"How's Tony?"
"Great! He said, Hi"
This week, while the Republican candidates battled it out at the Reagan Library, the Democrats (Clinton and Obama) held a love fest in LA's Kodak Theater. Attending were many of Hollywood's "glitterati", taking time off from their parties, drugs and having babies out of wedlock to come in and gush over Hillary and Barack. Expectations were that this might be the most explosive debate yet. Unfortunately, the candidates apparently decided-or were told by the DNC-that a repeat of the South Carolina foodfight would not be in either's best interests. (Maybe it was because they both now realize they have a mutual friend-Tony Rezko.) Anyway, this debate took on the appearance of an Oscars presentation, with everyone telling everyone else how wonderful they all were-and how bad the Republicans were.
Both candidates (hungry for John Edwards' endorsement and/or votes)bent over backwards to pay tribute to the Great Man from North Carolina, who had just dropped out with his now very important 15% support.
As usual, most of the debate was centered around who had the best plan for setting up a nanny state, especially health care. It is obvious that the two biggest issues of our day- Terror and Illegal Immigration- are not that big a deal to Democratic voters. No, they want to know who is going to give them the most opium to get them through the pain of everyday life in medieval Amerika. The candidates did not disappoint, yet they made it clear, as always, that when it comes to the issues, there is very little difference between them. Hillary, of course, is shrewd enough to recognize that, which is why she is always touting her experience- "35 years of making a difference in peoples' lives" (especially those women who had the misfortune of getting involved with her hootchie-koo hubby).
As for the War on Terror and illegal immigration, it all comes down to the same old lines- "bring the troops home from Iraq" and "comprehensive immigration reform", which means amnesty. (Now let's get back to discussing health care.)
So to sum it all up, the choice of the Democratic voters comes down to whether you want a woman president or a president of color. Apparently, the "open-minded, inclusive, compassionate" Democratic electorate is breaking down neatly along race and gender lines. Blacks favor Obama, while women favor Hillary, and Hispanics are also going to Hillary (for some strange reason- I just can't figure out why they don't like Obama).
Seriously though, it's not that Obama isn't making an effort to reach out to Hispanic voters. He has learned to say "Si, se puede!", and he even dragged in "El Gabacho Borracho" (The Gringo drunk), Teddy Kennedy, all the way across country to wow em' in East LA with a few words in Spanish. "Moochamas grasas a todos!!" or something like that. Teddy must have lost track of the time zones, figured it was time for happy hour back home and ordered up a few shooters before speaking. Nevertheless, Obama doesn't figure to get many Hispanic votes in a race that is unfortunately pitting two competing minority groups against each other.
So Tuesday, we have our primary here in California, and off the candidates go to torment some other poor state. Hey, I can't wait for the next debate.
21 comments:
Two comments:
1. "taking time off from their parties, drugs and having babies out of wedlock..."
Are you channeling Stephen Colbert? That was a bit over-the-top.
2. Regarding immigration reform, I honestly don't believe any candidate who says that they're going to do something about illegal immigration, so I almost prefer it when they don't talk about it, because when they DO talk about it, they're spewing a pack of lies.
I really don't think that there's ever going to be a President who really does something regarding the immigration problem. Anybody who actually WOULD do something would never get elected - mainly because of the sad fact that too many businesses in this country depend on exploiting illegal immigrants so they can make a profit.
I honestly think that if the government really wanted to do something about illegal immigrants, they could do a lot better than they have done. They don't do anything because they don't want to.
The thing is, if I was a poor guy living in Mexico, I'd probably be doing everything that I could to jump the border as well, and there are plenty of business owners who would be more than happy to hire me over a citizen who would demand more money.
The only way to fix this mess is for Mexico to straighten out its own house and for us to stop hiring illegal workers. If nobody hired them, then they wouldn't be coming. I've yet to hear a candidate go after all of the business owners who are so willing and eager to use them for cheap labor. It's much easier to attack some poor guy who just wants to feed his family.
So yeah, the Democrats aren't going to do anything. Neither will the Republicans. If there's anybody who would do something, he'd never get the support (money) necessary to run a succesful campaign.
I don't watch Colbert. Does he say the same thing?
Why is it over the top?
As for illegal immigration, you are right. The only one who may do something is Romney. Clinton, Obama and McCain will do nothing.
