Andrew Sullivan is doing yeoman’s work publishing reports out of Iran.
Get over to his website, The Daily Dish, for up to the minute tweets.
Yea, Sullivan!
Sphere: Related ContentSunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
Muckroom Follies—Desperately Seeking…Something
Alas, Dear Gentle Reader(s), the editors and commentators over at Townhall’s Muckroom are not having a good year.
The racism card isn’t working, the gender card isn’t working, the anti-same sex marriage card is losing its trumping ability. So what’s a desperate pundit to do?
Grab onto the nearest puff of smoke, it seems.
The June 5 Muckroom email has these two entries:
1. Linda Chavez has this lede--“The diversity crowd doesn't really believe in diversity. In fact, what they're really aiming for is conformity of opinion.” This, DGR(s), from a spokesperson from the party which is going through a period of expelling what some call RINOs (Republican In Name Only) from the party. If that isn’t aiming for conformity of opinion, nothing is.
2. Under the title of “MTV’s Shock and Fraud,” Brent Bozell works himself into a lather over the “Bruno-buttock-Eminem” joke. When a representative of MTV says, “That's all anyone wants to talk about, so let's get it out of the way. They rehearsed it at dress and yes, it went as far as it did on the live show then,” Bozell fulminates “Can you believe the chutzpah of MTV, disparaging the media they're shamelessly exploiting, that "all anyone wants to talk about" is that they'd manufacture this new low, this shock-jock-strap plot?”
It is to laugh, then to sigh, then to worry. The paucity of legitimacy of the right has never before been so easily observed. With serious decisions being made and the right wing commentariat floundering, we could be in danger of making mistakes without the vision of all parties concerned with the big picture.
Get serious, Muckroom denizens.
A loyal opposition isn’t worthy if there’s nothing to which one is opposed.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday, May 31, 2009
Get a room, George!
Here’s a rather intriguing lede, Dear Gentle Reader(s), from George Will’s contribution to Townhall.com: “Epiphanies are a dime a dozen among congressional Democrats as they discover urgent new reasons to experience the almost erotic pleasure of commandeering other people's money.”
One has to wonder, just how can Will make the declarative statement that there is an “almost erotic pleasure” in taking charge of the money paid into the government’s treasury by taxpayers? How does he know there is a near-erotic pleasure to taxing? What sort of foreplay gets ol’ George going?
Maybe it’s a case of wishful projection? (“I love money! I loooovvvve money! Gimme!!! Oooh. Ahhhh. Ummm…”)
Sphere: Related ContentSaturday, May 30, 2009
Ah, Truth or Truthiness
There is, Dear Gentle Reader(s), a full page ad in today’s The Desert Sun* (Palm Springs/Coachella Valley) which gives credit to Representative Mary Bono for her vote in favor of the recently passed energy plan.
It’s a wonder of circumspection in part, and in something else in small part.
“Leading businesses and moderate conservation groups” is the lead phrasing. The catch word there is “moderate.” No tree huggers, folks. Circumspection.
The second para begins with “Despite enormous pressure to toe the Washington line…” Key word—Washington. The pressure didn’t come from Washington. Whatever that is. It came from the Republican party. Something else. Fudging?
Bono-Mack (her married name) voted outside of the Republican caucus. The ad nimbly sidesteps that fact. This is, after all, a bastion of Republican thinking (Prop Hate, er, 8 passed easily in the area).
Republican pressure becomes Washington pressure. OK. That’s doable.
*May 30, 2009, A14
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, May 28, 2009
Facts? We don’ need no stinkin’ facts!
Of all the claims which the pro-Prop 8 folks present, Dear Gentle Reader(s), is one made by Andrew Pugno a spokesperson for Protectmarriage.com. Speaking on Public Radio’s Air Talk on May 27, 2009, he said this, “Marriage predates government.”
Really? Any proof of that? Certainly not in any anthropological study can that statement be substantiated.
It went something like this (OK, my conjecture, but it certainly makes more sense than his): First came mating; Second came family—with someone making decisions (and that process could have been shared); Third came tribe—with someone making decisions for several families—one of which was controlling the mating processes); Fourth came some dissatisfaction with decisions which went against some common practices (Whadda mean, we can’t eat pork?); Fifth came superstition to use as a tool against the dissatisfaction (Because It told me to tell you not to do that); Sixth came the refinement of superstition into religion.
Perhaps a bit fanciful, but that’s the lineage according to the anthropological studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Government, rudimentary, to be sure, existed prior to marriage because until government came into existence, what we call marriage today was coupling for the purpose of propagating the species. Cultural differences between tribes came later, but “government” arose out of need to protect the tribe.
For certain, “Marriage predates government,” stated with such certainty by Pugno, is at best a virtual fib.
