A late-season marathon sucked me into “The Real Housewives of Atlanta” last winter. I have zero interest in the other “Real Housewives” franchises, but I could relate to Atlanta. I couldn’t necessarily relate to the prolificate spending on clothes, jewelry and birthday parties, but that’s why it’s TV.
Last night was the premiere of the second season of “RHOA.” Let’s see what our girls are up to now:
KIM: The last time we saw Kim, on the reunion show, she was about to get her wig ripped off by pretty much the entire cast in between assuring us that her album would be coming out soon and that she and Big Papa were still going strong. Well, at least the wig is still here. In fact, it’s the wig that’s given Kim her latest money-making idea, now that her married BF is apparently out of the picture. Kim’s going to start a wig line. Not to be dissuaded by the fact that she knows nothing about making wigs, Kim sits in on a class at a beauty school, which nearly puts her to sleep. She’s inept with a curling iron. Kim interviews that she doesn’t need to know how to make the wigs, she’s just going to design and sell them. With no capital or business training. (I seriously want to see this woman’s tax returns.) It’s a shame they’re not closer friends, because Kim could really use some life guidance from…
LISA: I swear, I don’t know how the Hartwells manage to be so adorable without pissing me off. Lisa’s husband Ed was released by the Oakland Raiders, but I get the feeling that Lisa could support the family just fine with her real estate business, her baby clothes line, her jewelry line, etc. She’s my favorite, because when you see her out buying designer clothes, at least you know it’s her own money she’s spending. And she and Ed and their toddler are just gorgeous. The Hartwells are debating having another kid, to which I say… YES! Have 20! You owe it to the human race! Lisa’s also got to be the producers’ best friend, because she always manages to make the most expository conversations with other cast members sound totally natural. For instance, last night we saw Kandi (more on her in a second) visiting Lisa to talk about starring in a benefit performance of “The Pocketbook Monologues,” which we heard about only because Lisa asked Kandi, “And aren’t you doing that play?” I swear, she’s flawless. In addition to running her various empires and canoodling with Ed, Lisa is also hanging out a lot more with…
NENE: Nene, Greg and the kids have moved just around the corner from Lisa’s place. NeNe annoyed the hell out of me last season, but she grew on me as I got to know her better. Along with her new house and her new ’do, NeNe’s got a new zen-like position on avoiding drama with her female friends. She doesn’t get ruffled when she and Lisa see Kim at a party, and she takes seriously Greg’s advice that she and Kim and Sheree need to sit down for a glass of wine and a talk. But she’s still our NeNe, cracking slightly off-color jokes and getting a lap dance from Dwight in her new, as-yet undecorated home theatre. (That scene where Dwight taught her how to open a bottle of champagne was hysterical.) NeNe admitted that last season’s bury-the-hatchet talk with Sheree didn’t quite heal her, so she sits Sheree down for a deeper heart-to-heart. Whether it’s the editing or a genuine change, NeNe seems to have matured a little, while still keeping the outgoing warmth that’s her trade mark. She’ll need more of that dealing with her once and future buddy…
SHEREE: Oh, Sheree. Just when I start to feel sorry for her and give her the benefit of the doubt, she does something that leaves my jaw on the floor. Last season, Sheree was going through a bitter divorce, from which she was sure she’d get a seven-figure settlement. This season, she admitted that her house had been foreclosed on because the ex – despite a court order – hadn’t been paying the mortgage (and also hasn’t paid child support in over a year). So Sheree and her kids are also in new, more modest digs. NeNe nailed it when she said that Sheree had a hard time showing weakness. That I can identify with. But when Sheree overcompensates by throwing an “independence party” to announce her fabulousness to the world (which sounded a lot like her birthday party from last season), she goes a little over the line. Sheree insists that she’s classy and refined. Okay. But when I think of women who, to me, scream “classy” and “refined,” like Jackie O or Michelle Obama, I can’t picture them demanding a helicopter entrance and an original poem about themselves and their struggles. I really can’t see, say, Grace Kelly going off on that party planner the way Sheree did. (Although I have to say, that jerk deserved it.)
And now, let’s welcome the newest “housewife”…
KANDI: …who’s not really a “housewife” since she’s a single mom who’s owned her own house since age 19. Kandi is a successful Grammy Award-winning singer/songwriter with an adorable six-year-old and a fiancé who has six kids of his own. That looks like it’s going to be the source of much of Kandi’s drama this season. She interviews that her mom doesn’t like the fiancé, Lisa seemed only cautiously optimistic, and the daughter flat out told Kandi she’s less than excited about having six new siblings. We’ll see how this one develops. It’ll also be interesting to see how this self-made woman jells with the more socialite-oriented housewives… and I have a feeling that aspiring singer Kim is going to try and be Kandi’s new best buddy.
Drama, drama, drama. Yay!
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Today in History
Today in 1945, a torpedo sank the U.S.S. Indianapolis, which was returning from delivering components for the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
But Robert Shaw can tell it better than I can.
But Robert Shaw can tell it better than I can.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Why is the media crazy for birthers?
I haven't written much about the phenomenon known as the "birthers" - they're crazy, we all know they're crazy, let's move on. But it's precisely that craziness that's been on my mind. Last night on "The Colbert Report," Stevie interviewed Dr. Orly Taitz, a Soviet-born dentist who's been referred to as the steam driving the movement of people who insist that President Obama can't be president because he's not a natural-born citizen.
Now, Colbert's is a news/culture commentary program that's meant to be funny. But Taitz, who's filed several lawsuits against Obama and whose actions have attracted the attention of the California State Bar Association, makes frequent appearances in public and in the media, including with CNN and NPR. Taitz has repeatedly insisted that you can't be an natural-born citizen without two citizens as parents (not true) - and yet she's considered a valid media source.
Which begs the question - What would Walter Cronkite do? Since the "most trusted man in America" died a few weeks ago, the contrast between the retrospectives of his broadcasting career and what passes for TV journalism today is stark, and not very encouraging. I could never imagine Cronkite putting on the air some wingnut whose entire argument was based on documented lies. As Christiane Amanpour said in her talk here last year, there aren't two sides to a genocide. And there aren't two sides to a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory, either.
So, why are the media focusing so much on the "birthers"? The 9-11 conspiracy nuts didn't get this much airplay. I find myself sort-of agreeing with Ann Coulter, of all people, who said this week that keeping the story alive makes the movement seem bigger than it is, which allows the so-called liberal media to make all conservatives look as loony as Taitz and her ilk. but the rightward-leaning media haven't been silent, either. CNN's president had to remind Lou Dobbs to knock it off this week, too.
It's not idealogy. It's money. Sensational=ratings, as it always has since the days of Hearst and "Remember the Maine." The big media outlets - all controlled by corporations - play to their bases rather than doing the hard, sometimes thankless work of actual news reporting.
And it's getting REALLY old.
Now, Colbert's is a news/culture commentary program that's meant to be funny. But Taitz, who's filed several lawsuits against Obama and whose actions have attracted the attention of the California State Bar Association, makes frequent appearances in public and in the media, including with CNN and NPR. Taitz has repeatedly insisted that you can't be an natural-born citizen without two citizens as parents (not true) - and yet she's considered a valid media source.
Which begs the question - What would Walter Cronkite do? Since the "most trusted man in America" died a few weeks ago, the contrast between the retrospectives of his broadcasting career and what passes for TV journalism today is stark, and not very encouraging. I could never imagine Cronkite putting on the air some wingnut whose entire argument was based on documented lies. As Christiane Amanpour said in her talk here last year, there aren't two sides to a genocide. And there aren't two sides to a lunatic fringe conspiracy theory, either.
So, why are the media focusing so much on the "birthers"? The 9-11 conspiracy nuts didn't get this much airplay. I find myself sort-of agreeing with Ann Coulter, of all people, who said this week that keeping the story alive makes the movement seem bigger than it is, which allows the so-called liberal media to make all conservatives look as loony as Taitz and her ilk. but the rightward-leaning media haven't been silent, either. CNN's president had to remind Lou Dobbs to knock it off this week, too.
It's not idealogy. It's money. Sensational=ratings, as it always has since the days of Hearst and "Remember the Maine." The big media outlets - all controlled by corporations - play to their bases rather than doing the hard, sometimes thankless work of actual news reporting.
And it's getting REALLY old.
Buh-bye, "World Wide Leader"
Deadspin speculates about what on earth ESPN's football reporters will do now that Brett Favre has announced that he won't in fact come out of retirement to play for the Vikings. Maybe this will free them up to spend more time coming up with BS reasons not to report on news stories relating to super-star professional athletes.
After spending several days breaking my ESPN.com addiction, I've officially deleted them from my bookmarks. From the time being, I'll get my sports news from SI.
After spending several days breaking my ESPN.com addiction, I've officially deleted them from my bookmarks. From the time being, I'll get my sports news from SI.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Electronic billboards in Cuba are cheaper than health care in the U.S.
I'd be laughing if I knew our government hadn't actually spent money on this.
Per CNN.com, in 2006 the Bush Administration put up a giant electronic billboard in the "U.S. interests" section** of Havana that continually scrolled both anti-Castro slogans and inspirational quotes from American historical figures. Castro responded by blocking the sign with giant flags so that no one could actually read it. A month ago the current administration ordered the sign turned off.
Did our country actually spend money on this? Presumably Congress had to OK it. The same Congress that's currently fretting that Obama is wasting money on petty sh*t like our country's economy and health.
First of all, Cuba? Seriously? That island that was kinda sorta a threat as long as they were allies of the Soviet Union, which collapsed before I was old enough to watch the news of its downfall on the late news? Oh, yes, let's put some money into that one. It's not like we have anybody else to worry about. And, hey, maybe after 60 years of oppression under Castro, not to mention our genius Bay of Pigs and milkshake-poisoning plots, a frakking *billboard* will do the trick. Brilliant!
