8/27/2008
I was reading James Taranto’s Best of The Web Today column and this little snippet caught my attention:
But then we remembered a comment Mrs. Obama made about a year ago in an interview with Glamour:
“We have this ritual in the morning. They come in my bed, and Dad isn’t there–because he’s too snore-y and stinky, they don’t want to ever get into bed with him. But we cuddle up and we talk about everything from what is a period to the big topic of when we get a dog: what kind?”
To me, it sounds as if Michele and Barack do not share a bed, or even the same bedroom. Not that this is shocking; a lot of professional couples do this so as to be able to go to sleep and wake up based on the demands of their job.
Furthermore, if you look back in American history, most White House couples (as the Obamas hope to be come January of 2009) have separate bedrooms. This makes sense as presidents often are engaged until late in the evening, must wake up early, and of course, sometimes get those “3am” calls.
Still, it struck me as rather an elite thing. I know some very successful people, all of whom share the same bedroom and the same bed with their spouses. The seperate bedrooms trend has become more popular of late, but the whole lovey-dovey theme we hear about the Obamas seems to contrast that “modern upper-class couple” theme that is expressed by comments such as the one above.
7/31/2008
I was walking from work to my bus stop in DC I came upon an interesting scene on 20th and K street. A fairly large tree had just fallen about 10 minutes before, landing partially on a white van. The whole thing happened right next to my bus stop, so I captured a couple of images before walking two blocks up to the next stop.
10/1/2007
An article published by Newstar.com offers some insight into the meaning of the word ignorance. An elementary school on the campus of Grambling State University, while teaching about racism and the civil rights movement, put a noose around an elementary school child’s neck:
According to an article in the newspaper written by Justin LaGrande, posted on the student newspaper Web site some time this week, and sent to The News-Star by Ruston Daily Leader publisher Rick Hohlt, “kindergarten and first-grade students at Alma J. Brown Elementary will always remember the day they marched for equality. The children marched in protest of the imprisonment of Mychal Bell, and the seemingly racial bias shown toward blacks in a small Louisiana town.”
LaGrande wrote that while the students “marched,” they actually only circled their playground with their teachers during the event.
“Before marching, the students were taught about racism,” LeGrande wrote. “They also learned about the events surrounding the ‘Jena Six’ and their arrest.”
According to the article, teachers “had a replica noose and explained why it is such a symbol of racism. They also allowed the children to carry chains and shackles.”
The Gramblinite’s Web site Friday included a comment from a woman who identified herself as Irene Booker. She said in her posted comment, “Yes, it was a rope around the little girl’s neck. It was a (safe) demonstration as to what the rope symbolized to blacks. This was my granddaughter and she along with so many of the other students did not understand the intimidation of the noose. I held her in my arms and she knows that I would not harm her or put her life in danger. In order to understand racism one must experience it to make the connection.”
Is it ignorant to teach children about racism and it’s consequences? Not at all.
The problem with this incident is that the teachers and Irene Booker, the child’s mother, were teaching fear and anger. Is this a good idea?
Showing young children a noose and explaining that it was used to hurt people and make them afraid — which is something that all elementary-age children can understand — is perfectly appropriate. Teaching them to fear the noose is in no way productive. Even with parental approval, to put a noose around a child’s next and hold it up as if they were going to be hanged is a horrible idea.
If you disagree, please free to tell why you think I’m wrong.
8/1/2007
On Sunday, July 29th, Julie and I took the girls down to Riordan’s Saloon and Restaurant for one last meal before it closed for good. You can read more of the details here, but this post is just my own personal tribute to a place that helped shape and define the character of Annapolis’ City Dock area.
Riordan’s was owned and managed by Mike Riordan who invested money he had earned during his 9 seasons in the NBA (1968-1977, with an NBA Championship win in 1970 as a member of the NY Knicks), and opened his first restaurant in the downtown city dock area of Annapolis in 1978. Riordan’s quickly became known for its great food and reasonable prices.
Over the three decades of it’s life, Riordan’s employed every member of my family — except for my Dad — at one point or another. Even my Mom worked for Mike briefly, baking cakes and pies for the restaurant. As for my brothers and I, we all worked there in various roles. My oldest brother, Jack tended bar and later managed for a while. My second-oldest brother, Chris, worked at the bar for several years and met his wife, Mary Beth, there. Mary Beth worked her way through nursing school while at Riordan’s and now has a very successful career with GE as a consultant helping to set up medical database systems for hospitals. My third brother — just a year older than I — whose name is also Mike, worked for several years behind the bar and was very popular both with his general customers as well as with nearly any attractive woman who walked into the place.
I began working for Mike Riordan around 1986 when my brother Mike let me know they were seeking help at the door. Very rarely did Riordan’s have issues with bad behavior, but Mike liked having a friendly face at the door on busy nights to make sure we were carding our younger customers and welcoming everyone as they came by for a drink or dinner.
Initially, I worked for Mike during the holidays while I was going to St. Mary’s College, then a bit during summer breaks. You might think that being a doorman would be boring, but I enjoyed the job. While dooring, I was the first person customers would see as they entered. I would smile, say hello, hold the door and, if necessary, ask for ID. If things got really busy, I would set up a line outside the restaurant and let people in as there was space available in the Saloon area. Simple but enjoyable work.
There were a few times when I had to turn some “characters” away, but it didn’t happen too often. Once, though, I was dooring with one other guy on a busy evening when suddenly we both spotted a bachelor party moving along the sidewalk towards us, having just exited another nearby pub. The bachelor was incredibly drunk, and his friends had somehow attached a chain to a bowling ball, then had secured the chain to the guy’s leg!
As the guy staggered down the sidewalk with all his friends walking behind, laughing at him of course, people coming the other way had to jump out of the way to avoid being tagged by the bowling ball, which was whooshing out to the side every time he took a step. We looked and saw that, yes, they were definitely coming our way.
As the party approached, we just kind of both moved in front of the door at the same time and stood shoulder-to-shoulder as the guy walked up to us. He looked up and asked if he could go in. We just looked at him and I said, “no, I’m very sorry, but you can’t come in tonight.” There was no need to be rude, but then again, no way were we going to let someone come in with a bowling ball attached to their leg. Think of the collateral damage he would cause!
“Aw, c’mon guys,” they said, “it’s his bachelor party.” “Sorry,” we replied politely, “wish we could, but you can’t come in with that thing on your leg.” We wished the guy luck in his marriage and watched as he swung off down the sidewalk to find another pub.
There are better stories, but many of them are not fit for publication. I will say, however, that I learned something very important during my time on the door at Riordan’s. Bachelorette parties are almost always more rowdy, raucous, and dangerous than bachelor parties. I still don’t know why, but I do know it’s true.
After college, while I was in grad school, I began to bus tables for Mike as well. I enjoyed this job as well. I found that I liked creating order out of chaos, which is a central part of the job as you assist the wait staff and keep the dining area looking spiffy.
By the way, Mike was almost always around. He worked at least 6 days a week at the restaurant, managing every part of the operation. It was Mike’s very firm hand at the helm which kept Riordan’s so consistently great over the three decades it was in operation. Without close management, restaurants often fail as profit margins tend to be pretty thin in this industry.