Sphere: Related ContentSaturday, May 23, 2009
Really?
Ah, Dear Gentle Reader(s), sometimes they make it so easy.
Take, for instance, today’s Townhalldotcom muckroom. There’s a piece by Linda Chavez titled “When in Doubt, Blame Bush.” It contains this softball, “you have to wonder what [President Obama] would do without George W. Bush to kick around.”
Um…
Nope. Not really.
Perhaps eal with the economy? Health care? Greening power? Securing Afghanistan? Modernizing Islam? Third World poverty? Inner city poverty?
How many more examples would you think Chavez needs?
Sphere: Related ContentSunday, May 17, 2009
A dollar 98? A dollar 400?
Technorati Tags: $
Does one suppose, Dear Gentle Reader(s), that the seller of this car learned to write cost numbers somewhere other than here in the U.S.?
IN case it seems fuzzy, that is a period after the 1.
What fun!
Sphere: Related ContentFriday, May 15, 2009
Could’ve, Would of, Shoulda (“Ve” are watching!)
George Pelecanos, Dear Gentle Reader(s), is the newest “old” writer of note to cross this desk. One down, one in progress, a few to go. The reason for this post isn’t George so much as his editor and some other editor of years past which let the –of pass as indicator of character instead of insisting on ‘ve.
The writer, naturally, tries for some sort of verisimilitude while writing dialogue. Even the perfect sentences of Jane Austen take on “color” when delivering language of certain characters.
The use of could of, however, is suspect as a genuine replication of non-standard articulation. The f and the v are both fricatives. They are produced by passing air between the upper front teeth and the bottom lip, the difference is that the v uses a sound from the larynx along with the friction of air.
Thus, the author who uses could of might as well be using could’ve. The resulting sound is exactly the same—of has the pronunciation of ‘ve no matter the education of the speaker. The more precise effect of character indication would be achieved, if articulation is to be used as an indication of character, by the use of coulda—or its almost as popular variation—could-a.
In Pelecano’s case, the editor of The Big Blowdown allowed, on page 289, a “could of" in mid-page and then, a couple of (coupla?) lines down, a “could’ve.” Hedging a bet? Indifference? Not paying attention to speech patterns?
Somebody got paid nice bucks to edit the book, not to mention the author’s royalty. That’s good money in exchange for…what? This error cannot be let pass unchallenged. Therefore, aspiring authors and editors, be warned: The “ve” patrol is on alert.
(OK, so this is a nit. In these times, though, focusing on a nit or two is a valuable tool in averting meltdown.)
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, May 14, 2009
A Hopeful Step to the Trash Heap of History
Thoreau’s confinement in a New England jail resulted in a nice little epigram—the body might be jailed, but thought, once uttered, cannot be recalled or squelched.
Which brings us, torturously, to the current debate, Dear Gentle Reader(s), of the Matthew Shepard Act, which purports to punish certain acts as “hate crimes.” It is surely foolish to try to criminalize hate, but that really isn’t the primary purpose of hate crimes legislation, is it?
What such legislation does is to foster a discussion about the genesis of hate, at least as regards certain social situations. How long has it been since there was a white on black killing where the perpetrator escaped justice? Or since the perpetrator was able to claim a “Twinkie defense?” Or a homosexual panic defense?
The more we speak of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, the more light is shone on these topics, and the less it is possible for bias to develop into a murderous rage.
What we need is more thought, and more people willing to speak their thoughts. At some point in the near future the hate crime laws will be erased from the books. That erasure is another “consummation devoutly to be wished.”
Sphere: Related ContentFriday, April 24, 2009
America’s Soul Is the Soul of All of Us
If, Dear Gentle Reader(s), you are one of those who is divided about whether or not the justice system of The United States should initiate and pursue possible war crimes of some previous administration personnel, then hie thee to Paul Krugman’s piece in today’s The New York Times. It should go a long way toward helping your make up your mind.
Krugman falls definitely on the side of justice moving forward.
…America is more than a collection of policies. We are, or at least we used to be, a nation of moral ideals. In the past, our government has sometimes done an imperfect job of upholding those ideals. But never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. “This government does not torture people,” declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it.
In the name of our “moral ideals,” the investigation of the previous administration’s activities must be allowed to go forward. We owe it to ourselves, to our history, and to our future.
Sphere: Related ContentTuesday, April 14, 2009
Juvenilia Revived
Oh my, Dear Gentle Reader(s), it seems those embarrassing moments of “in-the-know” from one’s youth which result in red-faced giggles never really fade into oblivion.
Take, for instance, the current reich-wing spate of “tea parties” being held to protest taxing plans of the Obama administration.
Add a smidgen of…(ahem)…”adult” entertainment information, namely the use of “tea bag” as a metaphor for…(ahem #2)…scrotum.
