THE WEEK THAT WAS

A lot of things happened this week that seem worthy of note. Let me react to a few that you might have heard about, and point out one that you almost certainly haven’t.

First, I was taken by the controversy surrounding Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. Just as he was announcing his bid for the Presidency, Biden put his foot in his mouth. In an attempt to praise Barack Obama, Biden referred to his rival as “the first mainstream African-American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

You’ve surely heard that line. All the talking heads are lappin’ it up. They can’t get over how stupid Biden is for making such an obviously racist comment. Well … here’s my take:

Call the statement stupid. Call it racist. Call it a fitting away for a blowhard with a huge ego but no shot at victory to throw his hat into the ring. I don’t mind any of those characterizations. But I’ve got to say that the comment made me sympathize with the guy. If I were running for President, I’d make more quotably stupid comments than any politician ever has – Dan Quayle inclusive. And so, I suggest, would anyone that you’d possibly want to hang out with a Saturday night … or even a Sunday morning.

The media coverage of politics -- and specifically, its intense scrutiny of candidates, and its desire to sensationalize and ridicule – has had a clear consequence: if you want to run for the highest office, you had better be a friggen robot. Look at Howard Dean. He was just a teentsy, weentsy different, and the media castrated him.

So bye, bye Joe Biden. And so long, in advance, to any other Presidential Candidate who considers speaking extemporaneously. I’ll look forward to a season of robots who “don’t make mistakes.” Personally, I’d take a flesh and blood leader any time. Wasn’t that one of the lessons from Star Trek?

Second, this past week marked the passing of one Molly Ivins. She was a liberal. Not a Triangulator, not a DLC Dixiecrat, not a non-binding-resolution pragmatist … but a real, honest-to-God liberal. She hated guns, hated war, hated bullies, hated crooks, and loved the little guy (and gal). Oh, and by the way, she was really funny … and courageous … and willing to piss people off who deserve to be pissed on. She also had a ton of common sense.

I, for one, will miss her a lot. In fact, her passing makes me question why – after all these millennia of human evolution -- there aren’t more people like her. Does God really need to teach us over and over again that “He” isn’t omni-benevolent? You’d think we would have learned that lesson by now.

Third, a study was released saying that the human race is causing the planet to heat up. Tomorrow, I guess, they’ll be releasing another study saying that Shaquille O’Neal’s parents caused him to be tall. I wouldn’t have thought the issue was still being debated … at least not until I recently spent some time in the Midwest. People see things a little differently out there. Global warming is a hoax, evolution is a hoax … and Saddam’s WMDs were not merely real … they were positively noumenal!

Fourth, the Scooter Libby trial is going on. And guess what? The witnesses are contradicting one another. There’s a shocker. If I were given a hundred dollars every time a witness failed to tell the “truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth” when answering one of my questions … let’s just say I’d be rich enough to retire from the law and never look back.

Fifth, Senator Russ Feingold – who wants to end America’s War in Iraq -- called the proposed non-binding Senate resolution on Iraq a “deal with the devil.” Can I say that Feingold is basically the same person as Molly Ivins except that (a) he isn’t a woman, (b) he isn’t funny, and (c) he isn’t dead. Believe me, that’s high praise.

Sixth, and finally, I made the decision to devote my next blog-post to talking about my upcoming book-talks. As someone who hates marketing, I’ve been putting off the pleasure of tooting my own horn. … But now that I’ve come this far in the self-promotion department, I think I’ll follow through with my threat. So when I post again, I’ll give some dates, times and places. If you know anyone in Northern Jersey or the Washington, D.C. area, stay tuned.

THE WEEK THAT WAS

A lot of things happened this week that seem worthy of note. Let me react to a few that you might have heard about, and point out one that you almost certainly haven’t.