In all the years I worked for Mike, my only regret is that I was a lousy waiter. Mike gave me a chance to move up and begin waiting tables at one point, but truly, I stunk at the job. So I went back to busing and dooring and that was fine for me. That said, I’ve never forgotten how hard it is to be a good waiter at a restaurant. Mike had some really good people waiting tables for him; some of whom worked for him over decades, not just years.
After grad school, as I began my professional career, Riordan’s remained one of my very favorite places to go. I have so many great memories; such as going there for brunch when Julie first introduced me to her parents, meeting family there for meals on weekends (especially after Navy Football games) celebrating my 30th Birthday there, going there on St. Paddy’s Day, Christmas Eve, etc.
For Julie and I, Riordan’s remained our favorite place to go for brunch, and our two girls have been going there since they were tiny little babies. My oldest daughter Mikaela’s favorite thing was going for brunch and getting a basket of Blueberry Muffins for us all to share.
Overall, if we went to downtown Annapolis for a meal, 90% of the time it was to Riordan’s.
On this last Sunday of its existence, we had dinner there, all four of us, and the place was packed. It wasn’t even a dull roar that came from the bar area, it was a thunderous roar. We could barely hear each other at the table, and the menu was smaller due to the fact that they were preparing to close down for good that same evening.
But we had a great time. I said hello to Mike and wished him well. I also saw Mary Beth and Chris there, though I had just missed my Dad, who left a half-hour earlier. I even saw a few of the folks I had worked with in the late 80’s and early 90’s, one of whom still worked there. It was a lot of fun, but also very sad, especially as we walked out for what we knew would be the last time.
Something very good has come to an end in Annapolis. Riordan’s made Annapolis a better place to live and work, and I cannot see how there can ever be something as good to take its place.
I took Riordan’s for granted because it had been there for so long. I cannot remember a time without it.
I should have known better. As they say, all good things come to an end. I wish it were otherwise.
But I think people should understand this; Riordan’s was more than a restaurant; it was a gift to the community. For so many of us who worked and played there, it remains a landmark of our lives.
I know that I speak for the entire Flanagan family in wishing for Mike and his family all of God’s blessings. We’ll see you around town.
Ecclesiastes 3:9-13
What does the worker gain from his toil? I have seen the burden God has laid on men. He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end. I know that there is nothing better for men than to be happy and do good while they live. That everyone may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all his toil—this is the gift of God.
5/6/2007
Christians believe that God is revealed to the world in two ways; “general revelation” and “special revelation.” General revelation is where God reveals himself to all people through aspects of the world around us and some in-built predispositions and longings for a relationship with Him. Christians often say that we have a “God-shaped hole” in our hearts that we seek to fill.
Special revelation of course is the specific and special information and exhortations we receive directly from God through his prophets and, more recently, his Son. Those of us who believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God see this “book of books” as special revelation. It details specifically God’s actions, purpose, and will for all His people.
Have you ever heard someone ask the question, “what about the long-lost tribesman deep in the heart of some unknown jungle who never heard of God, will they go to hell even though they never had a chance to believe?” Even if you have not and are just reading this for the first time, the answer to the question is that, without special revelation, God’s people can, and will, respond to him via general revelation.
But the main point of my post is this. The scientific method was established and has generally flourished in Christian societies because of general revelation. Just because we have Bible does not mean we do not want to discover more of the character of God through a better knowledge and understanding of his creation.
Just as a company might “reverse engineer” a competitor’s high tech product in order to discern how it works, so Christians believe that through science we can know more about the creator of it all. So, in looking at a single cell of the human body, seeing the vast complexity of that cell, and the fact that our bodies are composed of trillions of such cells, all knowing their function, we see the incredible engineering of God.
So, in a real way, complexity reveals God. And thus, many Christians like me have become supporters of the new movement called “Intelligent Design.” This approach to understanding our origins is one which relies solely on science’s ability to reveal complexity on such a scale that it is either “irreducible,” or impossible to explain from the standpoint of Darwinian evolution. So, the presence of vast numbers of hugely complex systems which could never have evolved in a progressive step-by-step manner proscribed by evolution, or could not have developed in the brief period that Earth has been habitable, shows evidence of design.
So, if you picked a watch up off the beach, you would immediately assume it to be man-made and that its owner had lost it. But walking past something vastly more complex, such as another human being, we have been trained to think that is just an accident, the result of mindless forces over vast periods of time. You can argue this point, but it seems to me that, as science gets more sophisticated, Evolution seems less and less certain.
So those of us who are Christians will continue to embrace science wholeheartedly and will employ science to learn more about the natural world around us so as to better understand the power, wisdom, and awesome majesty of the world’s creator. We know God in a personal way through His special revelation, and we learn about His awesome power and majesty through the use of science, which gives us an additional window into the heart and mind of the creator of all things.
4/20/2007
Is global warming a real phenomenon? It is virtually a certainty.
We know, for example, that General Washington and his troops at Valley Forge suffered terribly from the last stages of what is commonly called “The Little Ice Age.” This was an age of cooling that occurred between the 13th and 17th centuries and was largely responsible for the disappearance of Nordic culture and civilization in Greenland, if memory serves.
Since that period, we have seen a gradual trend upwards in global temperatures. Today, the consensus is almost universal that we are seeing a warming trend. Less of a consensus, however, is what impact humanity is having on that trend and what part CO2 (carbon dioxide) in this trend. Much of the global warming hysterics currently talks about a rise in CO2 leading to a rise in temps, but historic trends show exactly the opposite phenomenon. That is, we see a rise in temperature then a rise in CO2. If this is the case, it seriously undermines much of the doom criers say of human impact on global climate.
By far, one of the most intelligent and succint rebuttals to Al Gore’s climate horror flick, “An Inconvenient Truth,” is a video that I have linked to below for your viewing pleasure. Take a look and tell me what you think:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017380.php
Thanks to Power Line Blog for posting the video.
Filed under: Culture , General , Politics , Technology
9/4/2006
Terrible news today in the report of a the accidental death of Steve Irwin. Irwin was filming a new nature special with his crew when he was stabbed in the heart by a poisonous Stingray barb off Port Douglas in north Queensland, the Australian reports.
They should have called Steve Irwin “The Crocodile Champion,” not “Crocodile Hunter.” Irwin always showed a passionate love for nature in general and crocodiles in particular. His enthusiasm was infectious and I always considered him to be a great role model for kids as he always tried to instill the need for people to understand and care for their environment.
Irwin got himself in a bit of trouble a couple of years back when he was filmed with his baby boy tucked under one arm while he was holding bait out with the other to an aggressive-looking crocodile. There was a surge of complaints when that video circulated, though, I think the greatest outcry was the fact that, if you look at the video, the bait in Irwin’s hand, and the baby tucked under his other arm look subliminally similar in that they are both just hanging there. Other than that, it appeared to me the baby was in no real danger.
I’ve posted a link to a YouTube video showing, not the overblown incident I just mentioned, but a much more touching one, and much more indicative of Irwin’s love for nature, where he is crying over the loss of a crocodile. This clip shows you why he was more “Crocodile Champion” than “Crocodile Hunter.”
However, I’m afraid there was no one like Irwin and their likely never will be. He was an enthusiast, a naturalist, and a great salesperson in that he did more to encourage protection of the environment and to wildlife around the world than Al Gore could ever hope to do with his science fantasy disaster film, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Ironically, some of the so-called “science” behind the film has already been undercut by another story in the Australian which mentions that “[the] world’s top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.”I think Irwin’s strategy of teaching children to love nature and to care for its creatures is, by far, the best possible approach. May his influence will live on for a long time to come.