Then mix with a headline from the Townhall(dot)com email advertisement which reads “Your Tea Bag Might Be on TV April 15th!” and you have a very successful recipe for an episode of smirks, titters, and tee-hees. “Really?!!? Will there be tea baggers and tea bagging? On TV? Whee! We’ve come a long way, baby!”
Thanks, Townhalldotcom. I needed that fun fitlet.
*Set your imagination loose.
Sphere: Related ContentFriday, April 10, 2009
We are everywhere
The TV show, Dear Gentle Reader(s), is Southland on NBC. The scene is between two police cars, one a cruiser on patrol, the other a vice squad sedan. There’s a man sitting in the back of the vice car. A disbelieving cop in the cruiser is saying, “There’re signs every two feet;” the LAPD has a park under surveillance. How could a guy get arrested? There are signs and warnings all over the place. But there sits the unhappy fellow.
The penultimate scene is in a bar, and the fellow in the cruiser is saying, “I had a shitty day. I got arrested.” Unnoticed a few feet away, the cop who couldn’t believe someone would be stupid enough to get arrested in a park which was known to be patrolled by LAPD says, “I had a shitty day, too.” (It was a tough patrol.)
No mention of the fellow from the park’s infringement, just a reference to the arrest. No particular overt signs in the bar, but you’d have to be blind, DGR(s), not to know that the officer and the fellow from the park have something in common.
“We are everywhere” is a slogan du decade (or more). Is it such a truism that there’s no longer any need to “spell out” the officer’s dating habits? Or is NBC a participant in the “great conspiracy,” the “great agenda,” about which the fundies keep bleating?
Stay tuned.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday, April 05, 2009
Dowd’s Seduction?
It might not last long, Dear Gentle Reader(s), so you’d best hie thee over to The New York Times’ presentation of Maureen Dowd’s paean to President Obama in today’s Op-Ed section.
Dowd has made a 180 degree turn since the days of Obambi. Doubtless she will eventually steer a more centrist course, Mr. Obama can’t help but stumble in her eyes at some point, but right now it’s “killer smile” time—that European trip has turned into a seductive coup.
Celebrate with me.
Sphere: Related ContentThursday, April 02, 2009
4.2.38
A couple of years ago, a brother sent me a wonderful Christmas gift: he’d made a contribution to the group which buys milk cows for distribution to the poor in poverty stricken areas of the world.
This year a teaching colleague of mine gave me a wonderful birthday gift: she’d made a contribution to Doctors Without Borders which will provide 250 people with antibiotics to fight bacterial infections.
Not to belittle gift-giving on special occasions, but isn’t there a time when we, as adults, would really profit more from donations to worthy charities than we would from candy or flowers or…?
Thinking good thoughts and helping the less fortunate are wonderful ways to celebrate a memorable moment.
Sphere: Related ContentMonday, March 30, 2009
One (more perfect) Art
I lost a duffel bag in a dream.
What happens to an object lost in a dream?
Elizabeth Bishop’s lost city or keys
Are somewhere, really.
But that love she might one day have lost—
Where is that?
And a duffel in a dream—
Where is that?
How does one find such?
Where to look?
Sphere: Related ContentSunday, March 29, 2009
Uh-Oh!
Getting closer, Dear Gentle Reader(s), to that stage.
While walking this morning, and having my usual internal review of yesterday's discussions, I noticed a certain amount of arm movement which didn't comport with the usual swing associated with a good walking pace.
What distracted me from my musing was my right hand, fisted, assailing the space directly in front of me.
What?!?
Hmmm...I'd been remembering a strong point I'd made...perhaps I was adding a little physical emphasis to the words?
OMG!
Have I become one of those seniors walking the neighborhood muttering and gesticulating?
I dunno. Maybe.
When dogs start barking and children throwing rocks, I'll stay home.
Senior Moment
Aging
Thursday, March 19, 2009
What? Another first?!? (About time!)
For the first time ever, it’s being touted, Dear Gentle Reader(s), that a sitting president will be making an appearance on a late-night television program.
President Obama visits with Jay Leno tonight and makes history. Why this is the first time for such an appearance somewhat begs credulity.
One becomes so accustomed to seeing a sitting president on The News Hour, Mr. Obama just last week, and on the Sunday talk shows on occasion, that it beggars the mind to discover no one has visited with either Letterman or Leno, not to mention going back to Mr. Paar or Mr. J.Fred Muggs.
Visiting with the late-night crowd seems such a sure-fire way to gain some public empathy. Mr. Nixon might have been a bit of a cold fish, but chatting with Mr. Carson might’ve helped gain a little sympathy. And if Mr. Clinton had gone on Letterman, we might’ve had a better shot at getting health care through the Congress in 1994—Harry and Louise (and the AARP) aside.