First, I was taken by the controversy surrounding Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. Just as he was announcing his bid for the Presidency, Biden put his foot in his mouth. In an attempt to praise Barack Obama, Biden referred to his rival as “the first mainstream African-American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

You’ve surely heard that line. All the talking heads are lappin’ it up. They can’t get over how stupid Biden is for making such an obviously racist comment. Well … here’s my take:

Call the statement stupid. Call it racist. Call it a fitting away for a blowhard with a huge ego but no shot at victory to throw his hat into the ring. I don’t mind any of those characterizations. But I’ve got to say that the comment made me sympathize with the guy. If I were running for President, I’d make more quotably stupid comments than any politician ever has – Dan Quayle inclusive. And so, I suggest, would anyone that you’d possibly want to hang out with a Saturday night … or even a Sunday morning.

The media coverage of politics -- and specifically, its intense scrutiny of candidates, and its desire to sensationalize and ridicule – has had a clear consequence: if you want to run for the highest office, you had better be a friggen robot. Look at Howard Dean. He was just a teentsy, weentsy different, and the media castrated him.

So bye, bye Joe Biden. And so long, in advance, to any other Presidential Candidate who considers speaking extemporaneously. I’ll look forward to a season of robots who “don’t make mistakes.” Personally, I’d take a flesh and blood leader any time. Wasn’t that one of the lessons from Star Trek?

Second, this past week marked the passing of one Molly Ivins. She was a liberal. Not a Triangulator, not a DLC Dixiecrat, not a non-binding-resolution pragmatist … but a real, honest-to-God liberal. She hated guns, hated war, hated bullies, hated crooks, and loved the little guy (and gal). Oh, and by the way, she was really funny … and courageous … and willing to piss people off who deserve to be pissed on. She also had a ton of common sense.

I, for one, will miss her a lot. In fact, her passing makes me question why – after all these millennia of human evolution -- there aren’t more people like her. Does God really need to teach us over and over again that “He” isn’t omni-benevolent? You’d think we would have learned that lesson by now.

Third, a study was released saying that the human race is causing the planet to heat up. Tomorrow, I guess, they’ll be releasing another study saying that Shaquille O’Neal’s parents caused him to be tall. I wouldn’t have thought the issue was still being debated … at least not until I recently spent some time in the Midwest. People see things a little differently out there. Global warming is a hoax, evolution is a hoax … and Saddam’s WMDs were not merely real … they were positively noumenal!

Fourth, the Scooter Libby trial is going on. And guess what? The witnesses are contradicting one another. There’s a shocker. If I were given a hundred dollars every time a witness failed to tell the “truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth” when answering one of my questions … let’s just say I’d be rich enough to retire from the law and never look back.

Fifth, Senator Russ Feingold – who wants to end America’s War in Iraq -- called the proposed non-binding Senate resolution on Iraq a “deal with the devil.” Can I say that Feingold is basically the same person as Molly Ivins except that (a) he isn’t a woman, (b) he isn’t funny, and (c) he isn’t dead. Believe me, that’s high praise.

Sixth, and finally, I made the decision to devote my next blog-post to talking about my upcoming book-talks. As someone who hates marketing, I’ve been putting off the pleasure of tooting my own horn. … But now that I’ve come this far in the self-promotion department, I think I’ll follow through with my threat. So when I post again, I’ll give some dates, times and places. If you know anyone in Northern Jersey or the Washington, D.C. area, stay tuned.

THE WEEK THAT WAS

A lot of things happened this week that seem worthy of note. Let me react to a few that you might have heard about, and point out one that you almost certainly haven’t.

First, I was taken by the controversy surrounding Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware. Just as he was announcing his bid for the Presidency, Biden put his foot in his mouth. In an attempt to praise Barack Obama, Biden referred to his rival as “the first mainstream African-American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.”

You’ve surely heard that line. All the talking heads are lappin’ it up. They can’t get over how stupid Biden is for making such an obviously racist comment. Well … here’s my take:

Call the statement stupid. Call it racist. Call it a fitting away for a blowhard with a huge ego but no shot at victory to throw his hat into the ring. I don’t mind any of those characterizations. But I’ve got to say that the comment made me sympathize with the guy. If I were running for President, I’d make more quotably stupid comments than any politician ever has – Dan Quayle inclusive. And so, I suggest, would anyone that you’d possibly want to hang out with a Saturday night … or even a Sunday morning.