8/22/2006
Today, the Washington Post reports that “Critics of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman’s independent run to keep his job attacked on two fronts Monday, with one group asking an elections official to throw him out of the Democratic Party and a former rival calling on state officials to keep his name off the November ballot.” Lieberman staffers are calling such moves ‘dirty politics,’ of course.
But is it unreasonable to ask election officials to throw Senator Lieberman out of the Democratic Party, or is it merely dangerous to make such a request? Henry Lowendorf, of “The New Haven Peace Council,” underscored the fact that “[t]here was an open vote, and he was voted out. He joined a different party.”
True enough. Though there are several Democrats in Washington who have openly declared their support for Senator Lieberman, he did lose in his party’s state primary race and could technically be thrown out of the party if he chooses to run against the official Democratic candidate. But what if Senator Lieberman is expelled from his party and goes on to win in November? Having been summarily rejected by his party, would he be as inclined to caucus with them in the future?
Which is likely why John Orman, a Fairfield University polisci professor who gave up on his challenge to Lieberman last year, filed a complaint on Monday asking that Lieberman’s name not be included on the state ballot. The Post notes that Orman has accused Senator Lieberman of creating “a fake political party.” “He’s doing anything he can to get his name on the ballot.”
Certainly he is. And as long as it is legal, why should anyone have a problem with this? It seems to me that Mr. Orman himself was doing anything he could to get his name on the ballot not that long ago. Unfortunately, he raised about $1000.00 to Lieberman’s $3.8 million in the same period of time.
Which underscores the fact that Lamont’s ability to launch his campaign was due in major part to his ability to utilize his personal fortune to fund his campaign. For all the fervor anti-war activists bring to the table, rarely are there funds attached.
As I noted in a recent post, Lieberman will, at the very least be able to match Lamont in dollar-for-dollar campaign spending. But with Lieberman still in the race, Lamont must now run to the center and shed the one-dimensional stigma he gained as the “anti-war” candidate. Lamont won the Democratic primary with only 15% of the voting population in Connecticut, but did so narrowly, and recent polls show Lieberman with a 12 point lead among likely voters.
At this point, Connecticut voters know Lamont as well as they do Lieberman, so a 12 point spread will not be easy to erase. And the senator is almost certain to receive a significant level of support from Connecticut Republicans who are well aware of the fact that their candidate has no chance of winning in the upcoming election.
Meanwhile, CBS News notes that Senator Lieberman has been retooling his campaign for the upcoming election. A recent statement from the senator notes that his new hires are “not just among the best in their respective businesses, but they bring a deep knowledge of Connecticut from across the political spectrum, which will be essential to our effort to build a broad coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.”
CBS News outlines the Senators recent campaign changes and quotes Lamont’s campaign spokeswoman, Liz Dupont-Diehl who asks “[t]hese new appointments beg the question: Who is the real Joe Lieberman?” But such comments serve only to underscore the political naivete of Lamont and his staff.
Politicians often make such staff changes, or shuffle staff around to bring in new players with critical areas of expertise. Senator Kerry and Howard Dean did much the same during their primary and general election campaigns in 2003 and 2004.
In light of recent poll results –and silly comments from a certain campaign spokeswoman– Lamont would be well advised to consider some of his own staff changes. Speaking of Lamont, some recent changes in his rhetoric beg the question: Who is the real Ned Lamont.
Here’s a relevant example as noted by James Taranto of Opinionjournal.com:
“When it comes to universal health care for everybody in this country as a basic right, that’s a principle of the Democratic Party that Sen. Lieberman has never quite embraced. He’s come up with tax incentives for businesses to see if they might be a little more inclined to insure their people. So he generally has not embraced a lot of the Democratic goals and certainly the Democratic methods to achieving where we want to go.”–Ned Lamont, in an interview with yours truly [James Taranto], The Wall Street Journal, May 13
” I believe in an employer-based health-care system that covers everyone, and providing tax benefits to small businesses so they can provide insurance without risking bankruptcy.”–Ned Lamont, op-ed piece, The Wall Street Journal, Aug. 16
Unfortunately, rhetoric changes like this will likely not fool voters. Especially in light of the fact that Mr. Lamont’s press coverage has left no doubt in anyone’s mind that his is the anti-war candidacy. Despite what Democrats continue to believe, an anti-war stance will not, in and of itself, win elections.
Which is exactly why anti-war activists are now going to plan B; voter disenfranchisement. If you can’t beat em, deny em access to the democratic process. That won’t work either.
8/14/2006
As James Taranto points out in Best of The Web Today, Democrats are starting to pressure Lieberman to step back:
Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, wants Sen. Joe Lieberman to give up his independent re-election bid. Reuters reports Dean is casting it as a matter of party loyalty:
“I know how hard this is for Joe, and he is a good person, but the truth is I lost one of these races and I got behind my party’s nominee and I think that is what you have to do if you want to help this country,” Dean, former governor of Vermont, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “The way to help this country is to limit Republican power.”
Our favorite Democratic weathervane, blogger Josh Marshall, also is piling on Lieberman. Although Marshall claims he “didn’t have a horse” in the primary, he says, “I think all Democrats, all progressives, liberals, whatever, should support the Democratic candidate. And that’s Ned Lamont.”
But wait a minute, where were all these loyalist Democrats when Senator Lieberman was fighting for his political life during the Democratic primary? If memory serves, many were loathe to come to his aid because they were afraid of offending the angry left that was so actively working to undermine one of their most loyal and respected members.
So, they held back during the primary, the Senator lost, and now they want him to show the kind of loyalty that they were unwilling to show? Someone will need to explain to me how that even makes sense.
Not only did Lieberman see less support during his primary, those who did show up to support him were treated in a manner that was, to say the least, less than courteous:
WASHINGTON–My brief and unhappy experience with the hate and vitriol of bloggers on the liberal side of the aisle comes from the last several months I spent campaigning for a longtime friend, Joe Lieberman.
This kind of scary hatred, my dad used to tell me, comes only from the right wing–in his day from people such as the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, with his tirades against “communists and their fellow travelers.” The word “McCarthyism” became a red flag for liberals, signifying the far right’s fascistic tactics of labeling anyone a “communist” or “socialist” who favored an active federal government to help the middle class and the poor, and to level the playing field…
Now, in the closing days of the Lieberman primary campaign, I have reluctantly concluded that I was wrong. The far right does not have a monopoly on bigotry and hatred and sanctimony…
One Sunday morning on C-Span I debated Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel on the Lieberman versus Lamont race. Afterwards I received a series of emails–many of them in ALL CAPS (which often suggests the hyper-frenetic state of these extremist haters)–that were of the same stripe as the blog posts, and filled with the same level of personal hate.
In case you were wondering who wrote this, the article was penned by Lanny Davis. As you may remember, Davis once served in the role of special counsel to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998.
As for Lieberman’s peers in Congress — Senators Kerry and Clinton for example — most of them offered their best wishes from afar, all the while reminding angry left bloggers that they would “support the winning candidate.” I guess you could say they were with him in spirit, right up to the point where he lost. Then not so much after that.
Now that the election is over, all of the Senator’s “loyal” — but distant — friends back in Washington are urging him to “do the right thing.” In other words, Senator Lieberman is being asked to do as party leaders say, not as they do.