**Now wait a second... according to its official Web site, the U.S. interests section of Cuba provides Americans in Cuba with all sorts of services ranging from passport management to providing tax forms. Now, until earlier this year, when Obama eased travel restrictions, the only Americans who could legally go to Cuba were journalists, government officials, people on humantarian missions or people who'd gotten a special visa to visit close relatives. And yet our federal government maintained an office in Havana to serve the needs of this presumably small number of people. And President Bush used its building as a propaganda tool, and all Castro did in retaliation was put up a bunch of flags?
Hypothetical: let's say the U.S. allowed a decades-long enemy to establish an official government office on our soil, say, in Washington. And that office put up a building-sized sign trashing our country, our leaders and our political systems. How exactly do you imagine Americans - including our government - would react?
Something tells me that the reaction would be a little more substantial than a line of flagpoles.
(BTW, good one, CNN. Way to catch the end of the program three years after it started, and only a month after it actually ended. What, do you get your wire reports by Pony Express?)
Per CNN.com, in 2006 the Bush Administration put up a giant electronic billboard in the "U.S. interests" section** of Havana that continually scrolled both anti-Castro slogans and inspirational quotes from American historical figures. Castro responded by blocking the sign with giant flags so that no one could actually read it. A month ago the current administration ordered the sign turned off.
Did our country actually spend money on this? Presumably Congress had to OK it. The same Congress that's currently fretting that Obama is wasting money on petty sh*t like our country's economy and health.
First of all, Cuba? Seriously? That island that was kinda sorta a threat as long as they were allies of the Soviet Union, which collapsed before I was old enough to watch the news of its downfall on the late news? Oh, yes, let's put some money into that one. It's not like we have anybody else to worry about. And, hey, maybe after 60 years of oppression under Castro, not to mention our genius Bay of Pigs and milkshake-poisoning plots, a frakking *billboard* will do the trick. Brilliant!
**Now wait a second... according to its official Web site, the U.S. interests section of Cuba provides Americans in Cuba with all sorts of services ranging from passport management to providing tax forms. Now, until earlier this year, when Obama eased travel restrictions, the only Americans who could legally go to Cuba were journalists, government officials, people on humantarian missions or people who'd gotten a special visa to visit close relatives. And yet our federal government maintained an office in Havana to serve the needs of this presumably small number of people. And President Bush used its building as a propaganda tool, and all Castro did in retaliation was put up a bunch of flags?
Hypothetical: let's say the U.S. allowed a decades-long enemy to establish an official government office on our soil, say, in Washington. And that office put up a building-sized sign trashing our country, our leaders and our political systems. How exactly do you imagine Americans - including our government - would react?
Something tells me that the reaction would be a little more substantial than a line of flagpoles.
(BTW, good one, CNN. Way to catch the end of the program three years after it started, and only a month after it actually ended. What, do you get your wire reports by Pony Express?)
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
One last thing...
At 8:51 p.m. - a full 48 hours after the story broke - ESPN.com finally posted the AP's wire story about the Ben R. case. (Yes, they didn't even write their own story.) And it's not about the lawsuit itself, but how the authorities in Nevada don't plan to do a criminal investigation at this time.
I'm not going to call ESPN any more names. But I am officially changing their name from "The Worldwide Leader in Sports" to something like "A Decent Place for Watching Football," or maybe "The Worldwide Leader in Sports Only if You Don't Count Every Other Media Outlet in America."
I'm not going to call ESPN any more names. But I am officially changing their name from "The Worldwide Leader in Sports" to something like "A Decent Place for Watching Football," or maybe "The Worldwide Leader in Sports Only if You Don't Count Every Other Media Outlet in America."
A response from FO
Last night I e-mailed Football Outsiders to ask why the post with an off-topic comment about the Ben Roethlisberger lawsuit had disappeared. I wrote that I was disappointed to think that this site whose writers I respect so much could pull a sneaky trick like that, and I really, really wanted to think better of them. This afternoon I got a response:
Sara,
Thanks for your e-mail.
You might not believe me when I tell you this, but the deleting of the thread had absolutely nothing to do with the comment. I'm pretty sure the thread you're talking about regarded Chad Ochocinco at a Lakers game. It was posted by Doug Farrar, who was told by a reader that the story was old. As a result, he deleted the XP. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Roethlisberger comment, which we wouldn't have deleted.
As for linking the Roethlisberger story as an XP, our policy has been to link stories that directly affect what happens on the field. For example, with the Donte' Stallworth case, I believe that we didn'tlink the initial story, but instead the story of Stallworth's suspension. (There are exceptions to this, like the Steve McNair story.)
...
I really do feel better, I honestly do. I genuinely appreciate the honest response, which is far more than you'd get from most Web sites (you see now why I love these guys?). Alright, FO, I'm sorry I called you chickensh*t yesterday. Thanks for the explanation.
Sara,
Thanks for your e-mail.
You might not believe me when I tell you this, but the deleting of the thread had absolutely nothing to do with the comment. I'm pretty sure the thread you're talking about regarded Chad Ochocinco at a Lakers game. It was posted by Doug Farrar, who was told by a reader that the story was old. As a result, he deleted the XP. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Roethlisberger comment, which we wouldn't have deleted.
As for linking the Roethlisberger story as an XP, our policy has been to link stories that directly affect what happens on the field. For example, with the Donte' Stallworth case, I believe that we didn'tlink the initial story, but instead the story of Stallworth's suspension. (There are exceptions to this, like the Steve McNair story.)
...
I really do feel better, I honestly do. I genuinely appreciate the honest response, which is far more than you'd get from most Web sites (you see now why I love these guys?). Alright, FO, I'm sorry I called you chickensh*t yesterday. Thanks for the explanation.
ESPN is full of something brown and stinky
It's lunchtime on Wednesday, and ESPN.com STILL does not have any mention of the lawsuit against Ben Roethlisberger anywhere on its homepage.
ESPN says they have a "previously established" policy of not reporting on civil suits involving sports figures. "Previously" here means "less than two years ago," given that ESPN had absolutely zero problem reporting on the fall 2007 sexual harassment lawsuit filed against former Knicks coach Isiah Thomas. "Previously" must also mean "sometime since last November," when ESPN's NFC South blog mentioned a lawsuit filed by the Falcons' Grady Jackson against a diet pill manufacturer. Or maybe "previously" means "two days ago," which is when ESPN.com first posted this story (since updated) about - you guessed it! - a civil lawsuit filed against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.
And that's not even getting into ESPN's history of covering such vastly-more-newsworthy-than-a-current-Super-Bowl-champion-being-accused-of-rape, like "Spygate," what Brett Favre's doing right this minute and anything Terrell Owens has ever said or done, ever. Then we have A-Rod's divorce and numerous mentions of Tony Romo's love life in blog entries and podcasts.
ESPN can do and has done some great sports journalism. But every minute they stay silent about this news when every other media outlet is reporting it - I'm not talking about Deadspin here, I'm talking about the Associated Press - they lose a little more credibility.
UPDATE: Speaking of Deadspin, this post says all this (far more articulately) and more.
ESPN says they have a "previously established" policy of not reporting on civil suits involving sports figures. "Previously" here means "less than two years ago," given that ESPN had absolutely zero problem reporting on the fall 2007 sexual harassment lawsuit filed against former Knicks coach Isiah Thomas. "Previously" must also mean "sometime since last November," when ESPN's NFC South blog mentioned a lawsuit filed by the Falcons' Grady Jackson against a diet pill manufacturer. Or maybe "previously" means "two days ago," which is when ESPN.com first posted this story (since updated) about - you guessed it! - a civil lawsuit filed against Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban.
And that's not even getting into ESPN's history of covering such vastly-more-newsworthy-than-a-current-Super-Bowl-champion-being-accused-of-rape, like "Spygate," what Brett Favre's doing right this minute and anything Terrell Owens has ever said or done, ever. Then we have A-Rod's divorce and numerous mentions of Tony Romo's love life in blog entries and podcasts.
ESPN can do and has done some great sports journalism. But every minute they stay silent about this news when every other media outlet is reporting it - I'm not talking about Deadspin here, I'm talking about the Associated Press - they lose a little more credibility.
UPDATE: Speaking of Deadspin, this post says all this (far more articulately) and more.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
A story I really don't want to talk about...
So, late this afternoon I'm killing time waiting for the person on the other end of the line to answer the phone, and I'm scrolling through Google News when I see the news that a Nevada woman has filed a civil suit against Ben Roethlisberger, accusing him of raping her, and several employees at the hotel where she worked of defaming her.
Ah, jeez. I seriously wanted to un-read that. Because Ben (sorry, I'm not going to type his last name over and over) is one of my favorite football players, I really, really don't want to think he's capable of this. I'm reserving judgment - as we all should do - about his guilt or innocence. It's so completely way too early to be arguing that. However, several other aspects of this news are incredibly disturbing.
- For starters, ESPN.com's refusal to report something that Sports Illustrated, the New York Times and the Associated Press have already broken is shameful. I don't want to hear about ESPN's alleged policy of not reporting on civil suits. This is the network that gave us wall-to-wall coverage of unsubstantiated suicide attempts by TO and Vince Young (which also proved to be unfounded). At this moment, a story about Steve McNair's blood-alcohol content at the time of his murder is posted as a top story. It was actually the Web site ProFootballTalk.com that first reported the story, and which is now claiming that ESPN went as far as issuing a "do not report" order. Bullshit, ESPN. Total bullshit.
- For that matter, I'm deeply disappointed in FootballOutsiders.com, one of my favorite Web sites. Earlier this afternoon, a comment on an unrelated post asked why the Ben lawsuit wasn't being posted. I can't link to it because the post itself - not just the OT comment - has been removed. Chickenshit, FO. Total chickenshit.
- Do not under any circumstances read the comments to any of the blogs currently reporting on the lawsuit, including PFT's various posts and TMZ, which both posted pictures of Ben's accuser. (In a civil rape lawsuit, the alleged victim's identity is not protected as it usually would be in a criminal case.) Sadly, and predictably, we get a lot of comments criticizing the woman's appearance. News flash, you ignorant fucks - sexual assault is about power, not sex. That's why 80-year-old women get raped. Just because you personally don't think she's attractive doesn't mean she's un-rapeable. Dumbasses.
