I MUSt comment on this one...

It has been a long time since my last diatribe. Incredibly, the world continues to spin, the war in Iraq continues, the Knicks are a lottery team, celebrities continue to enter and exit rehab clinics, and I still enjoy the occasional beer...

I suppose I could have blogged about Anna Nicole Smith, the diaper-wearing astronaut (who, by the way, owes Anna quite a bit...absent Anna's untimely drug-induced death, diaper-wearing astronaut had AT LEAST another 13 minutes of fame left on the clock...), the captured British seapeople and their ill-fitting Iranian suits, the NCAA tournament, spring training, Africa's continuing lack of moral clarity as illustrated by Mugabe's continued rule, the upcoming French election, Joe Biden's Obama-related snafu, my search for a plasma/LCD television, my first six months of marriage, the U.S. attorney firings, or just about anything else that folks blog about. Nope...no blogs in four months.

Finally, however, a story is out there that compelled me to log on (log in?) and make my thoughts known to the world (i.e., the handful of folks who might actually check this on a bi-monthly basis). Yes...it's the I-man himself, Don Imus.

I'll start by disclosing that I listened to Imus during middle school. In those days, he did skits of Mike Tyson, Wilford Brimley, Daniel Ortega and, most famously, Manuel Noriega. Suffice it to say that this was classic stuff...Imus made fun of these characters using heavily accentuated accents, and augmented this with some pretty racy content. In my post-college years, I switched to Howard Stern, and listened until he left terrestrial radio. During the past year and change, I've returned to Imus (Howard bolted to pay radio...I'm not there yet).

Imus is funny, quick, political, acerbic, caring, engaging and challenging. While I've never met Imus, I'm convinced that he's no racist. There is no disputing his incredible efforts over the years to raise money for numerous important social causes. He's supported minority candidates for office, and trashed politicians of all stripes, women, men, gays, lesbians, the pope, the president, the Knicks, the mayor, etc. In short, Imus is an equal opportunity bad-mouther, and someone who has devoted an inordinate amount of time towards raising money for the less fortunate.

After digesting all of the recent media coverage related to his recent comments, here are my thoughts on the issue:

1) The comments Imus made about the Rutgers basketball team last week were harsh and uncalled for. These are young women who are NOT in the public realm like politicians, celebrities and television personalities...he doesn't know them, and they didn't deserve the comments. You're a fair target when you're in the spotlight, but these girls don't fall into that category. Imus owes them a significant apology, and his suspension is warranted.

2) Imus has a point about context. His comments were made on a comedy show, in a comedic and off-hand fashion. To equate his comments with those of Michael (Kramer) Richards is unfair.

3) There's a double standard here. One need only turn on B.E.T. for 30 seconds to catch equally degrading commentary and visual images of women. Has anyone seen the video for "I Make It Rain" lately? (“Yeah I’m in this business of terror Got a handful of stacks better grab an umbrella, I make it rain, (I make it rain), I make it rain on them hoes I make it rain, (I make It rain), I make it rain on them hoes I make it rain, (I make it rain), I make it rain on them hoes I make it rain (I make it rain), I make it rain on them hoes”).

How about the Black Sheep album? Wouldn't the African-American community be well-served (and better-served) if even 10% of this outrage over Imus' comments was instead directed at the endless flow of hateful sexist lyrics in rap music? Why is it that a 60-someodd year old white guy is the one who causes all of the outrage? His words are far less influential in the African-American community than those of Nelly, Fat Joe and others. (On the other side of the coin, that Tim Hardaway story went away pretty quickly, didn’t it? I don’t recall the “national conversation on the treatment of gay people” after that one…did I miss something?)

4) Where do people like Al Sharpton (Tawana Brawley scandal) and Whoopi Goldberg (Ted Danson in blackface) get off pontificating on CNN and NBC about this? How can these two call for Imus' firing when they've been embroiled in equally (if not more offensive) behavior in the past? (And what’s up with “Reverend” Sharpton and Jackson not embracing a bit of forgiveness here?)

5) This story will eventually blow over when the next one comes along. We had diaper-wearing astronaut, Anna Nicole, and now Imus. These stories are driven by the media and media-seeking individuals. I mean, who even knew Sharpton had a radio show until Imus appeared on it?

Thanks to Kerry

John Kerry obviously reads my haphazard posts here. As you'll recall, my prior post suggested quick, powerful, and decisive rebuttals when Democrats get tarred and feathered with the "they-hate-the-country,-our-troops,-our-freedom-and-love-the-terrorists-and-hope-they-win" tag.

