February 29, 2004
While doing research, I came across a William Safire piece in the NY Times in January 1976. Did he forsee the coming of Glenn Reynolds?
Hillary thinks that Bill deserves a ‘thank you’ from the Bush administration for his handling of the military. In the same speech, she also noted that ‘on paper’, women in Iraq had more rights under Saddam than they do now. It’s like when Communists lament that the price of bread used to be so low forgetting that the shelves were empty.
February 27, 2004
I started writing a post about Andrew Sullivan calling The Economist magazine ‘conservative’ and how funny I found that but the painkillers that I’m taking for my back are getting in the way of full sentences. So, instead, I’ll link to my friendster profile. I like friendster. I think it’s pretty cool to see how you’re connected to people all over the country and world. The other day, I was surfing by Bo Cowgill’s site and clicked on his friendster profile, that he has posted on his front page, only to discover that we are already ‘connected’ through two of my friendsters. As I said a few days ago, small world.
February 26, 2004
My childhood friend Dave has become a really good rapper. His site is here, check out his tracks (warning: it’s rap, expect bad language). I say he is one to watch (and not just because I’m hoping he’ll remember me when he’s rich and famous).
Eleven years ago today, the World Trade Center was attacked for the first time. Eleven years ago tomorrow, we pretty much went back to normal as if nothing had happened. It will soon be three years since the last time the WTC was attacked. Have we learned how dangerous it is to return to normal as if nothing had happened?
Via the Corner.
As most of you know, I do an events site for NYC rightwingers. If you are interested in doing such a site in your area, let me know and I’ll put you in touch with Josh, the fabulous owner of the bushblog.us domain and he’ll set it up. My pitch for why these sites are a great organizational tool is here.
The Yeti feels sorry for the real victims of gay marriage.
Last night, my adorably raised brother, his friend, Ari, her brother and Doug came over to visit me (and Peter) in my invalid state. At some point after my brother and his friend left, Ari, Doug, Peter and I were talking about anti-Semitism and I mentioned that I had read a funny post about how anti-Semitism only matters, to some people, when it might be practiced by Christians. I had been blogsurfing yesterday and had forgotten where I saw it. And then today, Gib, the writer of the post, commented here. Small blog world. Go read it, it’s great.
What is it about president Bush that drives some people so competely over the edge? I’m a reader of the Buzzmachine blog for awhile now. Jeff Jarvis was never a Bush fan but it seems that the amendment has forced him to cross into the darkside of irrationality that so many Bush haters make frequent forays into. It seems that Clear Channel has pulled Howard Stern off the air. And, with the zeal of any Kucinich supporter or Indymedia poster, Jarvis proclaims it is all….Bush’s fault. But of course. A private company suspends an employee and it’s the fault of the government.
Jarvis writes: ‘Let’s hear a little liberartarian outrage at government meddling in our lives and our speech. Let’s hear a little conservative outrage at government growing beyond its bounds. Let’s hear a little liberal outrage at goverment stiffling free spech.’
His commenters respond:
‘Private companies making their own decisions on what they will tolerate from their employees–the horror!’
‘Seriously, what does Bush have to do with this? I am looking for the two s**ts Bush gives about Howard Stern — so far, I am not finding them. Also, radio has been government-controlled since Dubya was but a naughty gleam in H.W. and Barbara’s eyes; you can’t very well blame him for not disbanding the FCC, or whatever it is you want him to do in order to make sure you can get your Howard fix if you happen to be in Miami. (All the major Miami radio stations are actually in Ft. Lauderdale, long story, no doubt gummint meddling is at the bottom of it).
But don’t worry — Clear Channel being a commercial enterprise not a crypto-fascist org in the pay of the Shadow Government will no doubt take into account the shrieks of the legions of Stern fans, and he’ll probably get his show back everywhere in jig time.’
‘Gosh, I didn’t know I had the right to have a syndicated show on Clear Channel. I thought that was … a job. One from which you can be fired.
