mattguiney

I MUSt comment on this one...

2007-04-11T09:27:00.000-07:00

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

2006-11-03T11:42:00.000-08:00

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...

2006-10-03T11:26:00.000-07:00

(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

2006-06-01T09:12:00.000-07:00

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...

2006-04-06T12:04:00.000-07:00

...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

2006-02-18T10:39:00.000-08:00

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

2006-02-17T11:22:00.000-08:00

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.

9-11 in History

2006-01-28T16:01:00.000-08:00

Joseph Ellils wrote, in my humble opinion, a fantastic op-ed in today's NYT. It's late on Saturday, I'm at work, and heading to drink beers, so rather than summarize it, I'll just post the whole thing below. Not long, and well worth a read. Disclaimer - Joseph Ellis is a W&M graduate and also gave the commencement address at my graduation -- a great one at that.

Finding a Place for 9/11 in American History
By JOSEPH J. ELLIS
Amherst, Mass.
IN recent weeks, President Bush and his administration have mounted a spirited defense of his Iraq policy, the Patriot Act and, especially, a program to wiretap civilians, often reaching back into American history for precedents to justify these actions. It is clear that the president believes that he is acting to protect the security of the American people. It is equally clear that both his belief and the executive authority he claims to justify its use derive from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

A myriad of contested questions are obviously at issue here — foreign policy questions about the danger posed by Iraq, constitutional questions about the proper limits on executive authority, even political questions about the president's motives in attacking Iraq. But all of those debates are playing out under the shadow of Sept. 11 and the tremendous changes that it prompted in both foreign and domestic policy.

Whether or not we can regard Sept. 11 as history, I would like to raise two historical questions about the terrorist attacks of that horrific day. My goal is not to offer definitive answers but rather to invite a serious debate about whether Sept. 11 deserves the historical significance it has achieved.

My first question: where does Sept. 11 rank in the grand sweep of American history as a threat to national security? By my calculations it does not make the top tier of the list, which requires the threat to pose a serious challenge to the survival of the American republic.
Here is my version of the top tier: the War for Independence, where defeat meant no United States of America; the War of 1812, when the national capital was burned to the ground; the Civil War, which threatened the survival of the Union; World War II, which represented a totalitarian threat to democracy and capitalism; the cold war, most specifically the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which made nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility.

Sept. 11 does not rise to that level of threat because, while it places lives and lifestyles at risk, it does not threaten the survival of the American republic, even though the terrorists would like us to believe so.

My second question is this: What does history tell us about our earlier responses to traumatic events?

My list of precedents for the Patriot Act and government wiretapping of American citizens would include the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, which allowed the federal government to close newspapers and deport foreigners during the "quasi-war" with France; the denial of habeas corpus during the Civil War, which permitted the pre-emptive arrest of suspected Southern sympathizers; the Red Scare of 1919, which emboldened the attorney general to round up leftist critics in the wake of the Russian Revolution; the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, which was justified on the grounds that their ancestry made them potential threats to national security; the McCarthy scare of the early 1950's, which used cold war anxieties to pursue a witch hunt against putative Communists in government, universities and the film industry.

In retrospect, none of these domestic responses to perceived national security threats looks justifiable. Every history textbook I know describes them as lamentable, excessive, even embarrassing. Some very distinguished American presidents, including John Adams, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, succumbed to quite genuine and widespread popular fears. No historian or biographer has argued that these were their finest hours.

What Patrick Henry once called "the lamp of experience" needs to be brought into the shadowy space in which we have all been living since Sept. 11. My tentative conclusion is that the light it sheds exposes the ghosts and goblins of our traumatized imaginations. It is completely understandable that those who lost loved ones on that date will carry emotional scars for the remainder of their lives. But it defies reason and experience to make Sept. 11 the defining influence on our foreign and domestic policy. History suggests that we have faced greater challenges and triumphed, and that overreaction is a greater danger than complacency.

Antonio "Stands" Tall

2006-01-20T10:36:00.000-08:00

Some thoughts on the Antonio Davis suspension:

1) On the spectrum of "NBA Players Going Into The Stands," this one is at the very end of the spectrum...a 2.0 on a scale of 1 to 10. The Pacers-Pistons game was an 8.5 or 9. I'd save a 1.0 (least egregious) for a player heading into the stands to rescue a baby from a burning seat (building) situation.