The media coverage of politics -- and specifically, its intense scrutiny of candidates, and its desire to sensationalize and ridicule – has had a clear consequence: if you want to run for the highest office, you had better be a friggen robot. Look at Howard Dean. He was just a teentsy, weentsy different, and the media castrated him.

So bye, bye Joe Biden. And so long, in advance, to any other Presidential Candidate who considers speaking extemporaneously. I’ll look forward to a season of robots who “don’t make mistakes.” Personally, I’d take a flesh and blood leader any time. Wasn’t that one of the lessons from Star Trek?

Second, this past week marked the passing of one Molly Ivins. She was a liberal. Not a Triangulator, not a DLC Dixiecrat, not a non-binding-resolution pragmatist … but a real, honest-to-God liberal. She hated guns, hated war, hated bullies, hated crooks, and loved the little guy (and gal). Oh, and by the way, she was really funny … and courageous … and willing to piss people off who deserve to be pissed on. She also had a ton of common sense.

I, for one, will miss her a lot. In fact, her passing makes me question why – after all these millennia of human evolution -- there aren’t more people like her. Does God really need to teach us over and over again that “He” isn’t omni-benevolent? You’d think we would have learned that lesson by now.

Third, a study was released saying that the human race is causing the planet to heat up. Tomorrow, I guess, they’ll be releasing another study saying that Shaquille O’Neal’s parents caused him to be tall. I wouldn’t have thought the issue was still being debated … at least not until I recently spent some time in the Midwest. People see things a little differently out there. Global warming is a hoax, evolution is a hoax … and Saddam’s WMDs were not merely real … they were positively noumenal!

Fourth, the Scooter Libby trial is going on. And guess what? The witnesses are contradicting one another. There’s a shocker. If I were given a hundred dollars every time a witness failed to tell the “truth, whole truth, and nothing but the truth” when answering one of my questions … let’s just say I’d be rich enough to retire from the law and never look back.

Fifth, Senator Russ Feingold – who wants to end America’s War in Iraq -- called the proposed non-binding Senate resolution on Iraq a “deal with the devil.” Can I say that Feingold is basically the same person as Molly Ivins except that (a) he isn’t a woman, (b) he isn’t funny, and (c) he isn’t dead. Believe me, that’s high praise.

Sixth, and finally, I made the decision to devote my next blog-post to talking about my upcoming book-talks. As someone who hates marketing, I’ve been putting off the pleasure of tooting my own horn. … But now that I’ve come this far in the self-promotion department, I think I’ll follow through with my threat. So when I post again, I’ll give some dates, times and places. If you know anyone in Northern Jersey or the Washington, D.C. area, stay tuned.

HAVING IT BOTH WAYS

I just got home after spending the day at the peace march. People traveled from all over the country to march up to Capitol Hill and express their grievances. The route was a bit unusual. Typically at these D.C. marches, we all head northwest from the Mall to the White House. Today, the route was east, directly toward the Capitol.

I applaud the planners for their itinerary. We all know who works in the White House. We all know what he thinks about war and peace. You could call him The Decider. Or, if you prefer, the Piñata. On Capitol Hill, they treat him as both.

What we don’t know is exactly who – or what – works on Capitol Hill. I’ve been trying to figure that out for the past few weeks. Soon, we’ll all be getting a pretty good whiff of the answer. Today, unfortunately, I think I got a preview.

This much we can say: most of the folks who represent us in Washington call themselves Democrats. But what does that really mean? Not much, and maybe it shouldn’t mean much. Democrats should be able to be pro life or pro choice, protectionist or free traders, pro Iraq War or anti-Iraq War. Let each party be a big tent. Let each one be a place of robust internal debate. If you don’t like the views of one of the politicians, then by all means, vote him or her out. But let us not question whether politicians have the right to represent a political party simply because their views are out of the mainstream.

So it’s fine by me that some of the Dems are fiscally conservative but socially liberal, or vice versa. That isn’t the issue. The issue is whether it is fine for Democrats to campaign as one thing, and then govern as something completely different. There, I’m not so tolerant.