Sure enough, after omitting a few words from a recent joke, John Kerry, the war veteran, was SLAMMED by the right for hating the troops and hating America. For example:

"It was just deplorable for John Kerry to make those comments." -- George Allen.

"insulting and it is shameful. The members of the United States military are plenty smart and they are plenty brave and the senator from Massachusetts owes them an apology." -- George Bush.

Kerry, though, had this to say in response: “If anyone thinks a veteran would criticize the more than 140,000 heroes serving in Iraq and not the president who got us stuck there, they're crazy. This is the classic GOP playbook. I’m sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I’m not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium, or doughy Rush Limbaugh, who no doubt today will take a break from belittling Michael J. Fox’s Parkinson’s disease to start lying about me just as they have lied about Iraq. It disgusts me that these Republican hacks, who have never worn the uniform of our country lie and distort so blatantly and carelessly about those who have. The people who owe our troops an apology are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it. These Republicans are afraid to debate veterans who live and breathe the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans of an Administration that sent our brave troops to war without body armor. Bottom line, these Republicans want to debate straw men because they’re afraid to debate real men. And this time it won’t work because we’re going to stay in their face with the truth and deny them even a sliver of light for their distortions. No Democrat will be bullied by an administration that has a cut and run policy in Afghanistan and a stand still and lose strategy in Iraq.”

BAM! Now THAT'S a defense. I love it...I think it's about time that the Democrats stood up and took charge. Of course, Kerry later apologized, but I'm glad to see he's reading my post.

We've Reached This Point...

(Away from blogging for a while...had to get married. Back on as we head towards the midterm elections).

I just read an article on CNN.com which contained the following passage:

"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party, it sounds like -- it sounds like -- they think the best way to protect the American people is, wait until we're attacked again," Bush said Monday at a $360,000 fundraiser in Reno, Nevada, for state Secretary of State Dean Heller's congressional campaign.

Have we really reached this disturbing point in politics? Have we actually reached the point where the president will say such things...things that many in Nevada and other parts of the country will nod their heads in agreement to? Things that serve no purpose other than the reinforcement of "weenie Democrats" stereotypes?

Statements like this are more than blatant lies...they are downright infuriating. Democrats should be up in arms, pounding their fists on television shows across the country, demanding that Bush retract such statements. These angry reactions will have two separate and important results. First, they will expose Bush as an individual hell-bent on inappropriately exploiting 9/11 and the fears of the American public for Republican gain. Second, a swift, direct and angry response will illustrate the complete folly of such a categorization. It will establish Democrats as more than spineless liberals who won't stand up and punch back when punched. On the other hand, the failure of Democrats to fight back when feathered and tarred like this only lends credence (albeit unjustified) to such broad categorizations.

This is no different than the Pope's recent comments about Islam...and an outspoken and clear response condemning such comments will serve Democrats well. (Obviously, certain aspects of the Pope's comments and resulting actions don't hold water in this context).

These comments are all the more incredible when viewed through the lens of what Republicans have been doing in the House lately...need I say more than "Representative Mark Foley," "e-mail" and "inappropriate"?

Give to those who don't need...and take from those who need

I've posted about this incredible situation in the past, but I felt compelled to do so again today after reading about the Department of Homeland Security's latest division of protective funds to the various states and cities. Specifically, the following passage in the NY Times was the red flag of all red flags:

"Over all, New York State will get $183.7 million, a 20 percent drop from last year. That means that the state's per capita share of grant money, which totals $2.78 a person, will drop to an even lower level compared with some rural states, like Wyoming, which will get $14.83 a person this year, according to a calculation by Representative Carolyn B. Maloney, Democrat of New York."

This is unacceptable. For all of the repeated rhetoric about keeping Americans safe in these crazy terrorist times, this division of safety funds is a complete tip-of-the hat to the power of local politicians to pull money to their states and districts, and completely disregards any levelheaded view on threats to the American public. Even a level distribution on a per-capita basis would be better than this, although it STILL wouldn't take into account any disparity in the level of threat to various US cities and states. Amazing.

Instead of trying to rectify dangerous imbalances, however, Republicans spend their time doing everything in their power to entrench additional dangerous imbalances by voting (10-8 in the Senate's Judiciary Committee) for a Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

What an amazing contrast...we give federal protective funds to those who don't need them, and ensure that we don't give certain freedoms enjoyed by heterosexuals to homosexuals.

Couric to CBS...

...in other news, I found $.37 underneath my sofa cushions last night while I was looking for the remote control to the television.