2) That being said, the NBA has come down on players for so many reasons, and created so many rules, that they have to show some consistency. It's like mom and dad punishing sister for doing a line of cocaine off of her parents' bed, setting strict ground rules for the entire family as a result, and then being faced with son's curfew violation -- they've got to look consistent, or else they look weak and invite sister to repeat her violation.

3) $630,000 for five games? That's like 15 rebounds...TOTAL. Holy shit! Who knew a 37 year old role player could make so much loot? There's a lot to be said for NFL-style contracts, rather than the guaranteed variety of the NBA.

4) Great Joke Warning - I heard Artest was schtooping Antonio's wife, and he wanted to have a word with him in person...O!

The Queen of Pandering

2006-01-17T20:29:00.000-08:00

For over a year now, I've told anyone and everyone who will listen that Mrs. Clinton is going to be the next president. I've also heard repeatedly about how she's too much of a panderer. The last few weeks have highlighted what I've heard (rather than what I've spouted). Specifically, in the past few weeks, I've seen Hilary push a flag-burning amendment and refer to the House as a 'plantation' on MLK Day.

In short, it's truly amazing that Hillary's folks (or Hillary herself) allow her to support such radical (on both ends) views in a blatant attempt to sell herself to as many people as possible.

After all of the deception of the past five years, it's going to take a candidate who doesn't come across as such a panderer to win in 2008...I'm beginning to think that the past few weeks show that Hillary's camp doesn't understand this very basic point.

Three More Years!

2006-01-11T10:10:00.000-08:00

It's the new year...2006. It's supposed to be cold and windy...just the sort of weather that surrounds crowds of people in front of the Capitol every four years when a new president is sworn in. Unfortunately, that cold day of change (or continuity) is three years away. After reflecting on that fact this morning, I thought, in a very introspective way, HOLY F-ING SHIT!

The fact that we have to deal with the current president for another three long years is truly awful. Our standing in the world hasn't been lower in a long time...matter of fact, when WAS the last time it was so bad? Torture, suspension of rights of our own citizens, wiretapping without authorization, kickbacks, investigation leaks...they've been written about ad nauseum for varying lenghts of time. In addition, I truly believe that the current president has the mental capacity of the little fish swimming in the little bowl in my living room. His overly simplistic approach to each and every situation, not to mention his first-grade level answers to each and every question I've ever heard him answer send shivers up my spine. If I hear that he spent his vacation clearing brush at the Crawford Ranch (the one he bought just before he became president) one more time, I'm gonna puke. (Can't he get a brush-clearer to do that stuff? Shouldn't he be clearing Africa of AIDS, the Middle East of terrorists?)

Rather than continuing to bemoan the fact that I'd put money on the Chinatown Chicken to beat Bush in a game of tic tac toe each and every time, I'll try to look forward and be positive. In short, can anything be done to calm my nerves and salvage the next three years, short of moving to Iceland? Here are a few suggestions:

1) Attempt to help the process in Israel and Palestine. As a lame duck, he's got nothing to lose at this point. Obviously, Sharon's health is a MAJOR issue now, but we'd help our standing as well as the standing of others if we got involved more that sending Condi to open a road.
2) Attempt to help the situation in Africa. Someone mentioned this in the Times the other day. Actually, didn't Bush propose a large initiative a few years ago? What happened to that?
3)Stop clinging to the insane notion that FISA somehow puts a crimp in the administration's ability to monitor phone calls.
4)Get rid of Vice. He's a bad influence.

Silencing Stereotypes.

2005-10-26T09:08:00.000-07:00

I've read the following articles (summarized, with a link to the actual article) during the past several months, and followed any controversies associated:

1) Air Force coach cites lack of minority players for struggles - coach attributed the latest loss in part to No. 20 TCU's having more black players who "can run very, very well." Story at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=2203926

2) The high intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews may be a result of their persecuted past - suggests that one group of humanity is more intelligent than the others, but explains the process that has brought this about. The group in question are Ashkenazi Jews. Story at http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4032638 and
http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/culture/features/1478/

3) Lawrence Summers, President of Harvard, proposed that innate genetic differences between the sexes may be one explanation for why fewer women succeed in math and science careers. Story at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4183495.stm

I have several points which I think all of the stories above highlight:

1) People seem to respond in a knee-jerk, negative way to ANY allegation that ANY classification of human being may have more of a predisposition, additional skill or additional attribute, than another classification of human being (be it race, gender, etc.).