- The woman's reported failure to file criminal charges is really less of a measure of truth than you might think. Only about 10 percent of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement at any point. As I've written here before, the hoops that rape victims must jump through - including an ER exam with 72 hours of the assault - dissuade a lot of victims from acting. Further, it's not unusual at all for police to encourage an alleged sexual assault victim to file a suit in civil court, where the evidentiary burden is lower than in criminal court. Of course, that means that the woman bears all of the responsibility (and costs), but it frees law enforcement from taking on cases that are difficult to investigate and all but imposible to prosecute successfully. The fact that it's taken her a year to file suit has very little to do with the veracity of her claim.
- That said, it's ridiculously easy to file a lawsuit against someone. Not remotely a proof of guilt.
- I'm sorry, I'm still mad at ESPN. Not that I want one of my favorite players' life to turn into a media circus, but...... damn, folks. This is news. I may not like it, but it's news. And the leading sports news network has an obligation to report on it. I like Ben. But the fact that he's likeable shouldn't let him off the hook.
I say again....... Jeez. I don't have the words to tell how badly I want this to be proven, beyond any doubt, totally untrue.
Ah, jeez. I seriously wanted to un-read that. Because Ben (sorry, I'm not going to type his last name over and over) is one of my favorite football players, I really, really don't want to think he's capable of this. I'm reserving judgment - as we all should do - about his guilt or innocence. It's so completely way too early to be arguing that. However, several other aspects of this news are incredibly disturbing.
- For starters, ESPN.com's refusal to report something that Sports Illustrated, the New York Times and the Associated Press have already broken is shameful. I don't want to hear about ESPN's alleged policy of not reporting on civil suits. This is the network that gave us wall-to-wall coverage of unsubstantiated suicide attempts by TO and Vince Young (which also proved to be unfounded). At this moment, a story about Steve McNair's blood-alcohol content at the time of his murder is posted as a top story. It was actually the Web site ProFootballTalk.com that first reported the story, and which is now claiming that ESPN went as far as issuing a "do not report" order. Bullshit, ESPN. Total bullshit.
- For that matter, I'm deeply disappointed in FootballOutsiders.com, one of my favorite Web sites. Earlier this afternoon, a comment on an unrelated post asked why the Ben lawsuit wasn't being posted. I can't link to it because the post itself - not just the OT comment - has been removed. Chickenshit, FO. Total chickenshit.
- Do not under any circumstances read the comments to any of the blogs currently reporting on the lawsuit, including PFT's various posts and TMZ, which both posted pictures of Ben's accuser. (In a civil rape lawsuit, the alleged victim's identity is not protected as it usually would be in a criminal case.) Sadly, and predictably, we get a lot of comments criticizing the woman's appearance. News flash, you ignorant fucks - sexual assault is about power, not sex. That's why 80-year-old women get raped. Just because you personally don't think she's attractive doesn't mean she's un-rapeable. Dumbasses.
- The woman's reported failure to file criminal charges is really less of a measure of truth than you might think. Only about 10 percent of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement at any point. As I've written here before, the hoops that rape victims must jump through - including an ER exam with 72 hours of the assault - dissuade a lot of victims from acting. Further, it's not unusual at all for police to encourage an alleged sexual assault victim to file a suit in civil court, where the evidentiary burden is lower than in criminal court. Of course, that means that the woman bears all of the responsibility (and costs), but it frees law enforcement from taking on cases that are difficult to investigate and all but imposible to prosecute successfully. The fact that it's taken her a year to file suit has very little to do with the veracity of her claim.
- That said, it's ridiculously easy to file a lawsuit against someone. Not remotely a proof of guilt.
- I'm sorry, I'm still mad at ESPN. Not that I want one of my favorite players' life to turn into a media circus, but...... damn, folks. This is news. I may not like it, but it's news. And the leading sports news network has an obligation to report on it. I like Ben. But the fact that he's likeable shouldn't let him off the hook.
I say again....... Jeez. I don't have the words to tell how badly I want this to be proven, beyond any doubt, totally untrue.
Monday, July 20, 2009
The week in "WTF???"
Two stories in the last week have me questioning my willingness to offer the benefit of the doubt to people who disagree with me politically.
First, there's Pat Buchanan's jaw-dropping rant on The Rachel Maddow Show, which sounds like it was ripped from a white supremacist brochure (and for which Maddow apologized on her show tonight). Buchanan, talking about Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, claims that white people exclusively built this country, and therefore deserve some sort of special consideration (exactly what he would NOT offer historically disadvantaged ethnic minorities). In her rebuttal tonight, Maddow mentioned the tens of thousands of African Americans and, yes, Latinos, who, contrary to what Buchanan may have learned in his U.S. History class at KKK High, did in fact fight in the Civil War, as well as the millions of enslaved people who literally built America and many of its industries. (As I've written before, my alma mater's endowment was started with a donation from the family of one of my city's largest industrial slave-owners - money I'm thinking they probably wouldn't have had as much of if they'd actually paid several decades' worth of workers.)
Then there's the tepid right-wing response to the kidnapping of a U.S. private in Afghanistan. I can't even talk about this because it makes me sick on my stomach. Can you imagine how, say, Michelle Malkin would respond if a left-leaning commentator blew off the hostage-taking of a U.S. soldier just because it's not clear how exactly they got him? Personally I don't give a sh*t if Private Bergdahl said "screw this" and wondered off into the night for a clandestine beer. The man is a member of our military being used as a propaganda tool by the enemy, subject to heaven knows what. I'm so sick and tired of these right-wing moralistic MFers who presume to decide who is worthy of our concern and who isn't. Go perform an anatomically impossible act on yourself, Malkin.
First, there's Pat Buchanan's jaw-dropping rant on The Rachel Maddow Show, which sounds like it was ripped from a white supremacist brochure (and for which Maddow apologized on her show tonight). Buchanan, talking about Justice Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, claims that white people exclusively built this country, and therefore deserve some sort of special consideration (exactly what he would NOT offer historically disadvantaged ethnic minorities). In her rebuttal tonight, Maddow mentioned the tens of thousands of African Americans and, yes, Latinos, who, contrary to what Buchanan may have learned in his U.S. History class at KKK High, did in fact fight in the Civil War, as well as the millions of enslaved people who literally built America and many of its industries. (As I've written before, my alma mater's endowment was started with a donation from the family of one of my city's largest industrial slave-owners - money I'm thinking they probably wouldn't have had as much of if they'd actually paid several decades' worth of workers.)
Then there's the tepid right-wing response to the kidnapping of a U.S. private in Afghanistan. I can't even talk about this because it makes me sick on my stomach. Can you imagine how, say, Michelle Malkin would respond if a left-leaning commentator blew off the hostage-taking of a U.S. soldier just because it's not clear how exactly they got him? Personally I don't give a sh*t if Private Bergdahl said "screw this" and wondered off into the night for a clandestine beer. The man is a member of our military being used as a propaganda tool by the enemy, subject to heaven knows what. I'm so sick and tired of these right-wing moralistic MFers who presume to decide who is worthy of our concern and who isn't. Go perform an anatomically impossible act on yourself, Malkin.
Some more thoughts on health care
Some good coverage today in the mainstream press about President Obama's proposed health care reforms and the effect they might have. First, the New York Times has a timeline of health care reform efforts going back to the 1930s. That was particularly enlightening to me, since in my lifetime reform consisted of President Clinton's botched efforts back in the early 90s and not much else. For one thing, the timeline charts how health care costs started spiraling upward only when more Americans moved to private health insurance. Interesting, and - sarcasm alert - totally coincidental, no doubt.
I also like the Wall Street Journal's breakdown, in the very clear form of a Q&A. Possibly my favorite part: "Families who have insurance pay an additional $1,000 a year in premiums to effectively subsidize all the people who receive care but don't pay for it, according to a separate study by the liberal group Families USA and actuarial consultancy Milliman Inc." This is why Americans pay more per capita for health care than any other industrialized country, and why we have so little to show for it. (This is also why I don't get the argument that the public shouldn't share one another's health care costs... Dude, we're already paying for it. We're just paying more.)
Actual health care - as opposed to sickness care - is cheaper in the long run. Last year I had the opportunity to hear former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts speak at the college where I work, and he talked about this. Consider this: say the feds offer a $1,000 tax deduction for individuals for every year that his/her cholesterol is under 200, starting at age 40. Assuming that a man lives to be 80 and qualifies for the deduction every year, that's basically a $40,000 cost to the public. Now, imagine that the same man - without the very attractive incentive to stay healthy - has a heart attack at age 50 or so. That's as much as $50,000 by one estimate, and that's assuming the man doesn't go on to have another one. And the amount doesn't consider ancillary costs like lost wages or disability payments.
The WSJ piece also talks about what the proposed reforms would mean for business owners and employees. I don't like that (according to this summary) people with employee-provided health insurance (like me) would not be eligible for the public plan, but might be required to pay taxes on that benefit. I'm very much in favor of public health care acting in competition to the private industry, but it's not fair to exclude certain consumers from choosing among the competitors.
Two other things I want to mention: we hear a lot about how government-administrated health care would lead to "rationing" of services, presumably because of either increased demand or because those mean doctors would say "screw this" and provide fewer services (since they're not making as much money from them). Okay, first of all, I can't waltz into my doctor's office and get a X-ray on demand. If I want a medical procedure that my private insurer doesn't deem medically necessary, I pay for it out-of-pocket. We take that for granted, but how is that not rationing? Also, I'm dubious of the anti-reformers' claim that people in countries with public health care have to wait months for procedures, considering that when my grandfather got a kidney stone on a trip to England, he got right into a hospital for surgery (for which he, a tourist, didn't have to pay a dime).
