. Krauthammer to Ms. Coulter, start out with the same introduction. They talk about the dyslexic fireman who had to hire people to read to him in order to study for the test he past.
No discussions about disparate impact, or the rule of law in this case. They're empathizing with the white male fireman. I know why Dr. Krauthammer empathizes with him, they're both white males. Why does Ms. Coulter do it? I'm not saying she's a white male, but I wouldn't put it past her.
On another note, I'm starting to enjoy watching Fox Nuts in the Morning. Today the news poll was if you think that George Bush will get credit for the success in Iraq. If you're wondering if there has been success in Iraq, they had already reported that the number of civilian deaths in May was at its lowest since 2003. Success is measured by a decreasing body count.
Tragically, they did not report that the US service death toll was the highest in years.
Bull!
No one uses only the rule of law. If it were that simple, if everything were so black and white, we wouldn't need lawyers. We could just program the facts into the matrix, and the rule of law would decide. Everyone making these legal decisions, from county judges to Supreme Court Justices, to the OJ Simpson jury, sees the same facts differently and makes different decisions. How else could Plessy v Ferguson, the "separate but equal" doctrine, have been the rule of law for so long? Because it was decided by seven white males who grew up in the 19th century and couldn't empathize with a black man.
As far as empathy goes, I love how the conservatives are handling it. They are all bringing up the now infamous Ricci case from New Haven where Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that did not remand the case back to the lower court. Every conservative columnist and talking head, from Dr. Krauthammer to Ms. Coulter, start out with the same introduction. They talk about the dyslexic fireman who had to hire people to read to him in order to study for the test he past.
No discussions about disparate impact, or the rule of law in this case. They're empathizing with the white male fireman. I know why Dr. Krauthammer empathizes with him, they're both white males. Why does Ms. Coulter do it? I'm not saying she's a white male, but I wouldn't put it past her.
On another note, I'm starting to enjoy watching Fox Nuts in the Morning. Today the news poll was if you think that George Bush will get credit for the success in Iraq. If you're wondering if there has been success in Iraq, they had already reported that the number of civilian deaths in May was at its lowest since 2003. Success is measured by a decreasing body count.
Tragically, they did not report that the US service death toll was the highest in years.
Friday, May 29, 2009
A Letter To Rachel Maddow (With Apologies to Meg)
I really feel you're becoming the liberal Bill O'Reilly. I just don't appreciate the jumping on conservatives just because they're conservatives. If there is something specific that they are espousing and we, or you, or I, find it is despicable, jump on them for that belief, not just because they're conservative. That's what O'Reilly does. That's what Hannity does. That's what the blonde bimbi on Fox do.
In the third episode of "The West Wing" President Bartlett is making a speech. I dislike the discontinuity (just like it bothers me that Andy and Barney were cousins on their first episode but never again, but that's a rant for later), since as an economics student I don't know where he would have had a civil procedure professor, but in his speech he said:
"I had a civil procedure professor who said once...'When the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side, argue the facts...When you don't have the law on your side, when you don't have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.' Well, we've got the law on our side now, and we've got the facts on our side now..."
O'Reilly, et al bang their fists on the table. We've got the facts on our side, and we're getting the laws on our side, so Rachel, you've got to get your facts right, and you've got to do a little research and reflection on them. Unlike what you did last night.
In trying to do a gotcha thing with Scalia's quotes, you apparently didn't read the quotes, or understand them. You had me squirming, as apparently was Nina Totenberg, as you went on and on about Scalia's apple and Sotomayor's orange.
Scalia said that laws are made at the district court level. Sotomayor said it is done at the appellate level. There's a difference, all courts are not the same.
Scalia's point, and I disagree and will explain later, is that laws are "made" at the district court level, which is why you need so called strict constructionists at the higher levels to overturn them. Sotomayor's point, to which I disagree somewhat, is that those laws are not "made" at the district level, but at the higher levels. There's a difference.
I disagree with both of these legal scholars. Laws are made by the legislative branches, at all levels. However, as most of the legislators are not what we would call legal scholars, their attempts to enact laws may be in opposition to a previous law or precedent. More often, a party who is being impacted by the legislation will develop an interpretation that the new law is in violation of an existing law. These parties are rarely considered strict constructionists.
When this happens an action is taken, typically in a district court. This is where I find the quack Scalia to be wrong. Rarely is a decision made at this level where the district court judge will make a ruling that changes the new law. And even if he or she does, it rarely stops there. So I believe that Scalia is wrong in this interpretation.
Scalia's comments were made to rally the right against so called activist judges. Sotomayor's comments, which are more accurate in that changes to laws are more often made in the higher court, was to a group of law clerks. Her aim was to tell them that the more interesting clerk work is done at the higher levels, as it more often has more impact.
But laws are not made at any judicial level. Whether or not enacted laws are operable is determined in courts. And this often upsets people, as the judicial interpretation is different than their own. And those making those decisions are then labeled as activist judges. Not because they make an interpretation, all judges do that, but because they make one that somebody doesn't agree with.