2) I don't think that pretending that men, women, Jewish, Irish, Polish, African, Icelandic, Indian, Greek Orthodox, Mexican, Methodist, hetero, and homosexual humans are all the same in terms of, on average, their relative traits, strenghts, and weaknesses, does any service to a discussion of people in general - especially when spoken about after research and analysis.

3) Those that take offense at thought #2 should read thought #1 again.

Subways and Supremes

2005-10-06T15:01:00.000-07:00

Two thoughts (both of which have been oft-mentioned, but I must type them anyway)...

1) President Bush's recent choice for the Supreme Court borders on the hilarious. He's selected a trusted friend with no judicial experience and no record upon which to be judged. Of 300 million people in this country, the idea that his personal attorney is the most qualified candidate is beyond absurd. It would be like me selecting Andy as ambassador to Ireland, Chris to run FEMA, Max to head to the Supreme Court, Brian to head the Department of Not Arguing, Luke to be UN ambassador to the subcommittee on not getting drunk, etc. Not to take anything away from my trusted chums, but come on!

1a) As an aside, John Roberts is certainly BEYOND qualified...while I may not grow to appreciate his views, I have no doubt that he's quite the jurist.

2) The "War on Terror" in Iraq ain't making me feel any safer in NYC after seeing terror threats all over the news regarding the subways. In fact, when I hear that the threat comes from Iraq, you've got to wonder...

2a) I'll be on the 2 train as usual. Skipping train rides in response to these threats is EXACTLY the point of the threats. You skip the ride, you've been had.

Lovely Rita, Meter Maid!

2005-09-22T07:53:00.000-07:00

I'm going to make a few predictions about Hurricane Rita. These predictions don't all reflect my personal views...they are just predictions.

1) Based on the loop I keep seeing on CNN, this storm looks massive, and looks set to wreak some serious havoc on Texas. (As an aside, it's amazing that people can watch the 3 second loop of a storm repeatedly).

2) Because of the lessons learned from Katrina, very few people will die, as the entire Texas coast will most likely be evacuated.

Ok...the two predictions above don't take a rocket scientist to make...below are the true predictions...

3) Many people will question why the responses to the two hurricanes were different, and why the results were different. Many will conclude that, because the second one threatened Texas, GWBII's home state, and because the affected people were largely white, rather than of minority descent, the response and planning were different.

I'm not passing judgment (the storm has not even hit yet), but I have a gut feeling that we're going to see a bunch of politicians and op-eds making this point in the coming weeks.

Big Easy Thoughts

2005-09-08T07:26:00.000-07:00

I've read numerous articles/op-eds/etc. on the events surrounding hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Coast recently. They all express outrage, sympathy, and compassion. Many of them also express incredible anger at President Bush, and feel the need to compare Katrina to 9-11. After thinking about the hurricane, Bush, and 9-11, I've come up with the following thoughts.

Bush ought to be blamed for sending all of the Louisiana National Guard to find WMDs in Iraq, on cutting environmental funding, and on naming such a winner to head FEMA. These actions were all the direct result of his decisions, and each of these decisions contributed in some way to the devastation in New Orleans and the surrounding areas (we can argue as to the magnitude).

I will admit, however, that some of the op-ed pieces have been a bit much. The city wasn't going to be totally evacuated in any event. When was the last time an entire city, all of its elderly and poor, evacuated at once? It simply does not happen because of the logistics of such an undertaking, and because many of the people simply can't leave due to their physical and financial situations (as was clearly the case here). In addition, the levees would have required attention 15-20 years ago to be strong enough to withstand the devastation. Finally, the devastation is beyond what folks have ever seen and/or prepared for.

That being said, the reason why 9-11 is relevant is because it does highlight some administration deficiencies, especially in light of the purported preparation that has been carried out in response to 9-11. I mean, come on...people in front of the Superdome for how many days without food and water? Inexcusable. While the devastation might not have been avoidable, the response time and planning could have and should have been better.