Yup, that sounds like the DNC to me!
But not so fast! Lieberman warned his party back in July that, if he lost the primary, he would continue on as an independent. It should have been apparent then to DNC leaders that a potential disaster was brewing. And, while Senator Lieberman has assured the DNC that, if he wins, he will continue to caucus with Democrats, there is no longer any guarantee is there?
And if DNC leaders, in realizing this, go whole hog to defeat the Senator, and he wins anyway, well, that could spell utter disaster were Lieberman to decide, for instance, that the GOP would be a nice place to visit… permanently!
All this in a year when Democrats seem to have their best chance since their 1994 route of regaining power. Now one man with consistent values, Joseph I Lieberman, could be the nail in the coffin of their hopes and ambitions for 2006.
An MSNBC piece, posted the other day, had this to say:
WASHINGTON - Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut will be able to raise the funds necessary to mount a campaign to keep his Senate seat, both Democratic and Republican donors say.
Having lost last week’s Democratic primary to Ned Lamont, Lieberman is running as an independent against Lamont and Republican Alan Schlesinger.
Lamont, a Greenwich, Conn. businessman who self-financed about two-thirds of his campaign, ran against Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war, his refusal to use a filibuster to block a vote on Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito and a number of other issues.
Wait a minute. Did we just hear that there were a number of issues which brought about the Lamont victory? From everything I had heard and read in the press, it was all about Iraq, not a Senate filibuster or anything else. Now, suddenly, MSNBC tells us that it isn’t all about Iraq?
Here is the first paragraph of an article written by the same journalist — Tom Curry — who penned the quote above:
If Sen. Joe Lieberman loses next Tuesday’s Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut, will his political obituary read “another casualty of the Iraq war”?
Does this sound like a a multi-issue election platform to you?
But here is a quote from Mr. Curry’s August 14 article which I believe gets to the heart of the problem for Lamont and underscores Senator Lieberman’s significant advantage in the run up to the November election:
One Democrat who gave $1,000 to Lieberman’s primary campaign, Washington attorney Heather Podesta, said Monday, when asked whether she’d chip in for his independent bid, “I’d rather not talk abut my political giving and what my plans are.”
But quite willing to speak was Bruce Bialosky, a leading Republican donor in California, who said he will raise more than $10,000 for Lieberman.
On Tuesday night, once Lamont had defeated Lieberman, Bialosky sent an e-mail to the 2,000 people on his political list “expressing my despair over Lieberman’s loss in the primary” and making it clear he’d raise money for Lieberman’s independent bid. “I’ve never seen such a tremendous response” from his list, Bialosky said.
“This is not an issue of partisanship. This is a great American,” he said. “There are certain times when we have to cross party lines. Sen. Lieberman has clarity on the most important issue of our time. His opponent doesn’t have a clue.”
Agreed!
Ultimately, if the election is all about failed Republican leadership over issues such as the Iraq war, Democrats have a very good chance of winning. The fact is, many conservatives have the same questions.
But if the vote focuses on the issue of staying in Iraq and finishing our work there or pulling out precipitously with no heed to the short and long-term consequences, the Democrats are likely to lose yet again.
As Lamont has said in repeated speeches, “Do we want to keep fighting in Iraq or do we want to start bringing the troops home?” Said another way, should voters support the “bring them home” party or do we finish the job in Iraq?
Most people, despite being told by some that Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism, know that Iraq is an important front in the war on terror. Even Howard Dean has admitted this, albeit by admitting that, at least now — but not in the past mind you — there are terrorists in Iraq fighting to disrupt the newly formed democratic government there.
We read reports every day of terrorist activities in Iraq. And we celebrated with the Iraqis a month ago when al Zarqawi, the leader of “al Qaeda in Iraq” no less, was killed by a well-aimed US bomb. So, trying to tell us that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror is nothing less than ridiculous. Terrorists are there, and they are in Lebanon, and in Palestine, and in the UK, and here, God help us, in the US too.
They are everywhere and they’ll kill us any way they can. An assertion which was ironically born out shortly after Lieberman lost his primary, when UK and US intelligence agencies foiled a massive terror plot which would have killed almost as many people as were killed on 9/11/2001. This time, however, the good guys won and the bad guys went to jail.
So, if voters take the time to think through this debate and weigh the consequences of retreat, Republicans will win. If they instead focus their attention on Republican failures, then Democrats have a good chance of winning.
Regardless of what happens in the larger election, however, Lieberman will win his seat back in November. The very fact that the MSM has focused so heavily upon Lieberman’s race works to the Senators advantage. Now, moderates and conservatives all over the country will know the stakes and, as was so well illustrated by Bruce Bialosky’s quote in the recent curry article, they are far more likely to support him.
Will Lamont enjoy a similar surge in support from the anti-war left? Not likely. They threw everything they had, it seemed, into the primary. Even then, Lamont had to use 4 million of his own money to eke out a win.
Candidate Lamont had his day in the sun. Now it’s Senator Lieberman’s turn. And Lieberman will win.
8/11/2006
I was thinking it might take a few days for the loony left to begin forwarding their conspiracy theories, but what do I know? James Taranto, who publishes one of my favorite daily columns, Best of The Web Today noted the comment excerpted below from Josh Marshall’s Talking Points memo website, which came on the same day as the attacks!
As I’ve written before, I have next to no confidence that this administration won’t pump exaggerated or bogus terror plots for short term political advantage. Especially as we move toward an election they seem likely to lose. But when the Brits completely shut down their major international airport (though now the shutdown seems to be easing) I’m quite ready to believe they found something very real.
Rove and his crew of course will stop at no end of bamboozlement and terror manipulation for political ends though. And the timing, well . . .
Sounds very much like the way I said it would sound, doesn’t it?
On the Democratic Underground today, WillyT posted this question:
Just now watching the western edition of NBC Nightly News. Campbell Brown refers to the “Terrorist plot that has Americans shaken.”
Just wondering.
I’m curiously NOT shaken.
Matter of fact, because of the ineptitude of the current administration, and the current leadership in congress, I, (and I’m sure many of you) saw this coming miles away!
Here are a few responses:
MrSlayer: “Not at all. I’m pissed off That they have to politicize this absolute nothing story and inconvenience everyone to try and score some terror points. It’s disgusting and disgraceful.”
SmokingJacket: “Five years ago I said, “Just watch out for all the foiled plots we’re going to see now.” Can’t have another 9-11, because that would mean they failed to protect us, so the alternative is lots of foiled plots. I don’t know if they’re real or not, but I do know they serve the administration’s agenda: keep us all scared of terrists [sic].”
MODemocrat: No, I’m not shaken; Bush & Cheney scare me more. It’s hard to work up too much interest in something that the republicans are using to up their ante in their contributions to the republican party. Terror talk is all they have; and it’s so downright funny whenever I get this mental picture of the pretend Crawford cowboy. and the fat old vice president, hiding out, except for going to their money raising rallies; and then try to trick us into believing they are ‘PROTECTING US’, and I laugh out loud. I’d feel safer being guarded by my terrier dog.”
[Actually, I feel pretty safe being guarded by my terrier as well, but not on a plane flying over the ocean somewhere between London and New York.]
kmlewis: “more shaken by fact i would be ‘relieved’ of my lip balm per the new regulations. i can’t go 10 minutes without having to apply a layer, seriously. i am so addicted. i told the bf that we aren’t flying anytime soon and he just [rolled his eyes].”