As I have said many times, as someone married to a Mexican, I understand full well why they come. It is because a corrupt oligarchy in Mexico hoards all the wealth and refuses to provide a decent opportunity for their masses to get an education and jobs.
By the way, don't believe the myth that Mexico is a poor country. It is a wealthy country, rich in every mineral, oil, and 2-actually 4 fantastic coastlines with resorts that bring in millions of tourists every year. Where does all that wealth go? I don't need to answer that.
Stephen Colbert is a satirist who basically does a send-up of guys like Hannity, Savage, and O'Reilly. (He calls O'Reilly "Papa Bear.") That sounds a lot like the kind of thing that he would say. While certainly that sort of thing happens in Hollywood, I don't think that there's a part of this country where it doesn't happen. It just makes the news when it happens there, and I'm sure that there are plenty of Hollywood types who don't get involved in all that.
It just seemed like the line between reality and satire gets blurred sometimes with you conservatives. (Sorry for saying "you conservatives" - it has an accusatory conotation that I don't intend, but I don't know how else to say it.)
I have no problem believing that Mexico is a wealthy country as you say. What I meant by "poor country" is that there are a lot of poor people there, that's all. And I really don't believe Romney will do anything substantial about immigration, even if he says that we'll build a 100-foot wall with a flaming moat and robot crocodiles. Unless, of course, he's talking about going after the people who pay the illegal workers in the first place. I'm not paying enough attention to what he's saying - is he saying that?
Oh, and lookee, I'm posting my blog to blogspot now. Not too sure how much it would interest you. It's not politically based, but I do address religion every now and then (like I do in my first one). Common subjects include beer, comic books, movies, and things that annoy me.
I know who Colbert is, I just don't watch him. Of course, I made an ad homenem attack on Hollywood, and yes, of course, not all Hollywood people are like that. I guess we all have our targets for ad honemem attacks (Am I spelling that correctly?) Others attack Bush, Cheney et al. We attack Liberals, Hillary and Hollywood. What ticks us off about Hollywood is that it is full of vapid, narcissistic types who are so out front in speaking their political minds (which is their right) and telling us "simple folks" how to live. So there! It was not over the top. It was right on the mark!!!
Actually, I came across your blog years ago when I was researching my book on Erlangen. It was very interesting and useful to me though none of it was actually used in the book.
I dunno, Gary. Seems like a bit of a cheapshot. I thought you were above that sort of a thing. You don't want me to start thinking that your posts are meant to be ironic, do you?
And somehow I doubt that you'd have a problem with some of these celebrities if they were saying things that you agreed with! I hear a lot of conservatives say the same sorts of things, but I don't find them any more condescending than the people who run our country. I mean, when the President tells me that he's "the decider" I feel like I'm in first grade. This administration really has a bad habit of "you wouldn't understand" types of answers, that the pretentious Hollywood types don't bother me a bit. (And trust me, I am FAR from being a celebrity worshipper!) One thing I never hear is the Savage/Limbaugh/Hannity/etc. types do is attack the factual accuracy of the statements that these celebrities make. They basically just resort to ad hominem (I teach a whole unit on logical fallacies and propaganda!) attacks that contribute nothing to any sort of intelligent discourse. (The worst case of this was Limbaugh attacking Michael J. Fox's statements about stem cell research, claiming that he was playing up his symptoms for Parkinsons and using his celebrity status to further a cause. Yeah, how dare somebody use their celebrity to bolster a cause that might save him from a debilitating illness!)
Anyway, I'll reiterate that I think the cheap shots are beneath you. They're more the kind of thing that I'd do in my blog. (Which is very different than the website that you're referring to.)
Lance,
If we are still referring to Hollywood celebrities, we are talking about folks that survive on publicity, even when it's bad. If that's the case, one has to take the good with the bad. Same thing for those that choose to use their celebrity to get up on a political soapbox.
As for how I would react if these folks were mostly espousing my views, it's hard to say because most Hollywood types that are conservative tend to be silent about their views because of a fear of hurting their careers. It seems that, much like our universities, people in entertainment seem constrained to toe the political line. If Hollywood does indeed have that kind of culture, then I think it is not only justifiable but necessary that they get called out on it. That's what I do in the university culture (I teach part-time at UC Irvine). I think it is vital that the public be aware of the far-left domination of our universities. Similarly, while the Sean Penns, Susan Sarandons, Tim Robbins, Danny Glovers, Alec Baldwins, Jane Fondas ...., (I better stop here) have the constitutional right to spout their views and kiss up to people like Hugo Chavez, I think it is appropriate for us to have public discourse about them and decide if we want to spend our money seeing their movies.