While the democratic pundits have certainly gone a bit overboard on criticizing the president for all Katrina related problems, we should all be concerned that the government's response time was so slow, after hearing about post-9-11 emergency preparedness for years.

I look forward to Mardi Gras 2008.

Plame Game

2005-07-14T07:36:00.000-07:00

This subject has been written about endlessly, so I'll keep my comments limited to a question. I honestly and truly don't understand why journalists are reacting so wildly to a federal judge's ruling to jail one reporter and not jail another only because of Time Magazine's decision to turn over certain documents.

The reporter's privilege is justified by many on the basis that the public, without such reporter's privilege, might never find out certain information it has a right and a need to know. Watergate is a perfect example.

The Plame Game is not such a situation. The public had ZERO right or need to know the secret employment status of Ms. Plame. Whether such a disclosure by Mr. Rove to Mr. Novak was a crime may be debated, but the underlying "the public needs to know and removing the reporter's privilege will chill that" just doesn't fly in the current context.

Terror Thoughts...

2005-07-14T07:25:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts based on the events of the previous week:

There really seems to be almost no sure fire way to prevent random "about to embark on a weekend camping trip" looking young men from blowing themselves up in trains, short of violating civil liberties at every twist and turn. I applaud the response of Londoners...a tough city for a very, very long time, and a city that will no doubt do a wonderful job with the Olympics. (Side note - I think the Olympics should be used as an economic tool, and cities like Beijing are perfect candidates for such an endeavor. London is already fully developed...why not get Africa or South America involved?).

In light of the extreme security risks that still exist on every subway and bus around the globe (as illustrated by the London attacks), I was quite pleased to see a fantastic op-ed in the NY Times today. The op-ed pointed out that Susan Collins, Senator from Maine, recently proposed an amendment to a federal spending bill to allot only 60% of homeland security funds on the basis of risk. The other 40% is doled out to Kansas, New York, Wyoming and Washington D.C. in equal doses. As the Times so rightly put it, this is shameful. Shame on Collins, and shame on Joseph Lieberman for supporting such an amendment. Hopefully the House will rectify this egregious mistake.

If and when a random London-type attack occurs in New York or Los Angeles, people will wonder why the corn farms of Iowa received even a dime of federal funds.

The Truth Shall Set You Free....

2005-06-16T14:02:00.000-07:00

I watched with interest this week as two events took place:

1) Terri Schiavo's autopsy results were announced.

2) Philip A. Cooney, the White House staff member who repeatedly revised government scientific reports on global warming, decided to go to work for ExxonMobil in the fall.

I also read the responses to these two events:

1) At first, Frist aides said that he had not had time to review the report. This morning, Frist stated, "I raised the question, 'Is she in a persistent vegetative state or not?' I never made the diagnosis, never said that she was not. I did say that certain tests should be performed to determine that before starving her to death,"

2) According to the NY Times, "The White House, which said Friday that there was no connection between last week's disclosure and Mr. Cooney's resignation, repeated today that Mr. Cooney's actions were part of the normal review process for documents on environmental issues involving many government agencies. 'Phil Cooney did a great job,' said Dana Perino, a deputy White House spokeswoman, 'and we appreciate his public service and the work that he did, and we wish him well in the private sector.'"

And finally, had some thoughts about the responses to the events:

1) Liar. Had the results been different, Frist and the rest of his shrinking army would be on CNN going nuts about how this proved their point many weeks ago. Does this smell like the WMD situation? Had we actually found any in Iraq, Republicans would have jumped up and down like Michael Jackson supporters this week. Instead, these were nothing more than gambles which turned out to be wrong. Upon revelation of the error, the significance of the initial statement is reduced dramatically, with a related aim of looking to a broader goal and painting Democrats as complainers, etc. Classic.

For the record, at the time, Frist stated the following: "I QUESTION IT BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE VIDEO FOOTAGE WHICH I SPENT AN HOUR OR SO LOOKING AT LAST NIGHT IN MY OFFICE HERE IN THE CAPITOL. AND THAT FOOTAGE, TO ME, DEPICTS SOMETHING VERY DIFFERENT THAN PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE."