[Sounds to me like Ms. Lewis’ boyfriend has the right of it.]
Of course, if UK and US intelligence agencies had failed to foil this plot and it had been successfully carried out, we wouldn’t be hearing these crackpots whine and moan over the “timing” of it all. Instead, we would be hearing calls for immediate impeachment over yet another failure by the Bush Administration to protect the homeland.
It’s a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” If the administration does the right thing, it’s a political ploy. If they ever fail to foil a major plot, it will be yet another sign of a weak and incompetent administration.
One response to the DU post makes this very point, in so many words:
Lastlaughin08: No. Not surprised, since we’ve poked the beehive over and over. Courtesy of GWB and his big stick.
Which leads to another dilemma for those on the left. If we do nothing, as we did before 9/11, we encourage terrorists to attack us. If we do something, then we are “poking the beehive” and stirring up more terrorist activity.
Similarly, if we stay in Iraq, we stir up more terrorist activity. But if we leave, won’t al Qaeda simply declare victory and use it as a marketing tool to bring in more terrorists than ever before?
Last night I was in a pub with some people from my company. We had just completed a day of training and I was getting to know some people from other offices after a dinner we all attended. The subject of the foiled plot came up, of course, and a discussion ensued over the Bush Administration. It was actually a very calm debate, and towards the end, one of our group said, basically, “why can’t we just leave them alone and they leave us alone? Why do we have to go hunt them down and stir up more trouble?”
Unfortunately, that is the way many Americans feel. They don’t understand the implications of simply walking away from Iraq and letting that country succeed or die on it’s own. FDR would have understood, but it seems like most of today’s Democrats, including party leaders in Washington, have now completely abandoned the long and honorable legacy of their party as a tough-minded defender of freedom across the globe.
And those in the DNC who do understand and appreciate the history and legacy of their party, like Joe Leiberman, are no longer welcome in that party. It’s very sad and, as those Dems will find out in November, a very bad move for their party.
Filed under: Culture , General , Media , Politics
Well, Democrats either picked a really bad time to become the “anti-war-at-all-costs” party or as conspiracy theorists will likely soon claim, “there’s something fishy about the timing of all this!” I’m just waiting for that to happen. Later today I’ll begin surfing DemocraticUnderground.org and other left-leaning sites to see what I can find.
Here’s what I expect to see from these kooks:
“Well, just as the grassroots/netroots movement asserts itself against the Iraq war, we have this so-called ‘terrorist plot’ which is uncovered! Hmmm…
Rather convenient that the plot includes both US and UK airlines and citizens don’t you think? And now, all of a sudden, it’s the only thing you see and hear on the news. Sounds to me like the Bush/Blair team is up to their old tricks! Distract, distort, and deflect!”
I know that some of the hard left kooks are already thinking along these lines. It can’t be much longer before you’ll see these theories posted on all the lefty sites. I wonder when Kos will dive into the fray. Once he does, then I’ll consider the whole topic to be “mainstreamed” for the left.
7/25/2006
NOBEL Laureate Betty Williams, winner of the Peace Prize in 1976 for co-founding Ireland’s peace movement, on Monday told hundreds of school children in Brisbane that “I would love to kill George Bush.” Ms. Williams statement was reportedly greeted with applause and cheers from the audience.
Perhaps the most notable part of her speech, however, was a story she relayed regarding what she mentioned was a “recent” trip to Iraq. “My job is to tell you their stories,” Ms. Williams was quoted as saying during her speech at Brisbane’s City Hall.
“We went to a hospital where there were 200 children; they were beautiful, all of them. But they had cancers that the doctors couldn’t even recognise. From the first Gulf War. The mothers’ wombs were infected. As I was leaving the hospital, I said to the doctor, ‘How many of these babies do you think are going to live?’ He looked me straight in the eye and said, ‘None, not one’. They [the doctors] needed five different kinds of medication to treat the cancers that the children had, and the embargoes laid on by the United States and the United Nations only allowed them three.”
However, if Ms. Williams’ visit to Iraq was recent, then there would have been no issues regarding an embargo as they were all lifted in fairly short order after Saddam was ousted in April of 2003. And it was President Bush who pushed for their removal.
In an article dated May 8 of 2003, the Washington Post reported that the “Bush administration announced yesterday it is easing certain provisions of a 1990 law that imposed US sanctions against Iraq, even as US officials stepped up efforts to urge the United Nations to lift its own economic and trade embargo against Baghdad.” One day before the Post article appeared, USA Today reported that the US would “press the U.N. Security Council to immediately lift sanctions against Iraq and phase out the oil-for-food humanitarian program over the next four months”
During her speech, Ms. Williams also claimed that she visited 200 children, all of whom had cancers and that the mothers who bore these children had wombs which were infected from the first Gulf War. But the first Gulf War was 17 years ago and any children born shortly after that war would now be young adults.
In addition, economic sanctions which might have led to such diseases in children were imposed by the UN at the behest of previous US administrations, not the current Bush Administration. Ultimately, the lifting of those sanctions by the President in 2003 has likely proven helpful in ameliorating such problems, as has the tens of billions of dollars the US has poured into Iraq in medical aid and other infrastructure improvements.
I’m wondering if, when pressed with this information, Ms. Williams might not just be obligated to revise her statement.
7/11/2006
I found an article posted to Hattielarlham.org which gives some information on Karla. Here is a short but revealing excerpt:
Hattie Larlham is proud to announce this year’s Family Affair musical guest is Karla from kids’ group Hi-5. Karla will teach Family Affair visitors the new Hi-5 dance moves and song lyrics before taking everyone down under to Australia to meet the new members of Hi-5. This remote video performance will debut the new song and dance exclusively to Family Affair visitors. The cast will also answer questions submitted by fans to the Family Affair Web site at familyaffaironline.com.
If you then go the the Familyaffaironline.com website, you will find the following additional information:
Plus, this is also an opportunity for fans to thank Karla and offer their
best wishes as she embarks on a new adventure. In a “first-ever” remote
video performance, you will meet the cast members, get the opportunity to
ask questions about the cast, television show and future tours, plus many
more surprises!
So, it appears that the word will officially go out on or near July 29th. I’m very surprised and somewhat disappointed that, with this event only two weeks away, no official announcement has been made.
7/10/2006
As you know, I’ve blogged about the educational children’s show called Hi-5 quite a few times over the past couple of years. Here’s a list of articles posted from oldest to newest:
- OMG! It’s Hi-5!
- Hi-5 Goes Beyond The Call of Duty…
- Power To The [Little] People!
- A Roundup of Our Hi-5 Weekend
- The Hi-5 Road Trip Saga Continues!
My wife just loves this group and, of course, our young daughters as well. 
We have an autographed and framed poster of the group in the girl’s playroom and probably every CD and DVD they’ve released. And last year we even had a chance to chat with cast members informally during the weekend when we discovered, quite by accident, that we were staying at the same hotel as the cast! It was tremendous fun for the girls and, as I mention in my post which followed, the cast was just so nice and so generous with their time.
They are, one and all, a terrific group of young men and women.
Unfortunately, Julie and I heard recently from a very reliable source that there will be two Hi-5 cast members leaving, Shaun Taylor-Corbett and Karla Cheatham-Mosley. Shaun will be heading to New York City to become the newest cast member in a hit Broadway Musical called Altar Boyz, where he will be cast in the role of “Juan.”