O.K...I suppose that's a bit harsh, but come on. Why is the news absolutely dominated by the fact that Katie Couric is going to do the CBS Evening News? I know, I know...people point out that it's a big deal for a woman to jump into the nightly news chair. But didn't Connine Chung do the news with Dan Rather years ago? Who watches the evening news anyway? Who even gets home at 6:30 to have the CHANCE to watch it? Furthermore, is it REALLY that big of a deal to sit in a silent room and read a teleprompter for 17 minutes? I'm sure I could do it. It's not like the anchor has to answer questions on the fly, analyze difficult issues, or do anything for that matter, other than look pretty and read a television screen. What's even more remarkable is the attention being given to the void created by Couric's departure. "HEADLINE: VIEIRA TO LEAVE THE VIEW FOR NBC'S TODAY SHOW!!" Headline to those who write headlines...I don't care. What's next, CNN reporting the latest Idol castoff? (Actually, I think I saw that last week). In short, when issues associated with reporting of the news become the actual news itself, we've got a problem. The real issues and stories are obscured by a fixation on the method in which they're presented.

A final thought...does CBS get total bang for its buck by not allowing Couric to show off her legs every 15 seconds a la the Today Show? Maybe they'll install a glass desk so viewers can see them.

A final final thought...I'm looking forward to seeing how the Republicans deal with the news that Presdient Bush authorized the leaking of certain information related to the Iraq WMD issue, according to papers filed in the Libby case this afternoon. This ought to be great spin.

I'm Sorry You Shot Me

I read the following line in this morning's New York Post:

"'My family and I are deeply sorry for all that Vice President Cheney and his family have had to go through this past week,' said Whittington, clad in a jacket and tie for his hospital exit."

WHAT??!! This guy gets a quarter pounder without the cheese worth of buckshot in his face and HE FEELS SORRY for Vice Shooter? (Thanks, Maureen Dowd). What has the Vice President had to go through other than answering questions regarding the fact that he SHOT SOMEONE IN THE FACE? Boy, you'd think someone got some illicit oral sex around here with all the fuss that's been made...

Of course, Republican spinsters adopted the party line that this is no big deal, isn't a story, etc. (Jon Stewart puts together the best montage scenes with every talking head repeating these lines all day on Fox, etc. Fox, of course, then covers the Neil Entwistle case ad nauseum. VP shoots someone? No big deal. Some random guy shoots people? Big deal.).

Well, this is a story for two reasons. First, as all politicians should know by now, when a story leaks out and the response is repeated silence, people are going to dig for answers. Second, this is an event which has only happened ONE OTHER TIME in history! Vice President Burr, Vice President Shooter, Alexander Hamilton, and....some old ass Republican guy from Texas...all in the club now. Nice.

Snoopy Never Burned Down A KFC

Some thoughts on the cartoon situation:

1) This is a classic case where we have two values which may be considered as a zero sum game...freedom of speech and sensitivity to other cultures...in this case (but not always), they run directly against each other. When this happens (see abortion), we're bound to have a tough time drawing the line.

2) Newspapers, at least in this country (along with Denmark and other European countries), clearly have the RIGHT to publish the cartoons under the law as it stands. I'm all for that. Free speech should be curtailed only to the extent absolutely necessary (i.e. no "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, no "so-and-so is a ho" ads on the front of the NY Times when, in fact, so-and-so is not a ho, etc.)

3) Newspapers also, of course, have the right NOT to publish the cartoons for fear of offending (and, based on enough CNN watching, getting stoned or lit on fire) others.

4) The reaction of the individuals offended by the published cartoons is, in many ways, a separate and distinct topic of conversation. On that front, however, I believe that those who have burned American businesses down have acted completely out of line. In some sense, it bolsters the message being sent by the cartoons.

5) The U.S. reaction was very lame. I understand that while we've got troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's tough to come out and support these cartoons. On the other hand, for our government NOT to come out and also support the RIGHT to publish the cartoons (vs. supporting the decision to actually publish them) is unacceptable.

6) The closest analogy I can come up with here is flag burning. Many in our country want to make it illegal because the flag is such a sacred symbol. However, I see people burning the flag in the Middle East every day, and I don't set fire to the local 7-Eleven (Japanese owned, actually, but you get the idea). The point is twofold. (a) Even those in this country who support a total ban on flag burning don't riot when we see American flags drenched in gasoline on television; (b) Although I may not like seeing it, I fully support the right of people around the world to burn the American flag, and I also support the right of editors around the world to publish the cartoons at issue.

7) The decision to publish is sure to have consequences.