2) Liar. Cooney was out of the White House faster than Michael Jackson implemented his new "kids in the bed" rule after the verdict in his trial.

video killed the [fill in the blank]

2005-06-10T12:43:00.000-07:00

While watching MTV's "Wakeup" show this morning, [a once in a blue moon event], I watched two videos in their entirety. The first one was Eminem's "Ass Like That" and the second one was the Ying Yang Twins' "Whisper Song" (or something similar). A few thoughts popped into my mind.

Rap lyrics, at least on television and the radio, focus on the same two or three topics about 95% of the time...sex and toughness. The videos almost universally feature expensive cars, leggy women, lyrics about toughness and several other staples of the rap video of the 2000s.

The overall "feel" and "vibe" of this sort of music inevitably filters down to those who listen to it. The kids who listen to this music imitate such behavior and adopt such ideas...very counterproductive in my opinion. One need look no farther than the NYC subway system after school gets out to see this in action.

One also need remember the fact that ALL teens look up to musicians, athletes, etc. This was as true in the 50s and 60s as it is today. Kids acted like Elvis and others too. The problem today is that the "message" being broadcast to the teens is far more poisonous and dangerous today.

As Brent Staples wrote in this week's NY Times, "The segment of the hip-hop press that embraces violence and criminality is clearly growing, both in influence and affluence. This reflects the extent to which hip-hop itself has devolved from a richly blended tapestry that valued poetics and sophisticated political commentary into a field where only those who have been shot, committed crimes and spent time in jail are judged to hold the authentic street credentials that make them worthy of studio recordings." Too true...[remember the days of De La Soul and A Tribe Called Quest?]

...with the exception of Eminem. My other thought, after watching the videos, was the fact that Eminem always picks on people who won't fight back. His "tough guy" approach is the weakest, most vapid attempt I've ever seen. In no particular order, I recall that he has had "beefs" with or dissed Moby, Triumph the Insult Comic Dog (who appears in his latest video, apparently, they've reconciled), Christina Aguilera, the Olsen Twins and Jessica Simpson. Come on, guy...that sounds more like the guest list at Sesame Place.

i should be the head of alcoholics anonymous

2005-06-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

Today's NY Times ran a story about a White House staffer's repeated changes to climate reports designed to reduce any connection between global warming and emissions. Frankly, I'm not surprised that such things take place...it's part of what happens every day. Anyone remember the initial accounts of Pat Tillman's death in Afghanistan? Turned out to be false. Those pesky WMDs? Can't find them? Well, let's change the report and say that we know they're there anyway. In fact, the part of the story that really got me was the fact that people like Phil Cooney (the individual who made the changes) get to their positions in the first place. According to the Times:

"Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues. Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the 'climate team leader' and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training."

Are you kidding me? How can Tony Blair visit Bush this week and actually even attempt to begin any sort of rational conversation about global warming and the environment in light of this sort of crap?

While Bush is at it, let's put Michael Jackson in charge of New Jersey's troubled Division of Youth and Family Services, and Jeffrey Dahmer as the head of Aruba's tourist division for high school kids. Maybe Mark Felt and Bob Woodward can run the gossip column on Page Six while we're at it. Well, maybe not anymore...

No need to get high over this one...

2005-06-06T13:55:00.000-07:00

Today's Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v. Raich will surely be cited by drug lovers and haters as evidence of the "high" court's either skewed or clearly proper views over the merits of marijuana use in this country. Unfortunately, both arguments go up in smoke as the Court's decision has nothing to do with marijuana use, and only relates to the Constitution's Commerce Clause. In fact, it's one of those situations where federalism has trumped states' rights. It's quite an expansive reading of the Commerce Clause, and Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas felt that it was too expansive. Scalia surprisingly did not dissent along with them.

What's ultimately lost in the argument is the fact that conservatives who whine about "states' rights" won't have any problem with this decision, while liberals who enjoyed many of the Supreme Court's expansive Commerce Clause decisions in the civil rights context will surely complain. Interesting to say the least.

This discussion brings me to two points:

1) All of the stories coming across the internet describe the case as something to the effect of "Supreme Court stamps out marijuana use" or "Supremes say no to weed" or the like. In fact, their views are nothing of the sort. Were that the case, one could also write "Clarence Thomas supports California weed smokers" or "Rehnquist and Thomas light fire of California's weed smokers"

2) Maybe it's a lesson that everything is not merely liberal or conservative.

Que Sensitivo!