Ironically enough, the celebrities that I can think of who have run for office have all been Republicans.
As for your statement about public discourse, I absolutely agree. The problem is, we don't seem to have any intelligent discourse in this country. If we do, it sure as heck isn't coming from the right. My friends and I would listen to right-wing radio (Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly) over the summer while driving to the beach, and all I'd hear from them were ad hominems and strawman arguments. (The one I remember from last summer was Hannity accusing Obama of wanting to "attack our allies" and "make peace with our enemies" which was a complete misrepresentation of what was said.) Now, you may call this discourse, but I'd call it vitriol.
Instead of attacking what these celebrities say by pointing out flaws in logic or omissions of fact, all I can hear from the right are accusations of "hating America" or "siding with the terrorists" or other accusations that completely destroy any sense of intelligent discussion. (And I'm sure that there could be something to say.)
Oh, but just for the record, I'm just as perplexed as to why anybody would want to be seen palling around with Hugo Chavez.
I would say that many on the far left do hate America since they never have anything positive to say about our country.
No question there is a lot of vitriol coming from Savage, but much of it is also directed at Republicans in Congress. You may not agree with Hannity, but he is a patriotic American who does a lot of good things for charities, especially for the military people. Partison, of course, but he doesn't try to camoflage it like msm does. O'Reilly has a big ego and goes after his opponents, but he criticizes both sides, and cannot be called a Republican tool.
By the way, didn't you once say"Thank God for Keith Olbermann"?
Now there is a one-sided attack dog. And how about Air America? There is some vitriol for you.
Siding with the terrorists? How about those that want to close Gitmo, flood our federal courts with terrorists and stop monitoring conversation between known AQ folks when they call the US. (And they are not calling you and me).
Anyway, I would encourage you to listen to radio shows like Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Larry Elder if you want to hear some intelligent and convincing debate.
Personally, I don't think that it's right to accuse anybody of "hating America" unless they come right out and say, "I hate America." Just because you don't hear them say anything good, that doesn't mean that they aren't. (After all, why would anybody even report on something like that?)
As for Sean Hannity, I don't find his patriotism to be very convincing, no matter how many American flags he puts behind his picture. Regarding his charity work, Louis Farrakhan does charity work too, but I'll still criticize him for the messed up things he says. I don't think that Sean Hannity is an evil person, but that doesn't change the fact that he consistently distorts what others have to say and you could do a term paper dissecting his propaganda techniques.
I don't know if I'd call Bill O'Reilly a Republican tool, but he definitely leans more in their favor. That's fine, but the guy borders on self-parody. I like how he claims to have a "no spin zone" while his entire show is NOTHING BUT spin! It's him telling viewers what they should think about the news! It's downright Orwellian!
And yeah, I did say that about Olbermann. I also said that I don't really watch his show, and I only watch the occasional clip on YouTube. One thing that I will give him though is that when he attacks guys like O'Reilly, he's pointing out factual errors that they have made. Sure, the "Worst Person in the World" is over-the-top, but the right-wing attack dogs would just leave it at that. I also have never heard him attacking a person's patriotism for disagreeing with him. (I personally find attacks like that to be the most offensive. I hate to make the Nazi comparison, but that was exactly their MO. Shoot, it brings to mind Goering's quote: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
As for closing Gitmo and ending warrantless wiretapping, intelligent people can disagree on this point. But to say that those in favor of those things are "siding with the terrorists" is shameful. The issues have more to do with the fact that we are a country of laws, and what the current administration is doing is unconstitutional. I mean, imprisoning people without charging them with anything? That's pretty basic stuff. Perhaps you feel confident giving the government that much power, but I sure as heck don't. I believe that terorrists are a threat, but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to have our Constitution dismantled in order to combat them. (And yeah, I know, this has happened before - back to Lincoln and even further. That doesn't make it right.)