Finally, the boob tube is being used to a significant degree as a teaching tool.
This is a first from which we will all gain.
Sphere: Related ContentWednesday, March 18, 2009
Double the tax
There’s a danger, Dear Gentle Reader(s), in using mnemonics for math problems, especially the advanced mathematics required for affixing the proper amount of tip to a restaurant bill.
For years here in California, it was easy to tip the customary 15%. The state sales tax was 7 1/2%, so one only had to double the tax to be home free.
Then the tip rose to a new custom—20%. Well, that’s OK, too. One simply has to double the first single digit of a bill under $100, or double the first two digits of a bill under $1000. (One doesn’t entertain the thought of a bill over $1000, does one? Not this one.)
Recently a problem arose with the combination of the partial mnemonic double the and gin (Bombay martini—not Sapphire) followed by wine (house red) at dinner. The thought process went something like this:
Let’s see. The bill is $98.00. Double the 9 for $18. What? Um, no. I don’t need a doggie bag. Where was I? Tip. Let’s see. $18 doubled is $36. Easy. Tote it up. Sign it. There. Ready to go.
Something dawned the next morning. (let’s see…four fingers minus three toes plus one nostril…hmmm…uh-oh!)
Let that be a lesson to me, DGR(s).
Pass the bill to someone else.
Sphere: Related ContentSunday, March 15, 2009
Tone Deaf
Isn’t it a bit perplexing, Dear Gentle Reader(s), to read the story following the headline in today’s The New York Times? After all, “A.I.G. Planning Huge Bonuses After $170 Billion Bailout” isn’t exactly what one would expect for a lede in these dire financial times.
Yet, there it is in all the spectacular tone deafness of one Edward M. Liddy, appointed by the government to run the company.
For wonderment try this for the wrong word:
Liddy wrote, “We cannot attract and retain the best and the brightest talent to lead and staff the A.I.G. businesses — which are now being operated principally on behalf of American taxpayers — if employees believe their compensation is subject to continued and arbitrary adjustment by the U.S. Treasury.”
What, one ponders, might constitute “the best and the brightest talent.” What makes the bonuses even more problematic is this paragraph:
The bonuses will be paid to executives at A.I.G.’s financial products division, the unit that wrote trillions of dollars’ worth of credit-default swaps that protected investors from defaults on bonds backed in many cases by subprime mortgages.
In other words, DGR(s), the “best and brightest” which Liddy wishes to reward and retain are those who got us into this mess in the first place.
Then, too, there was a negotiation which resulted in some of these bonuses being paid, and that negotiation cripples the effort to reduce, much less withdraw, the bonuses.
It’s almost as though the best and brightest are the lawyers who did the negotiations for the alleged best and brightest of A.I.G.’s financial products division.
Contracted bonuses which have to be given to people who made the wrong decision.
God bless America. (And God give Mr. Liddy a better ear for language.)
Sphere: Related ContentSunday, March 08, 2009
Que? What? Huh?
Alas, Dear Gentle Reader(s), there is confusion in the air over at The New York Times.
Today’s issue of the NYTimes features an opinion article written by the witty Maureen Dowd titled “Should Michelle Cover Up?” and subtitled in the online email teaser, “Let's face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama's sculpted biceps.”
Snark? The combined email info blended into the reputation of Dowd for eviscerating the foibles of the political class could lead a reader to think, indeed, “Snap!”—if not “Snark!”
Ah, but then, DGR(s), reading the piece clarifies, perhaps, Dowd’s intent. She quotes colleague David Brooks, ““She’s made her point. Now she should put away Thunder and Lightning.” (Brooks named her bicepts?!?) And she re-tells of a Republican’s comment about Ms Obama’s dress at the recent speech to Congress, “Babe.”
Finally, Dowd further quotes Brooks, “Washington is sensually avoidant. The wonks here like brains. She should not be known for her physical presence, for one body part.” Sometimes I think half the reason Obama ran for president is so Michelle would have a platform to show off her biceps.”
My. Bicepts are “sensual.” And the inspirational presidency was spawned by a desire to show off those lusty bicepts. Who knew? (This information makes The Mikado’s erotic elbow seem tame.)
The question to ponder is whether Dowd was being snarky towards Ms Obama or to Mr Brooks. Her sensuality or his ungracious, though private—Dowd and Brooks were sharing a taxi at the time—thoughts.
Perhaps the answer could be found in the final lines of Dowd’s column:
Michelle has soared every day, expanding the job to show us what can be accomplished by a generous spirit, a confident nature and a well-disciplined body.
I also have no doubt she can talk cap-and-trade with ease and panache.
Hmmm. Ball’s in your court, Davie boy. (But you might start by not trusting a columnist who has a penchant for sharp wit.)
Sphere: Related Content
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)