Second... Last week I was in Atlanta for several days on business, and I noticed a small group of picketers in front of the office building across the street from where I was. They were members of a local drywall installers' union protesting the working conditions in the building. One of their complaints was lack of health care. It seems pretty simple. If you're an employer, you can either provide your employers with health care, or you can pay them enough so that they can afford to buy their own. Employers who do neither rely on you and me to subsidize those workers' care, and that's not fair.
In the past, it's been the medical establishment itself that's lobbied against the kinds of reforms Obama wants. But maybe things are different now. For one thing, with so many losing jobs (bye, bye, health insurance) and the fact that paying pension and health care costs is basically what broke the U.S. auto industry, more Americans are realizing that a form of public health care would benefit them, too. Clearly, we have a great deal to work out. But our system is broken. Hopefully all of the players - including us voters - can fix at least part of it.
(And here's hoping our media can cover this accurately and intelligently.)
I also like the Wall Street Journal's breakdown, in the very clear form of a Q&A. Possibly my favorite part: "Families who have insurance pay an additional $1,000 a year in premiums to effectively subsidize all the people who receive care but don't pay for it, according to a separate study by the liberal group Families USA and actuarial consultancy Milliman Inc." This is why Americans pay more per capita for health care than any other industrialized country, and why we have so little to show for it. (This is also why I don't get the argument that the public shouldn't share one another's health care costs... Dude, we're already paying for it. We're just paying more.)
Actual health care - as opposed to sickness care - is cheaper in the long run. Last year I had the opportunity to hear former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts speak at the college where I work, and he talked about this. Consider this: say the feds offer a $1,000 tax deduction for individuals for every year that his/her cholesterol is under 200, starting at age 40. Assuming that a man lives to be 80 and qualifies for the deduction every year, that's basically a $40,000 cost to the public. Now, imagine that the same man - without the very attractive incentive to stay healthy - has a heart attack at age 50 or so. That's as much as $50,000 by one estimate, and that's assuming the man doesn't go on to have another one. And the amount doesn't consider ancillary costs like lost wages or disability payments.
The WSJ piece also talks about what the proposed reforms would mean for business owners and employees. I don't like that (according to this summary) people with employee-provided health insurance (like me) would not be eligible for the public plan, but might be required to pay taxes on that benefit. I'm very much in favor of public health care acting in competition to the private industry, but it's not fair to exclude certain consumers from choosing among the competitors.
Two other things I want to mention: we hear a lot about how government-administrated health care would lead to "rationing" of services, presumably because of either increased demand or because those mean doctors would say "screw this" and provide fewer services (since they're not making as much money from them). Okay, first of all, I can't waltz into my doctor's office and get a X-ray on demand. If I want a medical procedure that my private insurer doesn't deem medically necessary, I pay for it out-of-pocket. We take that for granted, but how is that not rationing? Also, I'm dubious of the anti-reformers' claim that people in countries with public health care have to wait months for procedures, considering that when my grandfather got a kidney stone on a trip to England, he got right into a hospital for surgery (for which he, a tourist, didn't have to pay a dime).
Second... Last week I was in Atlanta for several days on business, and I noticed a small group of picketers in front of the office building across the street from where I was. They were members of a local drywall installers' union protesting the working conditions in the building. One of their complaints was lack of health care. It seems pretty simple. If you're an employer, you can either provide your employers with health care, or you can pay them enough so that they can afford to buy their own. Employers who do neither rely on you and me to subsidize those workers' care, and that's not fair.
In the past, it's been the medical establishment itself that's lobbied against the kinds of reforms Obama wants. But maybe things are different now. For one thing, with so many losing jobs (bye, bye, health insurance) and the fact that paying pension and health care costs is basically what broke the U.S. auto industry, more Americans are realizing that a form of public health care would benefit them, too. Clearly, we have a great deal to work out. But our system is broken. Hopefully all of the players - including us voters - can fix at least part of it.
(And here's hoping our media can cover this accurately and intelligently.)
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Happy B-day, “Blair Witch Project”
Can you believe it’s been 10 years since the wide release of “The Blair Witch Project”? It’s hard to remember now, but in the summer of ’99, it was just about impossible to get away from one of the first great viral marketing campaigns – maybe even the most effective viral marketing blitz of all time – and the movie wasn’t bad either.
Like everyone else who went to a movie that summer, I had the trailer memorized. Two sentences, written in basic sans-serif white type over a black screen. Some film students disappeared in the woods, and a year later their footage was found. The “BWP” marketing worked because it was consistent in insisting that it was all a true story. The Sci-Fi Channel mockumentary and the film’s promotional Web site gave us a lot of supplementary material – police search photos, interviews with the students’ families and professors, etc.
It was interesting marketing, and it turned out that it really helped. Because if you just watch “BWP” with no prior knowledge of its mythology or how it was made, it’s just a shaky-cam mess. At its best, “BWP” always felt to me like a really good campfire ghost story: a little creepy, sometimes cheesy, but when you’re trying to get to sleep that night and you hear rustling in the woods, THEN it gets scary.
I went to see it with my Mom and my friend Molly. It was Molly who explained the significance of the film’s last shot to me (I’m ashamed to say I totally didn’t get it), and once she did, the ending went from “Huh” to “Holy SH*T, that’s freaky!”
On the way home, we stopped for gas at the Neighbors right down from Molly’s house. If you’ve never been to Pilot Mountain, this is the Neighbors that’s right at the junction of Highway 52 and Highway 268 – not exactly the wilderness. And being a gas station it’s bathed in bright yellow light. So I’m standing there pumping gas, wondering if it’s too late to be eating potato wedges, when somebody on the other side of the parking lot cranks his car. BOOM. I jumped like I’d been shot. Clearly, I was more on edge than I’d thought. Then we got to drive home… through the woods… in the dark. Fun.
For me, though, “BWP” was one of those movies that was better the second time I watched it, and then it went downhill from there. Some of the improvised dialogue is sloppy. And yes, while it’s true that what you don’t see can be scarier than what you do see, occasionally you do need to see *something.*
For whatever reason, neither the “BWP” filmmakers nor principle actors have gone on to do much of anything else, major film-wise. Who knows, maybe the Hollywood powers-that-be think they really did disappear in the woods. Anyway, what they put out may not be perfect, but it’s certainly intriguing, and more imaginative by far than much of what gets released 10 years later.
Like everyone else who went to a movie that summer, I had the trailer memorized. Two sentences, written in basic sans-serif white type over a black screen. Some film students disappeared in the woods, and a year later their footage was found. The “BWP” marketing worked because it was consistent in insisting that it was all a true story. The Sci-Fi Channel mockumentary and the film’s promotional Web site gave us a lot of supplementary material – police search photos, interviews with the students’ families and professors, etc.
It was interesting marketing, and it turned out that it really helped. Because if you just watch “BWP” with no prior knowledge of its mythology or how it was made, it’s just a shaky-cam mess. At its best, “BWP” always felt to me like a really good campfire ghost story: a little creepy, sometimes cheesy, but when you’re trying to get to sleep that night and you hear rustling in the woods, THEN it gets scary.
I went to see it with my Mom and my friend Molly. It was Molly who explained the significance of the film’s last shot to me (I’m ashamed to say I totally didn’t get it), and once she did, the ending went from “Huh” to “Holy SH*T, that’s freaky!”
On the way home, we stopped for gas at the Neighbors right down from Molly’s house. If you’ve never been to Pilot Mountain, this is the Neighbors that’s right at the junction of Highway 52 and Highway 268 – not exactly the wilderness. And being a gas station it’s bathed in bright yellow light. So I’m standing there pumping gas, wondering if it’s too late to be eating potato wedges, when somebody on the other side of the parking lot cranks his car. BOOM. I jumped like I’d been shot. Clearly, I was more on edge than I’d thought. Then we got to drive home… through the woods… in the dark. Fun.
For me, though, “BWP” was one of those movies that was better the second time I watched it, and then it went downhill from there. Some of the improvised dialogue is sloppy. And yes, while it’s true that what you don’t see can be scarier than what you do see, occasionally you do need to see *something.*
For whatever reason, neither the “BWP” filmmakers nor principle actors have gone on to do much of anything else, major film-wise. Who knows, maybe the Hollywood powers-that-be think they really did disappear in the woods. Anyway, what they put out may not be perfect, but it’s certainly intriguing, and more imaginative by far than much of what gets released 10 years later.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Senators are allowed to mispeak, but not judges
I've been out of town for the last several days, so I haven't been following closely the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I haven't really had time to pull together what I want to say. But this link was too good to pass up:
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said something that he didn't mean to say. He said what anyone in the public eye is trained to say in that situation, that he misspoke. Fair enough. no one would seriously suggest that Sessions intended to go snort some crack (or whatever it is you do with crack) during a recess.
I found this interesting in light of the grilling that Sotomayor has taken from the talkerati and, this week, from actual Senators who will determine her appointment to the Supreme Court, regarding a line from a speech she made eight years ago. Which, by the way, both the White House and Sotomayor herself have said was a mistake.
By the way, Sessions is the same person whose own judicial nomination was scuttled after comments he made regarding the NAACP came to light. Maybe he "misspoke" then, too.
So, in addition to a cultural heritage, white men are allowed to f*ck up in public and still be entitled to having our benfit of the doubt.
I'm so fracking over this.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said something that he didn't mean to say. He said what anyone in the public eye is trained to say in that situation, that he misspoke. Fair enough. no one would seriously suggest that Sessions intended to go snort some crack (or whatever it is you do with crack) during a recess.
I found this interesting in light of the grilling that Sotomayor has taken from the talkerati and, this week, from actual Senators who will determine her appointment to the Supreme Court, regarding a line from a speech she made eight years ago. Which, by the way, both the White House and Sotomayor herself have said was a mistake.
By the way, Sessions is the same person whose own judicial nomination was scuttled after comments he made regarding the NAACP came to light. Maybe he "misspoke" then, too.
So, in addition to a cultural heritage, white men are allowed to f*ck up in public and still be entitled to having our benfit of the doubt.