Consider, folks, that the march today wasn’t exactly about a trivial issue. This wasn’t a rally against the Designated Hitter, or even the scourge of steroids. This was about the fundamental issue of our day: the Iraq War. It’s only right to expect that politicians who ran fervently against that war will, if elected, use their power to fight it. It’s very much wrong for them to bash the Bush Administration ceaselessly for its so-called folly, and then, when they have the power of the purse, to continue to fund that folly.

One of the speakers today was Congressman John Conyers. This afternoon, I saw a plastic-woman newscaster on the TV refer to Conyers as the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. But we Empathic Rationalists are more clued into politics than that, right? We know Conyers as the first African-American Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

I mention his title because his is the committee that is in charge of initiating the impeachment process. Lots of people at the march held signs calling for the impeachment of Cheney … and some wanted Bush impeached as well. When Conyers finished speaking, a chant calling for impeachment immediately erupted. But to Conyers’ credit, he didn’t once mention impeachment. He knows that (a) he can’t prove that Bush committed a “high crime” or “misdemeanor,” and (b) he couldn’t get the Congress to impeach/convict Bush whether he wanted him impeached or not. Still, there’s a lot Conyers can do short of impeachment. He can show up at a rally like the one today, for example. More importantly, he can call for his colleagues to use the power of the purse to STOP FUNDING THE WAR, or at least the so-called surge. That’s exactly what Conyers did. He told us in no uncertain terms that Congress has the power and the obligation to stop the flow of money that fuels the war that so many of us hate.

Conyers wasn’t the only member of Congress in attendance. So was Wynn from Maryland, Nadler from New York, Waters from California, and Kucinich from Ohio. Senator Russ Feingold from Wisconsin wasn’t there, but he provided a statement that was read. So what is that: six out of 535? That’s 1%, if you’re scoring at home (or even if you’re not).

Here’s what I don’t get: if all of the Democrats hate the war as much as they’ve told us, where in blazes were the other nearly-300 Democrats on the Hill? Couldn’t they, like Feingold, at least have provided a written statement? Moreover, leaving aside the issue of their stance on this march, how do they get off being so critical of this war if they keep putting our nation’s money where Bush’s mouth is? Non-binding resolutions are well and good, but what in blazes do they prove? Now that the Dems are in the majority, and now that the American public has resoundingly announced their views in one poll after enough, why are the Dems so afraid to put an end to this madness? Why are they so afraid of announcing that they are no longer going to give the President the money he wants to fight this war?

Yes, I know. They’re playing politics. They don’t want to be blamed for the inevitable “defeat” in Iraq. They would like the same Republicans who made this bed to lie in it.

I admit to understanding a wee bit of justice in that idea. I certainly understand the expediency. What I can’t understand is the morality. If it truly is in the national and international interest to end this war, and if the war’s alleged opponents have the power to stop or curtail the war, why would they not be morally obliged to do so? After all, this isn’t politics we’re talking about. This is life and death – and on a big scale at that.

Here’s a rhetorical question for any limousine liberal out there who elected these Democrats on largely anti-war grounds but haven’t taken any of your precious time to fight it. Who is worse:

(a) Stupid, misguided, jingoist fools (your words, right?) who truly believe that throwing more troops into helpless military situations will actually bring about victory; or

(b) Politicians who recognize that escalating a war will simply delay the inevitable and increase death and destruction over the long haul, but who nevertheless fund the escalation, merely for “political purposes.”

If the answer is (b) – and I think it may well be – what does it say about a society that lets these politicians get away with their conduct and doesn’t even rise up in protest.? Yes, we had tens of thousands of people at the National Mall today. But that turnout was but 1% of what we should have.

At the risk of sounding like I work for Bush and Cheney – which, of course, I do – it’s time for the people of America to stand up and take our military obligations seriously. Either you’re for this war, or you’re against it. Either you’re for this surge, or you’re against it. It’s time to get off your collective butts and take a stand. Either lobby your representatives and show up at marches, or stop being so damned critical of the President. At least we can’t prove he’s insincere in his views. And the same could surely be said for the counter-protesters I saw today on the march.