2005-05-16T19:23:00.000-07:00

Why is everyone so sensitive these days? Two recent events were the impetus for this post.

1) Vicente Fox, el presidente de Mexico, made comments the other day to the effect of "Hispanics in the United States do the work that blacks don't want to do." What struck me was the immediate reaction and associated media coverage of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. First, was what Fox said really that bad? Was it bad at all? I don't really see what was wrong with his comments (Jackson and Sharpton said that the comments were divisive). The comments were not critical of minorities, save Hispanics, in any way. Second, why the outcry about comments by Mexico's president, when there are far too many other important issues to deal with? Don't two of the most important black leaders in America have more important issues to stand up about? The outcry struck me as a knee-jerk reaction to a comment that had anything to do with race...it has become impossible to talk about race issues in any critical way in this country without being criticized for merely touching on the subject...the substance of comments is rarely the issue...merely the fact that race was mentioned acts as a trigger for criticism.

2) A Newsweek article somehow made its way to Afghanistan, where the public heard that some military folks at Guantanamo Bay had desecrated the Koran. Many citizens were subsequently killed as a result of a public uprising and outcry over the report. Newsweek has partially recanted the story (how much arm twisting by the White House went into that one?), but the public (in Afghanistan) remains in a frenzy. Why? I realize that religious fervor is at a different level in other parts of the world, but it still boggles the mind that people are willing to kill themselves and others over reports that a few soldiers half way around the world may have flushed a few pages of a book down the toilet.

2a) As an aside, it was beyond hypocrisy to hear the White House criticize Newsweek for publishing a false or partially true story and criticizing its method of partially recanting it. WMD's, anyone?

The Ace of Race

2005-04-15T04:39:00.000-07:00

A few thoughts on race which have arisen lately:

1) Both Jermaine O'Neal and Al Sharpton recently dropped the race card in response to the NBA's proposed age limit rules and the FBI's surveilance tapes respectively. I find both instances of race card dropping to be incredibly counter-productive.

NBA. First, for every 18 year old who is precluded from entering the NBA, a 20 or 21 year old will take his place. Why are we to believe that the racial makeup of the 20 and 21 year olds will be any different than that of the precluded 18 year olds? Second, for every O'Neal who came out of high school and eventually succeeded, there have been plenty who never went to college, played in the NBA for a year or two, and then were left with zero schooling and zero job.

FBI. Sharpton's race card dropping is plain silly. It has been widely reported that he's been an FBI informant for years, based on an old tape showing him carry out a cocaine deal. Furthermore, it's just no different than DeLay claiming that the latest attention on him is because of his political leanings. When leaned on, politicians lean back with what they can.

2) Two stories have dominated this morning's news. A story of a "Pony League Murder" where a 13 year old hit a 15 year old with a baseball bat over the head. A second, the story of a missing Florida girl. Before I saw either one on television, I heard them on the radio or read them in the paper (local). When you read about things like that happeining in Florida and California in the local paper, you can almost always conclude one thing: the parties involved are white. Stories similar to those happening right here at home don't get the same attention. It's sad, but true. See this as an example. http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/42714.htm

No national coverage for that story or a million others.

Nine Schiavo Thoughts

2005-03-24T08:31:00.000-08:00

1) I can understand why both Ms. Schiavo's husband and parents are fighting for her. I believe that her husband was told by her that she didn't want to live as she currently does. I also believe that her parents didn't know her thoughts on the matter, and will do anything to keep her alive. Just think...of all of the loved ones we have, how many of them have expressed thoughts on this matter? It's not a day-to-day discussion topic. Maybe after seeing Million Dollar Baby, some might have uttered to a significant other our thoughts on these matters. However, as a whole, it's not something we're well aware of...not a day-to-day discussion topic.

2) I'd be far happier had she signed a living will, since I have to admit that I'm not 100% comforatble with relying on her husband's words alone to keep medical attention from her. I'm not saying it's horrible, just saying that it may raise questions in other circumstances. When in doubt on these issues, I say err on the side of life. I agreed with Bush when he said that the other day (although in a different context).

3) Sign a living will. Whichever way you come down, make your feelings known.

4) The Florida courts litigated this matter for years. Everything that was done was done over a period of time. For Gov. Bush to say that "new evidence" surfaced yesterday is beyond belief.