I'm so fracking over this.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
DICK
You know that super-secret CIA anti-terrorism program that was so secret that even CIA director Leon Panetta just found out about at the end of June? That program that was so secret the CIA still won't tell the public what it involved? The New York Times is reporting that the orders to conceal the mystery program from Congress or the public for eight years came from then-Vice President Dick Cheney.
Well, I'm shocked.
Panetta apparently ended the program as soon as he learned of it on June 23, and the next day briefed the leaders in Congress. (This is a mere several weeks after Panetta came to the defense of the intelligence community after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to Congress about the use of waterboarding. Remember all the conservative commentators who blasted Pelosi, called her a liar and demanded her resignation? I do.)
Though the existence of Mystery Program came to light late this week, we still don't know exactly what it was. Per the Times article, the White House has a legal obligation to inform Congress even of covert operations. This doesn't mean that the director of the CIA has to publicly address all 535 members of both houses. Instead, there's an enclave known as the "Gang of Eight," consisting of top administrators in intelligence and defense, as well as leaders in Congress. It's a bipartisan group legally bound to keep classified material classified. In other words, it's not like the Bush Administration concealed Mystery Program or anything else out of fear that Pelosi would immediately air it all in a press conference. There's this little fail-safe we call "federal prison" to guard against that.
And what about an anti-terror spying program that we do know about? Well, the inspectors general from five different agencies studied the Bush-era warrantless wire-tapping program and found that "extraordinary and inappropriate" secrecy about its existence prevented it from being used by the very law enforcement and intelligence officers it was supposed to help.
The program "may have" contributed to successful counterterrorism efforts, some intelligence officials told the investigators. But too few CIA personnel knew of the highly classified program to use it for intelligence work, the report stated, while at the FBI, the program "played a limited role," with "most . . . leads . . . determined not to have any connection to terrorism."
To recap: our government (assisted by telecom corporations) invaded the privacy of individuals without probable cause - selling out some of this country's oldest and most profound principles -and they didn't even get anything useful out of it. Up to this point I have not been in the camp that wants President Obama and Congress to investigate the Bush Administration's apparent abuses of executive power. But here we're talking about a subversion of due process - the thing that separated the U.S. colonies from the British Empire - and a total disregard for the system of checks and balances that's been our country's saving grace for over 250 years. Congress makes and alters laws, not the president. (The sad thing is that, with a Republican majority in Congress for much of his tenure, Bush probably could've gotten official approval for much of what he wanted to do. But that would've meant a public debate, and apparently the Bush Administration was too good for that.)
I'm of the mind that a blanket investigation of the previous administration sets a bad precedent... but these allegations are clearly so eggregious that Americans, and the world, deserve an explanation. Of course I don't want to see Congress and federal agencies bogged down in a wide-ranging investigation of the last eight years. They have too much else to do. But recent precedent gives us a perfect solution: President Obama should appoint an independent counsel to investigate charges that people with the Bush Administration subverted established law. No impeachments (they're already out of office anyway). But we can't just pretend that none of this happened.
Yes, it will be expensive. But if President Clinton's sex life was worthy of an independent counsel's years-long inquiry, than how can this not be?
Well, I'm shocked.
Panetta apparently ended the program as soon as he learned of it on June 23, and the next day briefed the leaders in Congress. (This is a mere several weeks after Panetta came to the defense of the intelligence community after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi accused the CIA of lying to Congress about the use of waterboarding. Remember all the conservative commentators who blasted Pelosi, called her a liar and demanded her resignation? I do.)
Though the existence of Mystery Program came to light late this week, we still don't know exactly what it was. Per the Times article, the White House has a legal obligation to inform Congress even of covert operations. This doesn't mean that the director of the CIA has to publicly address all 535 members of both houses. Instead, there's an enclave known as the "Gang of Eight," consisting of top administrators in intelligence and defense, as well as leaders in Congress. It's a bipartisan group legally bound to keep classified material classified. In other words, it's not like the Bush Administration concealed Mystery Program or anything else out of fear that Pelosi would immediately air it all in a press conference. There's this little fail-safe we call "federal prison" to guard against that.
And what about an anti-terror spying program that we do know about? Well, the inspectors general from five different agencies studied the Bush-era warrantless wire-tapping program and found that "extraordinary and inappropriate" secrecy about its existence prevented it from being used by the very law enforcement and intelligence officers it was supposed to help.
The program "may have" contributed to successful counterterrorism efforts, some intelligence officials told the investigators. But too few CIA personnel knew of the highly classified program to use it for intelligence work, the report stated, while at the FBI, the program "played a limited role," with "most . . . leads . . . determined not to have any connection to terrorism."
To recap: our government (assisted by telecom corporations) invaded the privacy of individuals without probable cause - selling out some of this country's oldest and most profound principles -and they didn't even get anything useful out of it. Up to this point I have not been in the camp that wants President Obama and Congress to investigate the Bush Administration's apparent abuses of executive power. But here we're talking about a subversion of due process - the thing that separated the U.S. colonies from the British Empire - and a total disregard for the system of checks and balances that's been our country's saving grace for over 250 years. Congress makes and alters laws, not the president. (The sad thing is that, with a Republican majority in Congress for much of his tenure, Bush probably could've gotten official approval for much of what he wanted to do. But that would've meant a public debate, and apparently the Bush Administration was too good for that.)
I'm of the mind that a blanket investigation of the previous administration sets a bad precedent... but these allegations are clearly so eggregious that Americans, and the world, deserve an explanation. Of course I don't want to see Congress and federal agencies bogged down in a wide-ranging investigation of the last eight years. They have too much else to do. But recent precedent gives us a perfect solution: President Obama should appoint an independent counsel to investigate charges that people with the Bush Administration subverted established law. No impeachments (they're already out of office anyway). But we can't just pretend that none of this happened.
Yes, it will be expensive. But if President Clinton's sex life was worthy of an independent counsel's years-long inquiry, than how can this not be?
Friday, July 10, 2009
"Bruno" is... something
One of the good things about being friends with a film critic is getting to go to screenings of films that haven’t yet been released. So last night I went to a late-late screening of “Bruno,” the new film from the former Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen. The nicest thing I can say about was that at least it was free.
I really admire Cohen’s ability to stay in character, as well as the physical chances he takes. There’s no denying that he’s fearless. But merely being outrageous isn’t necessarily funny. Too often, I thought that “Bruno” went way past what would’ve been funny, crossing some invisible line into Eye-roll Land. For instance, early in the film, after Bruno’s screw-up at Milan Fashion Week makes him a persona non grata, he laments that “For the second time in a century, the world had turned on Austria’s greatest man, just because he tried to do something new.” Everyone in the theatre knew he was talking about Hitler, and it’s a groan-inducing “OMG, what an idiot” moment. But then a few minutes later, Cohen makes the same reference, only this time mentioning Hitler by name. Dude, we already got it.
I’ve written before that funny is a club, and you’re either in it or you’re not. When you lower the bar of a joke so that everyone from my 83-year-old grandfather to those “Jaywalking” people who don’t know who the president is can see the gears cranking, I think you lose something. That’s how parts of “Borat” felt for me, and that’s how 90 percent of “Bruno” felt, too.
Other observations: I’m shocked that this movie only got an R rating. If “Brokeback Mountain” had been half this explicit, it would’ve been NC-17. But I guess as long as gay characters are just putting on a minstrel show, anything goes. The plot is a direct rip-off of “Borat,” only even more episodic. “Bruno” can’t decide who it wants to satirize – snotty Euro-trash fashionistas? Hollywood fame-whores? Allegedly homophobic good ol’ boys? I was just left wondering what the purpose of it all was, other than to gross people out.
Unlike in the best parts of “Borat,” here Cohen doesn’t give his (possibly) unwilling man-on-the-street co-stars the breathing room they need to do the truly hilarious stuff (like the frat-boys complaining to Borat about how they didn’t get to own slaves anymore). Instead, it’s all him doing progressively more over-the-top stuff until he gets a reaction. That’s not ripping the veil from Americans’ deepest motives. It’s manipulation, and it doesn’t give us anything new. Wow, an Alabama hunter will freak out if a naked guy tries to come into his tent in the middle of the night. No sh*t! So would I. Point?
“Bruno” didn’t offend me. I just thought it was kind of pointless.
I really admire Cohen’s ability to stay in character, as well as the physical chances he takes. There’s no denying that he’s fearless. But merely being outrageous isn’t necessarily funny. Too often, I thought that “Bruno” went way past what would’ve been funny, crossing some invisible line into Eye-roll Land. For instance, early in the film, after Bruno’s screw-up at Milan Fashion Week makes him a persona non grata, he laments that “For the second time in a century, the world had turned on Austria’s greatest man, just because he tried to do something new.” Everyone in the theatre knew he was talking about Hitler, and it’s a groan-inducing “OMG, what an idiot” moment. But then a few minutes later, Cohen makes the same reference, only this time mentioning Hitler by name. Dude, we already got it.
I’ve written before that funny is a club, and you’re either in it or you’re not. When you lower the bar of a joke so that everyone from my 83-year-old grandfather to those “Jaywalking” people who don’t know who the president is can see the gears cranking, I think you lose something. That’s how parts of “Borat” felt for me, and that’s how 90 percent of “Bruno” felt, too.
Other observations: I’m shocked that this movie only got an R rating. If “Brokeback Mountain” had been half this explicit, it would’ve been NC-17. But I guess as long as gay characters are just putting on a minstrel show, anything goes. The plot is a direct rip-off of “Borat,” only even more episodic. “Bruno” can’t decide who it wants to satirize – snotty Euro-trash fashionistas? Hollywood fame-whores? Allegedly homophobic good ol’ boys? I was just left wondering what the purpose of it all was, other than to gross people out.