If Goering were an American left-winger, he would be convincing Americans that Bush stole the 2000 election in Florida, Bush is a stupid liar, the corporations are evil people, rich people are evil and selfish, the Republicans want to starve children and throw old folks out on the street. Do those lines sound familiar? hear them enough times and they become gospel.
As to the final point, I would argue that the case can be made that it is legal to intercept illegal conversations and hold terrorists in places like Gitmo. Even if the Supreme Court were to say it is illegal, remember the reason why the administration did it-To save innocent lives and prevent more 9-11s, which it could be argued that it has been successful. Hitler and the Soviets didn't arrest people or tap phones to save innocent lives. They did it to protect their own dictatorial powers.
Yeah, those things do sound familiar. They're all the strawman arguments that the right accuses the left of making. Come on, Gary. You're too smart for this. The only one thing that I've actually heard a left-winger say is that Bush stole the election. (And whether he did or did not, I still don't hear actual facts that counter the accusations, just broad dismissals.)
Anyway, I was about to go on about the wiretapping and the Gitmo thing, but can you at least see that the reason why some people are against it is NOT because they side with the terrorists? It's my very love for this country that makes me oppose those things. Say that I'm wrong. Say that I'm misguided, but dammit, don't tell me that I don't love my country. (Not that you said that to me, but you implied it about people who feel the same way.) I'll spare you the obligatory Ben Franklin quote here.
To try and bring this back to the original point that I was trying to make from the get-go, I enjoy debating with you, Gary. What you and I are having is intelligent discourse. What you and I are doing, however, is NOT what you see in the media. Perhaps if we'd see the sort of thing that you and I are doing, instead of calling the President "evil" or saying that those who don't agree with him "hate America" then this country could move forward from the divisiveness that it's been suffering from. Can we at least agree on that?
If you want a good commentary and refutaon of the "Bush stole the election" theme, read a book by Washington Times reporter, Bill Salmon-but I can't recall the title.
I never said that those who disagree with Bush hate America, When it comes to illegal immigration, spending and limiting the size of govt-which Bush did not do- I disagree with Bush. I support him on the war on nterror, lower taxes and Judicial nominees -except Harriet Myers, of course.
Yeah, you never said that exact sentence, but you're quick to accuse people of hating America because you don't hear them say anything good about it. Just because you don't hear it, that doesn't mean that they're not saying it. And you did say that people who want to shut down Gitmo and end the wiretapping are on the side of the terrorists, which is an oversimplification of the issue.
Lance, maybe I should be more specific and focus in on those whom I definitely think despise our country and what it stands for.
In my opinion, universities are infested with many professors who hate the country. People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill come to mind.
In my opinion, the ACLU is working to undermine the foundations and traditions of our country.
You may be too young to remember when Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark went to Hanoi. Fonda posed on a anti-aircraft gun that was used to shoot down our soldiers. She made radio broadcasts from Hanoi. POWs who refused to meet with her were beaten and subjected to additional mistreatment.
Hey, how about those loons that run SF and Berkeley who want to drive military recruiters out of town or don't want a retired navy ship in SF Bay?
How aboit Cindy Sheehan (who I sympathize with as a mother who lost a son), but has turned not only against the war and Bush, but against her country and our military.
You may not agree with this but I think a lot of people are so hateful of Bush that they want us to lose in Iraq.
Thos are people I consider anti-American.
I'm familiar with most of what you mentioned, but I still think that it does nothing to help the discourse in this country when you say that they "hate" this country. Sure, many of them are very critical of the government, and they don't believe that it has our best interests at heart. That's not the same thing as hating the country. To accuse them of it, when they haven't actually made such a claim, is nothing more than a strawman that detracts from the issues at hand.
If guys like Chomsky says things that are factually incorrect, then go after that. Facts will speak for themselves.
It just seems to me that many conservatives will pull the "you hate America" card when somebody says something negative about what the government is doing, but they don't actually address whether what the person said is factually accurate or not.
For me, all I care about is the truth. As Malcolm X said, "if the truth condemns America, then she stands condemned." I don't think that there's enough out there to condemn America, but I'm not going to turn a blind eye when I see things that are going wrong. If the President is going to subvert the very principals on which this country was founed (The Constitution) then I'm going to say something about it. I find it odd that you're so trusting that our leaders have nothing but purehearted intentions. I mean, you're older than me, shouldn't you be a little bit more jaded by now? Like I said before, I'd believe that if we did something about Saudi Arabia, a far worse threat to us than Iraq ever was. The facts just don't pan out the way you describe.