5) The shameless last second involvement of the Senate and House in passing the Schiavo bill was awful. DeLay should be especially ashamed. Maureen Dowd's allusion to Frist and DeLay in a kind of "Weekend at Bernie's" made me laugh out loud today.

6) The Democrats were, once again, a bunch of sissies by not standing up to this bill. They even walked off the floor to allow a voice vote in the Senate.

7) Props to Nadler and Rothman in the House (my two reps) for voting against the bill.

8) Once again, God has crept into this argument. (I guess he's God...he can do what he likes). Wasn't it only 40 years ago that Kennedy stood in front of the nation and swore that he would NOT allow his religious beliefs to get in the way of his presidency? Times have changed in that arena.

9) This matter is interesting because it pits two Republican values at odds. The "states' rights" ideas versus the "life/God" ideas. In this situation the "life/God" wing beat the federalism/states' rights folks to a pulp.

Super Sellouts

2005-02-06T13:51:00.000-08:00

Even though I've been away for a week, it's been impossible to miss out on the fact that "advertisers are being more cautious this year" with Super Bowl ads. Why? Why has this country become so overly concerned with offending everything and everyone? Why did one nipple flash become a turning point in American advertising? I've heard nothing but stories about commercials being edited, taken off the air (one about a priest 'coveting' a Ford truck was pulled because it was insensitive to victims of priest abuse), and run only if clean and dry. Fox's "Best Damned Sports Show" even changed its name to the "Best Darned Sports Show" for today's Super Bowl pregame show. Amazing. Let's make sure we don't say the word "damned," but oh, by the way, run out and see the graphic flogging and murder of Jesus in Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ...it's great.

Once again, however, Frank Rich of the NY Times hits the nail on the head by pointing these issues out in today's column. Bravo, Mr. Rich.

At the same time, today's NY Post applauds the Marine officer who commented about enjoying war and shooting people. "It's a hell of a lot of fun to shoot them." http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/39390.htm

Bravo also goes to Mayor Bloomberg. First, he clearly stated his opinion that all people have the right to marry who they like. Second, he pointed out that the New York lower court decision allowing gay marriage was wrong...not because he doesn't support gay marriage, but because New York's Constitution does not allow it and such a change must come from either the legislature or New York's highest court.

T-O Smokescreen / Los Mets

2005-01-27T07:24:00.000-08:00

Two quick sports thoughts:

1) The saga surrounding whether or not T.O. will play for the Eagles in the Super Bowl has taken all of the pressure and focus off of McNabb and Company. I think this is a positive for them, and T.O. knows it. Keep in mind that whatever happens in the Super Bowl, T.O.'s participation (or lack thereof) WILL be cited as a reason for the outcome. (i.e. "He played, they won, give him credit" or "He played, they lost, blame him" or "He didn't play, they won, he took the pressure off" or "He didn't play, they lost, he distracted them"). Hindsight is 20/20.

2) While I like some of the moves the Mets have made this offseason, I have to wonder whether signing Randy Johnson and trading for Todd Helton would have been used to convince other "white" players that the team is "white" friendly and to get more "white" fans to the game. I know, I know, it's already a "white" world, but come on...this is a little much.

I-R-A- huh?

2005-01-27T07:15:00.000-08:00

I find it amusing to read an op-ed in the New York Times this morning related to our (i.e. hawks in the Bush administration) recent talk about Iran and their nuclear ambitions. One need not be a (nuclear) rocket scientist to see the similarities between the recent, seemingly out-of-nowhere talk of an attack on Iran, and the build-up to the war in Iraq. The facet of this recent talk that amazes me is the fact that, at least according to what I've read, we really, really, REALLY know that Iran has nuclear ambitions, and has a program well along the path to a bomb, based on help from Pakistan and other countries. However, our approach will most likely be anything but an attack. Why? Because I don't believe we would have ever actually gone into Iraq had we known WMD's existed. The same hold true for North Korea. While they probably pose the greatest danger to the world right now, we're focused on Iraq first (no danger) and Iran second (some danger). Amazing.