Unlike in the best parts of “Borat,” here Cohen doesn’t give his (possibly) unwilling man-on-the-street co-stars the breathing room they need to do the truly hilarious stuff (like the frat-boys complaining to Borat about how they didn’t get to own slaves anymore). Instead, it’s all him doing progressively more over-the-top stuff until he gets a reaction. That’s not ripping the veil from Americans’ deepest motives. It’s manipulation, and it doesn’t give us anything new. Wow, an Alabama hunter will freak out if a naked guy tries to come into his tent in the middle of the night. No sh*t! So would I. Point?
“Bruno” didn’t offend me. I just thought it was kind of pointless.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
What shall we do with the drunken badger?
This brought back semi-fond memories of the time late in the Reagan Adminstration when my older sister Maria and I ate some fermented apples at our great-grandmother's house. I only remember lots of giggling and, later, a rotten headache. Thankfully, we didn't run out into traffic like this little guy did.
Pelosi: No resolution for Jackson
Rep. Nancy Pelosi isn't my favorite person in the world, but I kind of have to go with her on this one. Pelosi said today that, while members of the House are welcome to speak about Michael Jackson on the floor, it's inappropriate to honor him with a formal resolution at the moment.
It's not so much because of the "Jackson was quite possibly a pedophile" factor. For me, it's the "it's been two weeks and you people can't possibly have nothing else better to do than waste time writing, debating and passing this" factor.
I also find myself in the somewhat surreal position of agreeing with Bill O'Reilly. Jackson may have been iconic and ever-present, but was he in fact uniquely influential as an artist? And I'm sorry, the implication that Jackson is in any way responsible for President Obama's election (20 years after Jackson's last significant album) is both ludicrous and insulting to the thousands of African Americans who fought their way into leadership positions in policy and government.
FWIW, the House did pass a resolution naming "Frank Sinatra Day," but that was in 2008 on the occasion of the release of a commemorative Sinatra stamp 10 years after his death. From what I can tell, Elvis didn't get an individual resolution, but was mentioned by name in a 2004 Senate resolution marking the 50th anniversary of rock 'n roll (as determined by the date of the earliest Sun Studios recordings). Another proposed Senate resolution in 2006 congratulated Graceland on being named a National Historic Landmark. Elvis died in 1977.
There's a reason that sports Halls of Fame require that an inductee be retired for a certain amount of time, and why the postal service won't put a living person on a stamp. It may be appropriate to honor Jackson with a resolution one day, but Congress should probably wait for the dust to settle first so that we can take a clear-eyed look at Jackson's legacy. If you ask me, Pelosi got this one right.
It's not so much because of the "Jackson was quite possibly a pedophile" factor. For me, it's the "it's been two weeks and you people can't possibly have nothing else better to do than waste time writing, debating and passing this" factor.
I also find myself in the somewhat surreal position of agreeing with Bill O'Reilly. Jackson may have been iconic and ever-present, but was he in fact uniquely influential as an artist? And I'm sorry, the implication that Jackson is in any way responsible for President Obama's election (20 years after Jackson's last significant album) is both ludicrous and insulting to the thousands of African Americans who fought their way into leadership positions in policy and government.
FWIW, the House did pass a resolution naming "Frank Sinatra Day," but that was in 2008 on the occasion of the release of a commemorative Sinatra stamp 10 years after his death. From what I can tell, Elvis didn't get an individual resolution, but was mentioned by name in a 2004 Senate resolution marking the 50th anniversary of rock 'n roll (as determined by the date of the earliest Sun Studios recordings). Another proposed Senate resolution in 2006 congratulated Graceland on being named a National Historic Landmark. Elvis died in 1977.
There's a reason that sports Halls of Fame require that an inductee be retired for a certain amount of time, and why the postal service won't put a living person on a stamp. It may be appropriate to honor Jackson with a resolution one day, but Congress should probably wait for the dust to settle first so that we can take a clear-eyed look at Jackson's legacy. If you ask me, Pelosi got this one right.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Jason Whitlock is a giant tool
There's a reason Jason Whitlock got axed from ESPN.com's stable of columnists. He's a sh*tty writer who thinks that page clicks = quality. Moreover, he's a dick.
In his column today for FoxSports.com (where he fits just perfectly), Whitlock complained about Serena Williams's performance in between rhapsodizing about the appropriate amount of "booty" on a woman- as judged by him, of course.
You can call me unfair. You can even scream that I'm sexist.
Okay. You're unfair. You're sexist. Your wimpy thesis that Williams's physical appearance is relevant because it's negatively impacting her performance is BS. In case you didn't notice, Serena Williams just won her third Wimbledon title (beating out her sister Venus). To me, that signifies a pretty damned hot athlete at the top of her game. But no, according to Whitlock, Serena's still too chunky.
She'd rather eat, half-ass her way through non-major tournaments and complain she's not getting the respect her 11-major-championships résumé demands. She complains about being ranked No. 2 in the world when she's not bitching on Twitter or her blog about new rules that forbid Wimbledon players from eating in the locker room. Seriously, how else can Serena fill out her size 16 shorts without grazing at her stall between matches?
Stall? Grazing? Are you frakking kidding me??? Heaven forbid a woman, an incredibly physically active woman, actually eat. Oh no, that would make her some sort of pack-animal or livestock.
Screw you, Jason Whitlock. Athletes should be judged as athletes by their in-game performance, not whether some hack sports columnist with a weird Jeff George fetish thinks she's as hot as Beyonce. If Whitlock has any doubt about Williams's physical ability, then he should challenge her to a bare-knuckle brawl. I'd pay to see that one.
In his column today for FoxSports.com (where he fits just perfectly), Whitlock complained about Serena Williams's performance in between rhapsodizing about the appropriate amount of "booty" on a woman- as judged by him, of course.
You can call me unfair. You can even scream that I'm sexist.
Okay. You're unfair. You're sexist. Your wimpy thesis that Williams's physical appearance is relevant because it's negatively impacting her performance is BS. In case you didn't notice, Serena Williams just won her third Wimbledon title (beating out her sister Venus). To me, that signifies a pretty damned hot athlete at the top of her game. But no, according to Whitlock, Serena's still too chunky.
She'd rather eat, half-ass her way through non-major tournaments and complain she's not getting the respect her 11-major-championships résumé demands. She complains about being ranked No. 2 in the world when she's not bitching on Twitter or her blog about new rules that forbid Wimbledon players from eating in the locker room. Seriously, how else can Serena fill out her size 16 shorts without grazing at her stall between matches?
Stall? Grazing? Are you frakking kidding me??? Heaven forbid a woman, an incredibly physically active woman, actually eat. Oh no, that would make her some sort of pack-animal or livestock.
Screw you, Jason Whitlock. Athletes should be judged as athletes by their in-game performance, not whether some hack sports columnist with a weird Jeff George fetish thinks she's as hot as Beyonce. If Whitlock has any doubt about Williams's physical ability, then he should challenge her to a bare-knuckle brawl. I'd pay to see that one.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Elkin soldier dies in Afghanistan
A soldier from Elkin, N.C., was killed in Afghanistan yesterday. Capt. Mark Garner graduated from Elkin High a year before I graduated from a high school across the county. He was one of seven soldiers killed in the attack. A few years ago, one of my good friends from high school died after an IED attack in Afghanistan.
And Michael Jackson is still the top story on CNN.com. I swear... I love my country, but there are times when I want to slap several million of its citizens.
And Michael Jackson is still the top story on CNN.com. I swear... I love my country, but there are times when I want to slap several million of its citizens.
Remembering Steve McNair
Mike Tanier has a truly wonderful piece up on Football Outsiders about Steve McNair, who was murdered over the weekend. Tanier explores the paradox of a player remembered most for the game he lost - the "one yard short" Super Bowl - who nevertheless was universally respected within the NFL for his legendary toughness.
It's interesting to me that CNN still has wall-to-wall coverage on Michael Jackson's untimely death almost two weeks after, but the MSM and public are all but silent on McNair. Yes, Jackson was a once-in-a-lifetime entertainer who was in the public eye for four decades. But is he more or less of a role-model to the African American community? After all, McNair was one of the only players from an HBCU selected in the first round of the draft. He was a black quarterback who almost won the Super Bowl four years before Rush Limbaugh made his controversial comments about the media giving special treatment to black QBs.
McNair may have had plenty of personal issues, but I choose to remember him as an athlete - a physically and mentally tough athlete and a born leader. My thoughts are with his family and the people who loved him.
It's interesting to me that CNN still has wall-to-wall coverage on Michael Jackson's untimely death almost two weeks after, but the MSM and public are all but silent on McNair. Yes, Jackson was a once-in-a-lifetime entertainer who was in the public eye for four decades. But is he more or less of a role-model to the African American community? After all, McNair was one of the only players from an HBCU selected in the first round of the draft. He was a black quarterback who almost won the Super Bowl four years before Rush Limbaugh made his controversial comments about the media giving special treatment to black QBs.
McNair may have had plenty of personal issues, but I choose to remember him as an athlete - a physically and mentally tough athlete and a born leader. My thoughts are with his family and the people who loved him.
Monday, July 6, 2009
CaringBridge
I wanted to draw attention to the Web site CaringBridge, which sets up free Web journals for families with a loved one undergoing medical treatment. Users can set up a site to provide updates, and friends and family can post messages of support in a guestbook. I think this is a great service.
Unfortunately, I learned of CaringBridge because the husband of one of my former classmates and co-workers was in a life-threatening accident at work last week. Please keep their family in your prayers, and support this wonderful site in the future. I plan to send them a donation as soon as I can.
Unfortunately, I learned of CaringBridge because the husband of one of my former classmates and co-workers was in a life-threatening accident at work last week. Please keep their family in your prayers, and support this wonderful site in the future. I plan to send them a donation as soon as I can.
Unsolicited advice for Gov. Palin: sit this next one out
So yesterday I wrote about the political historical context of Gov. Sarah Palin's resignation, concluding that stepping away from government would not - in and of itself - prevent her from successfully running for office again one day. But the particulars of this specific case change the game somewhat. Basically, Palin and her people need to tone down the crazy if she ever wants to have any credibility as a national political figure ever again.