My point is that facts are unique, words are special, they are important. In your occupation you need to be much more careful. Context is important, quotes cannot be paraphrased, nuance weighs in.
By the way, love your show.
PS to my dear friend Meg:
I know this screed will upset you, as you're a big fan. So am I. But to her this stuff is just a job. But its impact involves my life, my liberty, etc. I'm just saying what Phil Esterhaus would say, "Let's be careful out there."
In the third episode of "The West Wing" President Bartlett is making a speech. I dislike the discontinuity (just like it bothers me that Andy and Barney were cousins on their first episode but never again, but that's a rant for later), since as an economics student I don't know where he would have had a civil procedure professor, but in his speech he said:
"I had a civil procedure professor who said once...'When the law is on your side, argue the law; and when the facts are on your side, argue the facts...When you don't have the law on your side, when you don't have the facts on your side, bang your fist on the defense table as loud as you can.' Well, we've got the law on our side now, and we've got the facts on our side now..."
O'Reilly, et al bang their fists on the table. We've got the facts on our side, and we're getting the laws on our side, so Rachel, you've got to get your facts right, and you've got to do a little research and reflection on them. Unlike what you did last night.
In trying to do a gotcha thing with Scalia's quotes, you apparently didn't read the quotes, or understand them. You had me squirming, as apparently was Nina Totenberg, as you went on and on about Scalia's apple and Sotomayor's orange.
Scalia said that laws are made at the district court level. Sotomayor said it is done at the appellate level. There's a difference, all courts are not the same.
Scalia's point, and I disagree and will explain later, is that laws are "made" at the district court level, which is why you need so called strict constructionists at the higher levels to overturn them. Sotomayor's point, to which I disagree somewhat, is that those laws are not "made" at the district level, but at the higher levels. There's a difference.
I disagree with both of these legal scholars. Laws are made by the legislative branches, at all levels. However, as most of the legislators are not what we would call legal scholars, their attempts to enact laws may be in opposition to a previous law or precedent. More often, a party who is being impacted by the legislation will develop an interpretation that the new law is in violation of an existing law. These parties are rarely considered strict constructionists.
When this happens an action is taken, typically in a district court. This is where I find the quack Scalia to be wrong. Rarely is a decision made at this level where the district court judge will make a ruling that changes the new law. And even if he or she does, it rarely stops there. So I believe that Scalia is wrong in this interpretation.
Scalia's comments were made to rally the right against so called activist judges. Sotomayor's comments, which are more accurate in that changes to laws are more often made in the higher court, was to a group of law clerks. Her aim was to tell them that the more interesting clerk work is done at the higher levels, as it more often has more impact.
But laws are not made at any judicial level. Whether or not enacted laws are operable is determined in courts. And this often upsets people, as the judicial interpretation is different than their own. And those making those decisions are then labeled as activist judges. Not because they make an interpretation, all judges do that, but because they make one that somebody doesn't agree with.
My point is that facts are unique, words are special, they are important. In your occupation you need to be much more careful. Context is important, quotes cannot be paraphrased, nuance weighs in.
By the way, love your show.
PS to my dear friend Meg:
I know this screed will upset you, as you're a big fan. So am I. But to her this stuff is just a job. But its impact involves my life, my liberty, etc. I'm just saying what Phil Esterhaus would say, "Let's be careful out there."
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Tennis Anyone?
I've got to stop watching TV. I was totally freaked out last night. It was part Bizarro world, part bizarre. I was screaming at Chris Matthews for being a putz, I was agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, and I was staring slack jawed at Dennis Miller. I really have to find a new hobby.
Matthews was trying to do a gotcha moment with the junior senator from my home state, Roland Burris. He had tape recording conversations between Burris and Robert Blagojevich, and had Burris on the line. Now I am hardly a fan of Burris, but I didn't hear anything in the conversation that was that untoward on Burris' part, the Blago brothers seem shady, but not so much Burris. But Chris thought he had him. Because of a huge, and rather stupid, leap by Matthews. Burris, in response to the pressure by Blago's brother, said " I might be able to get Wright to set something up.", referring to his partner. Matthews played the quote for him and Burris responded. Then a few minutes later Matthews says "but you promised to have your partner hold a fundraiser." I'd be in a lot of trouble if every time I said I might be able to do something and wound up being held to a promise.
Chris, when you play recorded conversations you don't get to edit the words. And the words matter.
Bill O'Reilly was doing a segment on some Canadian professor who is against any tightening up of regulations on Facebook, etc. about sharing pictures by young people. O'Reilly, though not even getting close to anything involving parental involvement, was upset with the concept, which is, especially for him, quite rational. I started questioning my own values when I realized this. But then he went on and on and eventually showed his true nature. He asked the question to his guest about who was the enemy here. In O'Reilly's world it's black and white, good and bad. No issue is complex. There has to be an enemy. I felt better.