SpongeBob GayGraham

2005-01-21T13:34:00.000-08:00

Amazingly, one of my predictions for 2005 has already come true (kind of). Christian conservatives are pointing to SpongeBob Squarepants and his supposed homosexuality as an end-of-the world scenario. "'A short step beneath the surface reveals that one of the differences being celebrated is homosexuality,' wrote Ed Vitagliano in an article for the American Family Association." Wow. First Saddam poses a threat to the nation, now SpongeBob. (I'll save my diatribe on which one ACTUALLY poses/posed a greater threat to the country). I'm hoping that this latest move begins to show people just how crazy the religious right actually is. One can only wonder how long it will be before the "I am a gay American cartoon character" speech takes place. Why does anyone care?

Amazingly, after watching a very good special on the former heavyweight champion Jack Johnson the other night, the racist views expressed towards African Americans at that time (1910's) sound awfully similar to the views expressed over homosexuals today. One can only hope that they will sound equally as disturbing to all (as they already do to me) many years from now.

In other equally hilarious news today, Rev. Billy Graham chimed in on how our presidents are truly elected. Apparently, the infamous electoral college (the most UNequal of institutions in this country) is NOT how we elect our president. In fact, "Evangelist Billy Graham spoke at the service, and he shook hands with Bush when the president and first lady entered the church.
Graham said it was fitting that inauguration week culminated in a church service.
He thanked God for 'divine help' in the selection of presidents throughout history.
'We believe that in your province you have granted a second term to our president, George W. Bush, and our vice president, Richard Cheney,' the 86-year-old Graham said."

Well, thanks, God, for helping our country elect Bush. Apparently, God didn't have time to push my hand out of the "Kerry" box and over to the "Bush" box on election day. Maybe he was busy helping NFL players throw and catch touchdown passes instead. At least he helped Tom Brady throw a few last weekend to keep half of one of my other fearless predictions alive...

Fearless Predictions for 2005

2005-01-05T13:01:00.000-08:00

Last night's Orange Bowl between Oklahoma and USC had all of the qualities of a classic matchup up until the Oklahoma return team decided to field a punt on its own 3 yard line. Needless to say, the game turned out to be a gigantic bust. However, Matt Leinart's performance was something to remember. After watching it, I made a prediction in my head that he is going to be a great NFL quarterback. Now, that's not really a fearless prediction, since many who watched the game most likely felt the same. Therefore, in honor of the new year, I'll throw out ten additional predictions:

1) Someone will be offended by 'tsunami' comments. (Amazingly, as I composed this, I saw an article about some 'insensitive' CNN comments. Why are we so damned sensitive in this country? I mean, people bash homosexuals all the time, but someone makes an honest comment without thinking of the tsunami-related facets of it and people get offended. Amazing.)
2) The Mets barely miss the playoffs after an exciting season.
3) One of my good friends gets engaged this year.
4) Michael Jackson gets in big, big trouble.
5) People in general start crapping that Roe v. Wade may actually get overturned.
6) Bush 41 and Clinton receive well deserved accolades for tsunami relief.
7) Kofi's son gets in big trouble (but not big, big MJ trouble).
8) Spears/Federline divorce story hits cover of US Weekly by September.
9) Patriots play Green Bay in the Super Bowl (winner announced only upon additional payment...I'm betting on this one).
10) Another big "coming out of the closet" event a la Gov. McG.

Initial Thoughts Part 2

2004-12-20T14:05:00.000-08:00

Ok, so I lied. One last point about my blogs. I think I'm going to follow the mold of Phil Mushnick (sports and TV columnist from the NY Post) and point out things that annoy/irritate me, as well as issues that just plain don't make sense, with a special view on politics and sports. I aim to be the Frank Rich and Mike Wilbon (NY Times and Washington Post) of Phil Mushnicks...if that makes any sense.

Initial Thoughts

2004-12-20T13:51:00.001-08:00

Because this is my first 'blog' posting ever, I figured that it would be appropriate to post a blog about my feelings on blogs. I suppose that it's a bit presumptuous to assume that other folks out there are interested in reading my random thoughts about random subjects. If my thoughts are innocuous enough, I'll probably receive little to no feedback. As a result, my thoughts on this blog are going to be a bit more extreme than I might actually feel in non-blog life. They are designed to make people think, and hopefully engage in interesting discussion...one of my favorite things to do.

First blog about things other than blogs coming shortly...

Test

2004-12-20T13:51:00.000-08:00

Test