For starters, having your attorney threaten a blogger/radio host with a libel suit - on the Fourth of July, no less - is overkill of the highest order. In a post on the governor's apparent resignation, Shannyn Moore wrote that rumors of an FBI investigation into Palin's finances had been swirling for months. She didn't say the rumors were true, she just reported on their existence. Then on Saturday, Palin's attorney released a letter refuting that Palin did anything improper with respect to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. That's actually a good idea, if you ask me - state the facts, nip it in the bud; the FBI's announcement that they're doing no such investigation only helps Palin out. This is where you want to stop talking and allow the story to disappear.
Unfortunately, the letter went on to mention Moore by name, and further threatening legal action against any mainstream media outlet that reported the existence of the rumors (none of which had done so... and all of which have since reported on the zany letter). The thing is, libel suits are incredibly hard to pull off even for an ordinary citzen. For a public figure, like a governor, there's a lot more latitude for criticism. In order for Palin to successfully sue Moore or anyone else, she would have to prove that Moore knew the information was false and published it anyway, AND that this caused definable damage to the governor's reputation. Palin would also have to do a deposition under oath, which is what got Bill Clinton in trouble.
Stupid, stupid idea. And to release a letter designed to cast a chill on free speech and freedom of the press on frakking Indepence Day is like bizarro PR - it's the worst possible message to send.
Of course, the people Palin was really trying to reach heard her loud and clear. The "poor pitiful me" act isn't going to gain her new fans in the moderate swath of the spectrum, but it does land right in the wheelhouse of those conservatives who already harbor a persecution complex. Which I guess makes Palin the right-wing version of Ralph Nader.
Palin isn't going to get anywhere if she continues to behave as though she's special and immune to the rules. Newsflash: there are entire actual Web sites devoted to proving that President Obama is the anti-Christ. There are people who are convinced that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, or that President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I don't recall Bush resigning over that, or Clinton slinking off where the wingnuts couldn't get to her. Criticism, both fair and unfair, is as much a part of holding elected office as sitting in boring meetings and kissing babies at campaign rallies.
As I wrote yesterday, it's entirely possible that a politician can buck the established M.O. and still succeed. But it won't happen for Gov. Palin if she insists on stacking the deck against herself.
In the immortal words of Paul Rudd in "Anchorman," "Why don't you sit this next one out? Stop talking for awhile."
For starters, having your attorney threaten a blogger/radio host with a libel suit - on the Fourth of July, no less - is overkill of the highest order. In a post on the governor's apparent resignation, Shannyn Moore wrote that rumors of an FBI investigation into Palin's finances had been swirling for months. She didn't say the rumors were true, she just reported on their existence. Then on Saturday, Palin's attorney released a letter refuting that Palin did anything improper with respect to the construction of the Wasilla Sports Complex. That's actually a good idea, if you ask me - state the facts, nip it in the bud; the FBI's announcement that they're doing no such investigation only helps Palin out. This is where you want to stop talking and allow the story to disappear.
Unfortunately, the letter went on to mention Moore by name, and further threatening legal action against any mainstream media outlet that reported the existence of the rumors (none of which had done so... and all of which have since reported on the zany letter). The thing is, libel suits are incredibly hard to pull off even for an ordinary citzen. For a public figure, like a governor, there's a lot more latitude for criticism. In order for Palin to successfully sue Moore or anyone else, she would have to prove that Moore knew the information was false and published it anyway, AND that this caused definable damage to the governor's reputation. Palin would also have to do a deposition under oath, which is what got Bill Clinton in trouble.
Stupid, stupid idea. And to release a letter designed to cast a chill on free speech and freedom of the press on frakking Indepence Day is like bizarro PR - it's the worst possible message to send.
Of course, the people Palin was really trying to reach heard her loud and clear. The "poor pitiful me" act isn't going to gain her new fans in the moderate swath of the spectrum, but it does land right in the wheelhouse of those conservatives who already harbor a persecution complex. Which I guess makes Palin the right-wing version of Ralph Nader.
Palin isn't going to get anywhere if she continues to behave as though she's special and immune to the rules. Newsflash: there are entire actual Web sites devoted to proving that President Obama is the anti-Christ. There are people who are convinced that Hillary Clinton had Vince Foster killed, or that President Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened. I don't recall Bush resigning over that, or Clinton slinking off where the wingnuts couldn't get to her. Criticism, both fair and unfair, is as much a part of holding elected office as sitting in boring meetings and kissing babies at campaign rallies.
As I wrote yesterday, it's entirely possible that a politician can buck the established M.O. and still succeed. But it won't happen for Gov. Palin if she insists on stacking the deck against herself.
In the immortal words of Paul Rudd in "Anchorman," "Why don't you sit this next one out? Stop talking for awhile."
Sunday, July 5, 2009
We won't have Sarah Palin to kick around anymore
Every time I go on vacation, something weird and big-time newsworthy happens - the London bus bombing, the taking-out of Saddam Hussein's sons. This time (Friday afternoon) it was Gov. Sarah Palin announcing that, not only will she not run for re-election as Alaska's governor, but that she'll be stepping down at the end of July with almost two years remaining in her term.
There's been a good deal of speculation about why Palin is leaving now - big scandal? family problems? (I hope for the Palins' sake that neither of those are true.) Personally, I think Palin learned a great deal from running with Sen. McCain last year, and she doesn't see the point in toiling away and battling her legislature for another three years when she could be building her national profile (and making big bucks on appearances in the process). Surely Palin looks at Barack Obama - another young, charismatic regional politician who managed to overcome a relative lack of experience and win the presidency - and asks herself, why not me?
I can see why she would think that. But the thing to remember is that Obama got incredibly lucky (luck = preparation + opportunity). His opponent in the 2004 Senate race self-destructed; his freshness landed him a huge platform at that year's Democratic convention, where he was pretty much the only bright spot; he had the fortune of being the new kid running against several establishment candidates in a year when many Americans couldn't wait to throw out the old guard. Palin could easily follow that path.
But she could also end up like John Edwards, another talented pol who jumped the gun but didn't get lucky (not the way I mean, at least). Rudy Giuliani was another one who stepped out of politics for a few years and then found that his ship had sailed. Every now and then you can get away with leaving the limelight for a time and then, at the right moment, making a comeback. I think that's what Newt Gingrich is trying to do now, for instance.
But what this situation reminds me of more than anything is Richard Nixon's trajectory. He dutifully climbed the ladder up the legislature to vice president, then just barely lost to JFK in 1960. After losing the California governor's election in 1964, Nixon announced that he was quitting politics for good. Like Palin, he was tired of being kicked around. But then four years later Nixon emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president. (Kind of like the Obama-Clinton primary battle, Nixon was almost tied with Ronald Reagan in the popular vote, but Nixon got more delegates.)
Palin would do well to study how Nixon did it. His timing was right - LBJ was almost as unpopular in 1968 as George W. Bush was last year - but he was also able to position himself as the more moderate Republican, the voice of the "silent majority" frustrated with rising crime, the war in Vietnam and those darn hippies. Reagan was the hard-right conservative... and Reagan lost. In the general election, George Wallace stepped in as a conservative third-party candidate, again allowing Nixon to appeal to the wide swath of voters in the middle.
So I'm not ready to write off Sarah Palin. I think she's capable of being an extraordinarily gifted politician, but she's got to do two things: a) grow a thicker skin (you think the Clintons didn't want to go off on Rush Limbaugh when he called their daughter the White House dog?); and b) LISTEN. Listen to voters who may not agree with you on every issue, listen to leaders who know more than you do, and above all, listen to your PR people. (I know I'm biased, but c'mon - we're professionals, and we can help you look your best if you will let us.) Fire the syncophants who kiss your ass and hire someone who's not afraid to tell you what you don't want to hear. And then trust that person.
All right, good luck.
There's been a good deal of speculation about why Palin is leaving now - big scandal? family problems? (I hope for the Palins' sake that neither of those are true.) Personally, I think Palin learned a great deal from running with Sen. McCain last year, and she doesn't see the point in toiling away and battling her legislature for another three years when she could be building her national profile (and making big bucks on appearances in the process). Surely Palin looks at Barack Obama - another young, charismatic regional politician who managed to overcome a relative lack of experience and win the presidency - and asks herself, why not me?
I can see why she would think that. But the thing to remember is that Obama got incredibly lucky (luck = preparation + opportunity). His opponent in the 2004 Senate race self-destructed; his freshness landed him a huge platform at that year's Democratic convention, where he was pretty much the only bright spot; he had the fortune of being the new kid running against several establishment candidates in a year when many Americans couldn't wait to throw out the old guard. Palin could easily follow that path.
But she could also end up like John Edwards, another talented pol who jumped the gun but didn't get lucky (not the way I mean, at least). Rudy Giuliani was another one who stepped out of politics for a few years and then found that his ship had sailed. Every now and then you can get away with leaving the limelight for a time and then, at the right moment, making a comeback. I think that's what Newt Gingrich is trying to do now, for instance.
But what this situation reminds me of more than anything is Richard Nixon's trajectory. He dutifully climbed the ladder up the legislature to vice president, then just barely lost to JFK in 1960. After losing the California governor's election in 1964, Nixon announced that he was quitting politics for good. Like Palin, he was tired of being kicked around. But then four years later Nixon emerged as the front-runner for the Republican nomination for president. (Kind of like the Obama-Clinton primary battle, Nixon was almost tied with Ronald Reagan in the popular vote, but Nixon got more delegates.)
Palin would do well to study how Nixon did it. His timing was right - LBJ was almost as unpopular in 1968 as George W. Bush was last year - but he was also able to position himself as the more moderate Republican, the voice of the "silent majority" frustrated with rising crime, the war in Vietnam and those darn hippies. Reagan was the hard-right conservative... and Reagan lost. In the general election, George Wallace stepped in as a conservative third-party candidate, again allowing Nixon to appeal to the wide swath of voters in the middle.