Frankly, I have little doubt that those counter-protesters sincerely believe that a surge represents our best chance to make peace, over the long haul, in a post 9/11 world. I might disagree with them about the means to that end, but at least we both care a ton about its importance. At present, it’s the limousine liberals and other apathetic souls who are driving me crazy. Anyone who cares deeply enough about peace to show up at a march – regardless of how they manifest that concern -- is, in an important respect, my ally. . . . Besides, whoever held up the sign that said “Hippies Smell” made me laugh! (And as an argument for the surge, it makes as much sense as any other.)

HEY DONALD: SCORE THIS ROUND FOR ROSIE!

Did any of you catch what happened last week when America’s favorite TV show made a stop at the beautiful Pacific Northwest? I did. As some of you know from reading one of my earlier posts, I live in an American Idol family. This time of year, the TV is always occupied whenever Simon, Randy, and Ms. Foster Brooks (or whatever the other judge’s name is) show up on the idiot box.

I can almost understand why people watch the show when each season winds down and the final four or five participants duke it out for the big record contract. I don’t happen to care for a cappella country, gospel, or pop music. But that’s just me. Taste in music is subjective and varied. Apparently, however, taste in humor is pretty universal.

By humor, I’m referring to American Idol during the first few weeks of the season. That’s where they film John and Jane Q public auditioning for a chance to be on the big stage. No doubt, the judges see a wide range of talent, ranging from fine singers to the tone deaf. But almost invariably, the telecast is devoted to the losers. And I don’t just mean those who don’t win the competition. I mean those who the judges (and the bazillions of homo sapiens in TV land) recognize readily as Losers with a capital L. The bad. And yes, the ugly.

In Seattle, the judges were at their visceral best. Simon – the only polysyllabic judge -- termed one tall, black female contestant a “giraffe.” He tastefully described another contestant as “fat.” And he reserved the piece de resistance for a young man with odd eyes, whose appearance prompted Simon to call him a “bush baby.” The other judges sat in silence as the contestants were humiliated before a national TV audience. But when the contestants left the room, the other judges had a big laugh of their own.

So who should come to the rescue of the fatties, the giants, and the bush babies? That’s right. A woman who, according to Donald Trump, is a “fat … unattractive …loser” in her own right. Ms. Rosie O’Donnell.

Tell me, do you have to have your appearance publicly ridiculed before you’re able to empathize with the American Idol’s road kill? If not, where were the other TV critics when, year after year, Idol devoted one episode after another to humiliating people? I’m not talking about humiliating celebrities. I’m talking about mocking unknowns who came to a tryout because they dared to dream that others would like the sound of their voice.

I went on another website to see if Rosie (and I) were alone in finding Idol so offensive. Fortunately, we’re not. Some of the comments were equally critical. Then again, I also saw the following responses to the issue of whether the judges were too harsh:

“No not at all most of those people couldn't sing a tune to save their life and they have no business being on American Idol...so they should be ready to hear what the judges have to say and besides we all want good looking people who do have talent, not ugly monkey looking like fools who can't sing...sorry just calling it like i see it.” Posted by Billie Pugliese

“NO, NOT AT ALL. THEY ARE A LOT NICER THAN WHAT I WOULD BE. HOW IN THE H--- CAN YOU GO ON NATIONAL TV KNOWING YOU CAN'T SING AND THINK YOU WILL WALK AWAY WITHOUT HAVING YOUR FEELINGS HURT. YOU KNOW WHAT THEY SAY " IF YOU CAN'T HANG WITH THE BIG DOGS THEN, WELL YOU KNOW WHERE YOU NEED TO STAY.” LUV
NIKKIBLU

There you have it, America. Social Darwinism is alive and well. Ugly people should know their place. Stupid people should know their place. Losers should know that they’re … well, Losers.

That’s the ethos of American Idol.

Should we not boycott this trash?