Now, you cannot yet see Shaun’s mug up on their website, but you can read all about this change in Broadway Magazine. This sounds like a great opportunity for Shaun and I wish him all the best. When we met the cast last July, I had the chance to chat with Shaun for a short while and I was very impressed by his sincerity and his friendly manner. I know that he’s going to be great addition to the cast of Altar Boyz.
As for the details related to Karla’s departure, there are none at this time. I do hope that she too is moving on to another great opportunity and that she prospers whereever she goes.
Last year, when we spent the weekend at the same hotel as the Hi-5 cast, we first realized our good fortune when we walked onto the same elevator with Karla. The girls were, of course, thrilled, but also shy. Karla just smiled and began talking with them and getting them to open up.
Karla was terrific with the girls and spoke with them two or three times over the weekend, always seeming very happy to see them. If I get some additional details regarding Karla’s next move, I’ll be sure to pass them on. At the very least, we can all wish Sean and Karla the very best as they move on to their new opportunities.
As for me, I accepted a new job with a great company whose central office in the NYC area and I travel up there now at least once a month. I’m thinking I might have to get a ticket to Altar Boyz and go see Shaun in action sometime soon.
Hope he remembers me. 
It used to be, when I was very young — age 6 and beyond — that one of the worst punishments I could get was to have Star Trek (original series, of course) viewing privileges revoked for any period of time. The show had only been off the air for a few years and had recently hit syndication, and I LOVED this series!
I loved the imagination, the characters, and, most of all, I loved Roddenberry’s optimistic view of humanity and our collective future. He envisioned a humanity that had matured beyond the petty wars and squabbles and was enthusiastically expanding into the galaxy; eager to learn more, eager to find new species to befriend, and confident in their ability to handle all challenges.
The fact that this beautiful vision of the future was no longer on the air was agonizing. I and my fellow trekkers hoped for a rebirth of the show, either on TV or in the movies, and, in the late 1980’s, we got our wish with Star Trek: The Next Generation. Though the series started slowly in the first season or two, it ultimately soared. Not only were the characters interesting and engaging, but the story lines improved with each season, and, best of all, the show kept the optimistic feel of the original series.
Meanwhile, the original series was doing quite well in it’s major motion picture format. Really, the franchise as a whole seemed unstoppable after the release of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The third movie, “The Search for Spock,” was not quite as good, but wasn’t bad either, while the fourth movie, “The Voyage Home,” soared at the box office and is arguably one of the best Trek films ever to hit the big screen.
So, we saw the Trek movies coming out every two or three years, and a blossoming of Trek content for television as well with the appearance of STTNG in 1987. That was then, this is now.
After the Next Generation, came another great series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, which I thought was very good, but did slightly less well in the ratings. After DSN came Star Trek: Voyager, which did poorly in the ratings, and after that Came Enterprise, which, after struggling through four seasons of low ratings, was recently cancelled.
And with the latest series, Enterprise, recently having been pulled after just four dismal seasons, I worry that this once-great franchise will never rise again.
Looking back, I think the golden age of the Trek franchise began with Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, which aired in 1982, and ended with the final episode of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine in 1999. From that point forward, whether on film or on TV, the franchise has struggled, to say the least.
Some blame the leadership at Paramount for Star Trek’s woes. After Roddenberry’s death in 1991, Rick Berman, who, working alongside of Roddenberry, had been prominent in helping to foster some of the series’ greatest successes, became the chief target of many disgruntled Trekkies.
Was Berman responsible for series’ steady decline? I don’t know. I do know, however, that the series rapidly lost much of the spark that made it so recognizable to fans like myself.
In addition, I believe that, equally responsible for much of the woes of this franchise, are fans themselves.
Let me offer a perfect example of what I think has become one of this franchises most intractible problems. On April 20 of this year, Variety published an article entitled Trekkies have a new leader. Here is what Variety reported:
J.J. Abrams is becoming the next Gene Roddenberry. Paramount is breathing life into its “Star Trek” franchise by setting “Mission: Impossible III” helmer J.J. Abrams to produce and direct the 11th “Trek” feature, aiming for a 2008 release.Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk, Abrams’ producing team from “Lost,” also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature.
and Bryan Burk, Abrams’ producing team from “Lost,” also will produce the yet-to-be-titled feature.Project, to be penned by Abrams and “MI3″ scribes Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci, will center on the early days of seminal “Trek” characters James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock, including their first meeting at Starfleet Academy and first outer space mission.
One week later, Hollywood.com reported the following:
HOLLYWOOD - Mission Impossible III director J.J. Abrams is hitting back at unauthorized reports he is directing the next Star Trek movie. The Alias creator is furious the news was released prematurely and is also upset that key details regarding the storyline were incorrectly reported.He explains to Empire online, “The whole thing was reported entirely without our cooperation.“People learned that I was producing a Star Trek film, that I had an option to direct it, they hear rumors of what the thing was going to be and ran with a story that is not entirely accurate.”
Despite Abrams remarks on April 27, on June 20th of this year, Marc Malkin of Yahoo’s “The Insider” published this short blurb regarding an upcoming Trek film:
Will MATT DAMON get beamed up? Could happen. I‘m told J.J. ABRAMS is very interested in casting the Oscar-winning Damon as a young Captain Kirk in the upcoming ‘Star Trek‘ movie that he‘s directing and producing. He‘s so interested that he‘s apparently already sought support from the original Kirk, WILLIAM SHATNER. “Shatner gave his blessing,” my source says. “J.J. got his approval.” Damon first popped up in Trekkie circles as soon as the Abrams-‘Star Trek‘ deal was announced. Rumor had it that the new movie would center on Kirk and Spock‘s early days at a space academy. “J.J. wants Damon as Capt. Kirk,” my source reports. “He really loves the idea.”
So, a rumor was aired by Variety, at least two years ahead of a possible release date for a possible Trek movie, with Abrams responding to the rumor in just a week to try and seperate fact from rumor, yet two months later, that same rumor was re-aired on The Insider with the possibility that Matt Damon would be asked to play the part of Captain Kirk.
Now, it could be that what The Insider reported is actually true, but we are at least two years out from a possible release date for this new movie, and already the rumor mill has been pushed into overdrive to collect, parse, and ultimately endlessly critique every move made by Paramount as it attempts to inject some new life into the franchise. Yes, it’s wonderful to hear that Paramount is planning a new Trek film. With this film, comes the hope for us Trekkies of new movie greatness, something sorely needed after the latest movie, Nemesis, flopped BIG TIME at the box office in 2002 (only about $45 million grossed domestically).
It’s also good news to hear that the Abrams is possibly looking to do something new and different on behalf of the series. I think this is sorely needed, a sense of risk-taking in moving beyond the old formula of taking the TV characters and moving them to the big screen. While this has worked magnificently in the past, it is not the only path to success.
But there’s a big problem.
Now that the news is out about the forthcoming motion picture, some of my fellow Trekkies are going to begin anew the cyle of airing and endlessly parsing every single detail of the movie, whether it be true or just a rumor. They’ll demand to know every detail of the moving in advance, they’ll parse every bit of detail that someone manages to steal off the set of the film. Then they’ll whine and moan how it’s not going to work.
“Why are they doing it this way?” some will demand. “Matt Damon?” no, no, no! He’s not the right person! They need someone totally different!”