So I'm not ready to write off Sarah Palin. I think she's capable of being an extraordinarily gifted politician, but she's got to do two things: a) grow a thicker skin (you think the Clintons didn't want to go off on Rush Limbaugh when he called their daughter the White House dog?); and b) LISTEN. Listen to voters who may not agree with you on every issue, listen to leaders who know more than you do, and above all, listen to your PR people. (I know I'm biased, but c'mon - we're professionals, and we can help you look your best if you will let us.) Fire the syncophants who kiss your ass and hire someone who's not afraid to tell you what you don't want to hear. And then trust that person.
All right, good luck.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
It's that time again!
Ours was a road-tripping family, albeit one that prized depth above pure distance covered. On one of our backwoods journeys, my youngest sister (at the time still answering to "Lizard Breath") noticed a sign for whatever podunk town we were passing through which listed the town's population (in the hundreds, if memory serves). Lizard asked, innocently enough, how they knew how many people lived in a town. I explained that, every 10 years, our government sent people to every house in the country to count people, and also to find out other demographic info.
To which she said, "Yeah, right." Yes, the child who managed to convince her best friend's parents that our dad was related to the Beach Boys found the prospect of the U.S. Census to be just a little too far-fetched. It took the surveyers coming around in the flesh in 2000 to finally convince her.
In her defense, she was in elementary school at the time. I don't at all blame a small child for being skeptical of the census. But when nationally televised columnists and actual U.S. Congresspeople get in on the act, I have to shake my head. WTF?
So, apparently there are a fair number of right-wingers who are convinced that the 2010 census (now hiring!) is an Obama/socialist/new world order plot to take their guns... or something. Look, there have been serious problems with the accuracy of the census in the past, and - as with any government agency - there's potential for politics to interject. But it's kinda required by the Constitution. If Michelle Bachman has ideas about how to improve the census, she's in a position to do that with legislation - not by ranting on TV.
Haven't the wingnuts thought this through? Don't they know that the census is the primary tool for assigning Congressional districts (the House of Representatives is and always has been based on population) and all-important Electoral College votes? So, NOT filling out your census form (aside from being against the law and a healthy 210-odd years of legal precedent) is pretty damned counter-productive.
Think it through: you, a hard-core small-government anti-Obama conservative trash your form. The worst-case scenario has you firing your assault rifle at the census-taker and inciting the next Ruby Ridge. Best case: congratulations, now the government doesn't know you exist. Your Congressman and Electoral vote now go to, say, my Obama-lovin' district down here in N.C. where me and the other Young Dems have made damn sure that everybody is counted. Don't you feel better already?
Sweet merciful Jesus, what's happened to the Republican party in this country??? I, a flaming liberal, am downright begging you to stand up and contribute some ideas to fix our country, and please please pretty please take your party back from these idiots that would have you go the way of the Whigs. You deserve better than leaders who are only going to scream at you about flash-in-the-pan "issue of the week" BS that does NOTHING to advance your philosophy.
If our positions were reversed - if I were a GOPer watching the Dems fan the crazy - I'd probably be encouraging it, or at the least sitting back, watching and smirking. But this is bad for our country, people. We've got two wars to manage, a climate change bill that just cleared the House, president-mandated health care reform and a continually shaky economy. Going all apesh*t conspiracy theory on one of the oldest traditions in our country (one that arguably does more than any other to promote our direct representation) is just stupid. The census-bashers need to grow the hell up.
To which she said, "Yeah, right." Yes, the child who managed to convince her best friend's parents that our dad was related to the Beach Boys found the prospect of the U.S. Census to be just a little too far-fetched. It took the surveyers coming around in the flesh in 2000 to finally convince her.
In her defense, she was in elementary school at the time. I don't at all blame a small child for being skeptical of the census. But when nationally televised columnists and actual U.S. Congresspeople get in on the act, I have to shake my head. WTF?
So, apparently there are a fair number of right-wingers who are convinced that the 2010 census (now hiring!) is an Obama/socialist/new world order plot to take their guns... or something. Look, there have been serious problems with the accuracy of the census in the past, and - as with any government agency - there's potential for politics to interject. But it's kinda required by the Constitution. If Michelle Bachman has ideas about how to improve the census, she's in a position to do that with legislation - not by ranting on TV.
Haven't the wingnuts thought this through? Don't they know that the census is the primary tool for assigning Congressional districts (the House of Representatives is and always has been based on population) and all-important Electoral College votes? So, NOT filling out your census form (aside from being against the law and a healthy 210-odd years of legal precedent) is pretty damned counter-productive.
Think it through: you, a hard-core small-government anti-Obama conservative trash your form. The worst-case scenario has you firing your assault rifle at the census-taker and inciting the next Ruby Ridge. Best case: congratulations, now the government doesn't know you exist. Your Congressman and Electoral vote now go to, say, my Obama-lovin' district down here in N.C. where me and the other Young Dems have made damn sure that everybody is counted. Don't you feel better already?
Sweet merciful Jesus, what's happened to the Republican party in this country??? I, a flaming liberal, am downright begging you to stand up and contribute some ideas to fix our country, and please please pretty please take your party back from these idiots that would have you go the way of the Whigs. You deserve better than leaders who are only going to scream at you about flash-in-the-pan "issue of the week" BS that does NOTHING to advance your philosophy.
If our positions were reversed - if I were a GOPer watching the Dems fan the crazy - I'd probably be encouraging it, or at the least sitting back, watching and smirking. But this is bad for our country, people. We've got two wars to manage, a climate change bill that just cleared the House, president-mandated health care reform and a continually shaky economy. Going all apesh*t conspiracy theory on one of the oldest traditions in our country (one that arguably does more than any other to promote our direct representation) is just stupid. The census-bashers need to grow the hell up.
Maybe $400 grand will get their attention
... because a court-designated threat leaving a note for his future victims reading "I will kill you" was apparently too subtle.
A domestic abuse survivor who sued the Jonesville, N.C., police department that she claimed failed to enforce a protection order has settled with the city for $430,000. Unfortunately, the settlement doesn't require the city to admit any wrongdoing, which - bureacratically speaking - means they aren't compelled to actually change anything about how they handle DV cases.
The comments to this article on the Journal's Web site bring up victim-blaming (thankfully shot down promptly) and also a sort of defense of the husband/father in the case. He was "a hard-working, respectable and loving father" while the wife/mother (who filed the protection order) was "bitter" and "unfriendly," according to this commenter. Sure, he/she's right that none of us were there. But the facts show that a judge thought there was enough cause to issue the order in the first place, and that Richard Ellerbe DID stab to death his own daughter and wound his wife before killing himself.
In cases of alleged sexual assault or DV, I freely admit that I'm biased toward the alleged victim. And I have to be aware of that bias, especially since I also personally know men who've been falsely accused of abusing their partners. While I can cite a handful of cases where men were railroaded, the overwhelming tendency is for law enforcement to blow off cases that involve violence against women (something I know both from personal experience and from national trends).
Any case involving intimate partner violence can be difficult for a cop to understand, because of their (the cases') nature. Why didn't you leave? Why did you talk to him? Why did you let him in your house? What was it that made you so scared of him? The answers to these questions can be impossible to articulate, and I can sympathize with police officers who are asked to build a case with only those answers as evidence.
But in this case, that wasn't all they had. I say again, a judge (a Yadkin County judge, at that) thought that the danger to Ms. Cockerham was real enough to warrant a restraining order. The Jonesville police failed to enforce that order even after repeated threats from Ms. Cockerham's estranged husband - whatever their reasons. (And trust me, it's not like Jonesville is the crime capital of the universe. Next to DV, their biggest problem is 15 year-olds shoplifting beer.) And now two people are dead, and a family devastated.
Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call to law enforcement agencies that seriously need to re-evaluate how they handle cases of partner violence - including DV and sexual assault, almost 90 percent of which are committed by someone known to the victim. They need to be educated that most of these cases aren't going to be as clear-cut as, say, a robbery. But they're still crimes, and their victims still deserve justice.
A domestic abuse survivor who sued the Jonesville, N.C., police department that she claimed failed to enforce a protection order has settled with the city for $430,000. Unfortunately, the settlement doesn't require the city to admit any wrongdoing, which - bureacratically speaking - means they aren't compelled to actually change anything about how they handle DV cases.
The comments to this article on the Journal's Web site bring up victim-blaming (thankfully shot down promptly) and also a sort of defense of the husband/father in the case. He was "a hard-working, respectable and loving father" while the wife/mother (who filed the protection order) was "bitter" and "unfriendly," according to this commenter. Sure, he/she's right that none of us were there. But the facts show that a judge thought there was enough cause to issue the order in the first place, and that Richard Ellerbe DID stab to death his own daughter and wound his wife before killing himself.
In cases of alleged sexual assault or DV, I freely admit that I'm biased toward the alleged victim. And I have to be aware of that bias, especially since I also personally know men who've been falsely accused of abusing their partners. While I can cite a handful of cases where men were railroaded, the overwhelming tendency is for law enforcement to blow off cases that involve violence against women (something I know both from personal experience and from national trends).
Any case involving intimate partner violence can be difficult for a cop to understand, because of their (the cases') nature. Why didn't you leave? Why did you talk to him? Why did you let him in your house? What was it that made you so scared of him? The answers to these questions can be impossible to articulate, and I can sympathize with police officers who are asked to build a case with only those answers as evidence.
But in this case, that wasn't all they had. I say again, a judge (a Yadkin County judge, at that) thought that the danger to Ms. Cockerham was real enough to warrant a restraining order. The Jonesville police failed to enforce that order even after repeated threats from Ms. Cockerham's estranged husband - whatever their reasons. (And trust me, it's not like Jonesville is the crime capital of the universe. Next to DV, their biggest problem is 15 year-olds shoplifting beer.) And now two people are dead, and a family devastated.
Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call to law enforcement agencies that seriously need to re-evaluate how they handle cases of partner violence - including DV and sexual assault, almost 90 percent of which are committed by someone known to the victim. They need to be educated that most of these cases aren't going to be as clear-cut as, say, a robbery. But they're still crimes, and their victims still deserve justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)