I also felt better when his Patriot award for the night went to Bill Clinton. For telling a self-deprecating joke. Patriotic? O'Reilly's a boob.
But then he went into his "Between Barack and a Hard Place" segment, for which he should pay royalties to Chicago's Second City troupe. This segment involves poor Fox lapdog Alan Colmes and the miserable twit, Monica Crowley. They each get to say a good thing that Obama has done and bad thing he has done, and then they argue about it. Crowley's bad thing was the President's handling of the North Korea situation. When Colmes tried to corner her with the facts that George Bush was guilty of the same actions, Crowley started veering off message. And then, in Bizarro world fashion, O'Reilly also tried to pin her down. But like all of the blond conservative talking heads, she will change the subject and when backed into a corner will just start spouting conservative buzzwords. And again I was scratching my head about O'Reilly.
Finally he helped me back into reality by putting Dennis Miller on. Miller starts out his segment by putting some type of flower in his mouth and doing some type of flamenco dance. It was an homage to Sonia Sotomayor. It was unbelievable. Only Fox would allow, hell pay for, an idiot to disrespect an entire ethnic class. And the Republicans wonder why they don't attract more of the Hispanic vote.
Since Judge Sotomayor's nomination there has been much outrage about that nomination vis a vis her gender and ethnicity. Most of that has come from old angry white men, though a lot of younger dumb blonds have chimed in. I understand why the white men are angry. They are losing the control of the situation that they achieved through their hard efforts in being born a white man. I am an old angry white man, and I feel a little concerned by making these comments, as the other white men may beat me up. That's one of the things they're good at, and their chief method of problem solving.
But heroically, or as O'Reilly might mislabel it patriotically, I will say that her life story is wonderful, and I believe that her life and how it has shaped her thinking is a valuable thing for the Supreme Court.
Gotta run. There's an angry mob of white guys looming.
Matthews was trying to do a gotcha moment with the junior senator from my home state, Roland Burris. He had tape recording conversations between Burris and Robert Blagojevich, and had Burris on the line. Now I am hardly a fan of Burris, but I didn't hear anything in the conversation that was that untoward on Burris' part, the Blago brothers seem shady, but not so much Burris. But Chris thought he had him. Because of a huge, and rather stupid, leap by Matthews. Burris, in response to the pressure by Blago's brother, said " I might be able to get Wright to set something up.", referring to his partner. Matthews played the quote for him and Burris responded. Then a few minutes later Matthews says "but you promised to have your partner hold a fundraiser." I'd be in a lot of trouble if every time I said I might be able to do something and wound up being held to a promise.
Chris, when you play recorded conversations you don't get to edit the words. And the words matter.
Bill O'Reilly was doing a segment on some Canadian professor who is against any tightening up of regulations on Facebook, etc. about sharing pictures by young people. O'Reilly, though not even getting close to anything involving parental involvement, was upset with the concept, which is, especially for him, quite rational. I started questioning my own values when I realized this. But then he went on and on and eventually showed his true nature. He asked the question to his guest about who was the enemy here. In O'Reilly's world it's black and white, good and bad. No issue is complex. There has to be an enemy. I felt better.
I also felt better when his Patriot award for the night went to Bill Clinton. For telling a self-deprecating joke. Patriotic? O'Reilly's a boob.
But then he went into his "Between Barack and a Hard Place" segment, for which he should pay royalties to Chicago's Second City troupe. This segment involves poor Fox lapdog Alan Colmes and the miserable twit, Monica Crowley. They each get to say a good thing that Obama has done and bad thing he has done, and then they argue about it. Crowley's bad thing was the President's handling of the North Korea situation. When Colmes tried to corner her with the facts that George Bush was guilty of the same actions, Crowley started veering off message. And then, in Bizarro world fashion, O'Reilly also tried to pin her down. But like all of the blond conservative talking heads, she will change the subject and when backed into a corner will just start spouting conservative buzzwords. And again I was scratching my head about O'Reilly.
Finally he helped me back into reality by putting Dennis Miller on. Miller starts out his segment by putting some type of flower in his mouth and doing some type of flamenco dance. It was an homage to Sonia Sotomayor. It was unbelievable. Only Fox would allow, hell pay for, an idiot to disrespect an entire ethnic class. And the Republicans wonder why they don't attract more of the Hispanic vote.
Since Judge Sotomayor's nomination there has been much outrage about that nomination vis a vis her gender and ethnicity. Most of that has come from old angry white men, though a lot of younger dumb blonds have chimed in. I understand why the white men are angry. They are losing the control of the situation that they achieved through their hard efforts in being born a white man. I am an old angry white man, and I feel a little concerned by making these comments, as the other white men may beat me up. That's one of the things they're good at, and their chief method of problem solving.
But heroically, or as O'Reilly might mislabel it patriotically, I will say that her life story is wonderful, and I believe that her life and how it has shaped her thinking is a valuable thing for the Supreme Court.
Gotta run. There's an angry mob of white guys looming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)