These moofs will utter curses to Paramount, pan any idea except their own, air endlessly negative comments, demand movie script changes, and will, ultimately, SPOIL the whole film with their endless list of spoilers and accompanying rants and whines.
Can you imagine what these same folks would have said in 1991/1992 prior to the release of Wrath of Khan? “You’re killing off SPOCK!!!! Noooooo!!!! Stop it, change the script, you can’t do this!” Of course, we didn’t have the Internet in every home in those days, which is why the only thing most of us heard was that a new movie was being produced.
When we walked into theatres, we were hopeful, yet clueless. When we walked out after the movie, we were amazed and overjoyed. The same was true of the next movie, “The Search for Spock,” not quite as good, yet still pretty darn good, and the next movie after that, “The Voyage Home,” which was phenomenal.
But, in some ways, with the rise of the Internet, we’ve seen the fall of Star Trek. But the Internet isn’t the problem. The problem is that some fans seem to feel they are entitled to know every part of what is going on during the production of any Trek movie or tv series.
Not that fans cannot or do not already contribute to the Trek phenomenon. The emergence of fan-made trek episodes, for example, was wonderful to see. The production of numerous books, stories, and fan boards, where Trek fans discuss shows, share ideas, etc., are a great thing. This kind of interaction was what helped keep the Trek franchise alive when the original series was pulled after only three seasons.
What we need is Trek enthusiasm without the attitude of entitlement. As long or short-time Trek fans, we do not have the right to know what the next movie or tv series will be about? We do not have the right to an advance copy of movie or series scripts, and we most certainly do not have a right to act like armchair producers and directors.
It’s my worry that, until a sizable portion of the Trek fan base begins to push back against this destructive need to know everything about every upcoming Trek production, we will never see a revival of this franchise. I could be wrong about this, but I just don’t think endless rants and whines do anything for the creative process in filmmaking.
The best entertainment, in any format, comes from a good mix of artistry, audience awareness, and creativity. But, at the very least, I can say for certain that all the rants, whines, and endless critiques have never in my experience resulted in good creativity.
Offering ideas and support, that is one thing. Shouting and whining, that’s just a big ol waste of time. Unfortunately, I think we’re fighting an uphill battle. Here is what “Kamino,” a member of Digg.com said of this rumor:
I really think Matt Damon has the personality of a paperclip. Actually I think they’d both suck. This could be very well the end of Star Trek… or wait they already ruined it so we have nothing to lose.
Here is a comment posted by “imperial” on Cinescape.com:
Coming from hard-core trekkie…WHAT A STUPID IDEA….the whole younger spock and kirk concept plain sucks. And one more…damn you creativity lacking producers…learn to boldly go where no one has gone before, rather than boldly regoing where everyone has gone before.
Sheesh…i smell a big anti-matter bomb aready.
And these are just two comments from an already-growing legion of negative rants regarding the Matt Damon rumor. Mr. Abrams has his work cut out for him.
7/8/2006
My wife arranged for a babysitter last night and we joined the long lines at the Theatre to see Pirates of The Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest. The movie critics are not sure if they like this movie or not, but my wife and I definitely did and, judging by the reactions in the theatre, so did most of those around me.
The lines were HUGE, and Box Office Mojo is reporting today that it was the biggest single day opening in Hollywood history at $55+ million. I’m not surprised as this seems to me to be the first really highly anticipated film of the year.
It was a loooong movie, with an unexpected ending, but one that leaves you ready to see the next film, which has already been made. I definitely recommend it to those of you who want to see a fun adventure with lots of good humor and really terrific special effects.
Depp, as usual, was very good and I was not disappointed by the fact that his character was the same in this movie as in the first, as most critics seem to have been. What did they expect, Depp to recast his role in a completely different manner? The fact is, we all went to the theatre because we loved the character the first time and wanted to see him in action again. And we weren’t disappointed.
Kudos to Disney for bankrolling a great movie which, even though not suitable for small children, is good family fare. Disney seems to have hit a good streak with the Pirate series, Narnia, and their animated movies. I approve and hopefully they’ll be encouraged by the dollars this movie trend is bringing to the studio.
6/28/2006
I think any reasonable person is going to look at the NY Times’ article, which revealed a perfectly legal and almost certainly effective secret program to identify terrorist monetary activities, as a threat to our safety and security both at home here in the US as well as abroad. Defending his decision to publish this story and to damage yet another effective anti-terror program, Bill Keller explained, in so many words, that a free press acts as a check on the abuse of government powers.
Of course it does, but an irresponsible press can act as a check on the proper use and utilization of government power. Reading through Keller’s remarks, I wonder if they were vetted at all with their legal department and with their marketing department. Keller seemed almost to be addressing a roomful of school children… “Now kids, let me tell you about this wonderful thing called ‘The First Amendment,’ generally known as ‘Freedom of The Press.’ And we are supposed to look up at Keller with wide eyes and go, “ooooooh! Yes please. Tell us all about it!”
Ultimately, I think Keller’s remark that a free press acts as a check upon the abuse of governmental powers was made as a broad statement regarding his feelings towards the Bush Administration. Keller might well have said, “while this program seems legitimate, the Bush Administration — in my opinion — has so abused it’s authority that any and all efforts undertaken by this President are suspect to the point where we feel we must inform the general public… Just in case.”
But, judging by reactions so far, the public does not see it this way. And I sincerely hope that a full investigation is undertaken. I think, first of all, the NY Times should be stripped of it’s press credentials in Washington. Secondly, I think the journalists who broke the story, and Mr. Keller himself, ought to be brought in front of a grand jury and made to reveal their sources. This program was both legal and a sound move in the war against terror, and it has now been irresponsibly undercut by partisans both in the press and in government. If there are no serious repercussions for this, I’m very worried that worse things will happen.
And if there is another attack here in the US, and plainly terrorists are trying to engineer one, then the NY Times will be the first, and likely the loudest, to scream that the Bush Administration failed to protect the American people. And I wonder, in my heart-of-hearts, if this is not what some in the media would love to see happen.
Perhaps they dream of an especially nasty October Surprise? Maybe they hope for something similar to the attack in Spain which may well have changed the course of their election. I don’t normally think on such a cynical level, but after seeing such a blatant move as this by the Times, it causes me to wonder if, in their heart-of-hearts, they hate the President so much, that they are even willing to undermine the safety of innocent men, women, and children to see him damaged in every way possible.
I hope I’m wrong on this.
6/22/2006
Ann is back, and she’s as bad as ever. And when I say “bad,” I really mean “good.”
Which, of course, makes what I’m going to write all the more controversial. But hear me out — perhaps you’ll understand why I admire Ann both for her political genius as well as her business and marketing saavy.
Yes, Ann is a woman who says incredibly controversial things. From her description of Katie Couric as the “affable Eva Braun of morning TV,” to her more recent attack on the liberal and politically active 9/11 widows widely knows as the “Jersey Girls,” in which Ann labels them the “Witches of East Brunswick,” it’s quite obvious that Ann enjoys ”stirring the pot,” so to speak.
Which is why I’m amazed she does not get more support from feminist organizations. After all, Ann lives the life that women’s rights groups fought hard to secure for themselves, to the betterment of all.