A colleague of mine explains protesting the government as follows: He asks them how their parents would react if they came home one night drunk and with the car totalled. They all respond that their parents would condemn their actions. His response is, "And the reason they'd do that is because they hate you, right?"
Of course, that isn't the reason at all. But you need to realize that this is the way that many left-leaning people feel. We're protesting and complaining because we care. It's the parent who wouldn't complain that doesn't love his child. When the response on the part of conservatives is, "You hate America" then that just stops all debate. In all honesty, I find it offensive, because of what it implies. Perhaps if conservatives like yourself would actually engage in reasonable discourse (and I don't mean the sham "debate" shows like Hannity and Colmes) with liberals, then they'd see that those accusations are unfounded. Because honestly, you were lumping people who oppose Gitmo and wiretapping as "siding with the terrorists." You've engaged in an intelligent discussion with me now, and you don't think that I side with terrorists, do you?
Oddly enough, the one place where I do see some intelligent conversation is on The Daily Show. Jon Stewart frequently has guests on whom he vehemently disagrees with, but there's no "cut his mike!" or other such nonsense. Shoot, check out his interview with Huckabee:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=80701&title=gov.-mike-huckabee
Or Pat Buchanan:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=115602&title=pat-buchanan
I seem to trust the guys who see the humor in things more than others, I guess.
Your points are well taken. That is why I tried to narrow the focus of those who I will maintain are anti-American, and not just say that liberals are anti-American or hate their country. As for the names I mentioned, I will stand by what I said. When people like Ward Churchill spout their venmom, they are not acting like parents scolding their errant children who they really love. A parent who loves his children will occasionally say something nice about them. When you spend years listening to the Churchills, Chomskys, Ramsey Clarks, after a while you draw certain conclusions.
I do not take the position that criticizing something about America or the incumbent president means that you hate your country. (Maybe I gave you that impression.) I realize there are well-meaning people who think we are wrong in Gitmo and the wiretaps. I happen to think we are right in doing it.
My point is this: There is an element on the far-left that is indeed against their country. There is another element that thinks we should just give in and accommodate radical Islam. You see it all over the place in Western Europe. I reject that thinking. As far as I am concerned, Radical Islam and terror is the most important issue of our time. It is not health care, housing crisis, affordable this or affordable that.
As for Gitmo, I don't believe that terrorists, who represent no country, wear no uniform, themselves don't respect any of the Geneva Convention-are entitled to Geneva Convention protections-nor our federal courts. To me, they should be subject to military tribunals-just as the German saboteurs who landed in the US during WW2 were treated.
As for wiretaps, do you doubt for a minute that suspected 5th columnists like the German-American Bund were not subject to wiretaps? (Eventually identified German/Italian individuals who
were suspected of being connected to the Axis were confined.)
As for the Japanese Americans who were placed in relocation camps, that was a great injustice because there was no disloyalty. It was wrong. (See, I am not anti-American.) That is why rounding up Arab-Americans would be wrong. We learned from the past mistake. But if our intelligence services are monitoring terror figures overseas and they happen to call someone in the US, we are crazy if we don't listen in.
I think at this point we could go in circles on these issues. My point was just more about intelligent discourse, and the seeming lack thereof. Perhaps you have a point regarding certain liberals, but you have to give it to me that there are a lot of conservatives out there who cry "you hate America!" anytime anybody says something bad about what the current administration was doing. Shoot, Ann Coulter wrote a whole book on it!
Hey, I like Ann Coulter. OK, we're even. I insulted Tom Petty and you insulted Ann Coulter.
Well, I didn't really insult her. I was referring to her book entitled Treason where the premise is that pretty much anybody who speaks out against the administration was trying to destroy the country.
In all honesty, I think that Coulter is going to one day reveal that she's been doing satire all this time, ala Stephen Colbert.
I have not read any of her books, nor any of the other political books since they would only be preaching to the choir.
Yes, Ann Coulter is very much a satirist, something the left in their anger over her have completely missed. Of course, satirist is only part of the story. She is a political commentator also who enjoys pushing the buttons of the left. And it works.
I realize that, but I believe that she's going to one day reveal herself as a radical leftist.
Post a Comment