What makes Ann a feminist’s ideal? Let me count the ways:
- Ann is willing to say whatever it is she thinks needs to be said, even when others will not
- Ann is a highly educated, highly intelligent business-person
- Ann is devoted to her career, a phenomenally successful author, columnist, and pundit
- Ann challenges the status quo on a regular basis
- Ann loves a good fight and will take anyone on anywhere
- Ann is a self-made woman
I could go one but, I think I’ve made my point.
So, if Ann is all of these things, why in the world would feminist organizations such as the Feminist Majority Foundation basically label Ann a right-wing radical?
NOW President, Kim Gandy, expressed this sentiment in a recent column entitled Where is The Love?:
How sad that Ann Coulter’s latest book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism, in which she spews bigoted spittle at 9/11 widows, is climbing the bestseller lists as we speak.
Where is the love indeed!
Perhaps our liberal feminist friends have some unrecognized biases of their own? I guess you are a “true” feminist only if you do as you are told. So, when Kim Gandy or Linda Hershman tell you to do something, like, “shut up” or “get back to work,” you’d better be a good feminist and go do it?
Of course, Ann is being caricatured by media liberals of both genders. In a NY Times article published recently, columnist David Carr offers and interesting yet contradictory analysis both of Ann’s strategy and her style:
Ms. Coulter, who seems afflicted by a kind of rhetorical compulsion, most recently labeled the widows of 9/11 “harpies.” It is just one in a series from a spoken-word hit parade that seems to fly out of her mouth uninterrupted by conscience, rectitude or logic.
But Ann Coulter knows precisely what she is saying. Her current book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” is heading to the best-seller lists in part because she has a significant constituency and in part because no other author in American publishing is better at weaponizing words. With five books and more than a million copies in hardcover sales, she plays to win and is happy to take hostages along the way… [emphasis mine]
I’m not sure, based on Carr’s quote, if he thinks Ann is “compulsive” or “precise” in what she writes and says in public. One thing is sure, Carr does not seem to like either of the two possibilities.
It sounds to me like Carr is making Ann out to be a terrorist. He uses highly emotional language, such as “deadly intent,” and accuses Ann of “weaponizing words,” then using those words to “take hostages.”
Personally, I believe that Ann Coulter knows exactly what she is doing. Ann has made the deliberate choice, not simply to take a stand, but to take a firm stand on the issues and to be the one who says what most others are thinking, but are unwilling, unable, or too afraid to say.
And Ann Coulter’s fans love her for it!
Lets take the situation with the Jersey Girls as a case in point.
If you read through enough articles and conservative blogs, you’ll have no doubts regarding the fact that conservatives were highly annoyed with the partisan accusations leveled by these women and their active role in campaigning for John Kerry during the 2004 campaign cycle. Honest people know that 9/11 was perpetrated by a group of evil thugs, not a sitting President, and that governmental failures, starting as far back as the Carter Administration, ran both broad and deep, as numerous investigations have shown.
But the Jersey Girls seemed oblivious to all of that. In their anger, they seemed intent upon singling out someone, anyone, to put the blame upon. And they became media darlings in 2004 for two reasons; 1) they were harsh critics of the Bush Administration and Republicans in general, 2) they actively endorsed John Kerry and Democrats in particular.
A WSJ columnist, Dorothy Rabinowitz, said this of the Jersey Girls back in April of 2004:
The core group of widows led by the foursome known as “The Jersey Girls,” credited with bringing the 9/11 Commission into being, are by now world famous. Their already established status in the media, as a small but heroically determined band of sisters speaking truth to power, reached ever greater heights last week, when National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made her appearance at a commission session–an event that would not have taken place, it was understood, without the pressure from the widows.
The night of Ms. Rice’s appearance, the Jersey Girls appeared on “Hardball,” to charge that the national security adviser had failed to do her job, that the government failed to provide a timely military response, that the president had spent time reading to schoolchildren after learning of the attack, that intelligence agencies had failed to connect the dots. Others who had lost family to the terrorists’ assault commanded little to no interest from TV interviewers.
But these were not the 9/11 voices TV and newspaper editors were interested in. They had chosen to tell a different story–that of four intrepid New Jersey housewives who had, as one news report had it, brought an administration “to its knees”–and that was, as far as they were concerned, the only story…
The Jersey Girls were relentless partisans. And now Ann is criticizing them for their partisanship. But, Of course, the MSM loved the Jersey Girls for their partisanship, while it hates Ann Coulter for hers. I believe we call that a “double standard.”
But, again, I ask the question, is this not what feminists worked long and hard to achieve? Ann is a brilliant, fearless, highly educated, highly successful woman who says what she thinks and is willing to take on any person who challenges her. Why then, is she belittled by organizations like NOW who claim to believe in a woman’s right to do just what Ann has done over the course of her career?
From what I’ve read, every book Ann has published has attained best seller status. Ann is a sought-after guest speaker and commentator. And, finally, Ann is her own person.
So, welcome to the early 21st century! Today, women can be every bit as opinionated, ornery, and controversial as men. And if you don’t like it, then too bad!
So, if you are a spokesperson for NOW or the Feminist Majority Foundation, why not, at the very least, say something like, “we disagree with Ann’s positions on certain issues, but respect her fearless devotion to what she believes.”
The fact that these groups do not say such a thing tells me that they should be watching Ann more closely and following her example, rather than distancing themselves from her controversial statements.
And I think, additionally, comments made by David Carr in his Times article – some of which are quite sexist in my opinion — must be addressed. Here is a relevant example:
When I profiled Ms. Coulter a few years ago, I never figured out the line between her art and her artifice. She picked at her plate of lobster ravioli before serving up Fred Flintstone-size slabs of red meat. For the duration of the media opportunity, she was playful and on point, other than fibbing about her age, because she cares deeply about the franchise.
Her sincerity is beside the point as long as people keep taking the bait. Mrs. Clinton, who is the perfect foil for Ms. Coulter — ambitious, allergic to irony, loathed by the people who will line up for “Godless” — simply added fuel to a fire that she was presumably trying to douse. All manner of televised talkfests, including “Today,” welcome Ms. Coulter’s pirate sensibilities back aboard whenever she has something to peddle, in part because seeing hate-speech pop out of a blonde who knows her way around a black cocktail dress makes for compelling viewing.
Without the total package, Ms. Coulter would be just one more nut living in Mom’s basement. You can accuse her of cynicism all you want, but the fact that she is one of the leading political writers of our age says something about the rest of us.
Can you believe this? Mr. Carr is alleging that Ann is successful only because of her looks!
Even here, though, Carr seems almost schizophrenic. While intimating in his article that being a blonde who “knows her way around in a black cocktail dress” is the difference between being a best-selling author, columnist, and commentator and a “nut living in Mom’s basement,” he also goes on in the next sentence to call Coulter “one of the leading political writers of our age.”
And Carr has the temerity to accuse Ann of hate speech? Where’s the outrage?
More to the point, where is NOW and the Feminist Majority Foundation? Will they not defend a fellow woman against sexist hate-speech from a male columnist? Or do they expect that Ann must first toe their line before they are willing to speak out against such clear bias.
Perhaps, here in the early 21st century, we are not quite as equal as we would like to believe? Or, perhaps, what some liberal feminist organizations want is not true equality but what I would call “conditional equality.”
You are equal as long as you say what we think you should say, do what we think you should do, and vote the way we tell you. And, oh yes, you must only do the kind of work we want you to do.
Sounds strangely as if we’ve move right back to the 1950’s, doesn’t it?