I didn’t know Clear Channel was the only forum via which Howard Stern is capable of speaking. Because that would have to be true for this to qualify as censorship, or a squashing of free speech.’
‘Stern asked Salomon if he engaged in anal sex and referred to the size of his penis. Using a racist term, a caller to the show asked Solomon if he had ever had sex with any famous black women.
The “racist” term by the way was the “nigger”….
you are happy about this kind of “speech” on public airwaves? Please explain why this is acceptable, I cannot wait. Plus, it was a private company that pulled Stern NOT the Government. ‘
‘Oh yes, I forgot the fifth branch of government, ClearChannel. How stupid of me.’
‘Gee Jeff. Your post is flat out hysterical. No, I don’t mean a laughing matter. What I mean, is get a freaking grip.’
‘Jeff have censored your posters before due to bad language because you explain, your son might read it. Yet Clear Channels can’t fire who they want?
JEFF! I HAVE NEWS FOR YOU! I CAN BE FIRED FOR BEING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT AT WORK! ARE YOU SHOCKED?’
And on and on went the outrage.
…..someone please tell Peter ’says he was born in NY but you could tell he was raised in West Virgina’ why this is no good.
February 25, 2004
There are a couple of possible versions of the amendment floating around so it is interesting how so many people, myself included, have taken a side before even seeing one final version. I’m against the concept of altering the constitution for almost any purpose, that is my explanation. Still, James Taranto has a proposal for an amendment that would work for those of us who believe in state’s rights and also appease those who don’t want the laws of some states imposing their will on others: “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to require any state or the federal government to recognize any marriage except between a man and a woman.”
What do you think?
I don’t care about Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of Christ. I have no urge to see it. I don’t care if the movie portrays Jews killing Christ or what the reprecussions of that imagery on sensitive skulled people will be. It’s just not interesting enough to me. Are any of you rushing out to the theatre to see it?
You know when you have a pain and you ignore it and ignore it until it becomes unbearable? Yeah, I’m at that stage right now. I have a horrendous leg pain that my doctor suspects is from a back injury. I can’t walk too well and I can’t sit at all. Peter has been amazing, putting my socks on for me, making me coffee and letting me hang on to him as I hobble around. I couldn’t adore him more. So, what I’m saying is, if you’re here because you followed a link besmirching my good name, just know not to believe your sources.
Side note: huge thanks to Ari for taking such fabulous care of my crippled self last night. All of you should wish she lived down the block from you.
I am against amending the Constitution to codify what marriage is or isn’t. Still, it’s been curious today hearing other opponents of the amendment saying ‘why now, we’ve got so many other problems, why is Bush doing this now?’ Seriously, that’s an easy one.
Update: Annika is for gay marriage and for the amendment. Go read her interesting take.
Further Update: While against the amendment, Physics Geek has some words for those that were voting for President Bush but say they won’t now that he is supporting the amendment. He also has a good roundup of other blogger reactions.
February 24, 2004
That protest I mentioned the other day is this Saturday, not last Saturday.
If she hasn’t posted in ages, is she still a guest blogger?
I think so.
I thought I would share the news that today, President Vladimir Putin of Russia has dismissed the federal government.
Just one of many idiosyncracies of the Russian constitution, I suppose. And another shameless display of authoritarian power.
It’s not actually all that shocking, really. Independent thinking anywhere, let alone among government officials, isn’t typically approved of by Mr. Putin. And Prime Minister Kasianov wasn’t so comfortable after having criticized the Yukos affair.
Furthermore, criticisms of Kasianov were bolstered last week by critical economic adviser Andrei Illarionov’s poor grading of the federal government’s economic policies.
Public reaction should be positive. Kasianov is the last major holdover from the not-so-much-loved Yeltsin administration, which initially thought it would keep power in “the family” as it were by passing power on to this no-name KGB guy back on New Year’s Eve four years ago.
Already, Putin’s opponents for the March election are dropping out. It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, this move has on that trend, not to mention his ratings.
Just imagine an America where Bush, for example, dismissed Colin Powell and all of his State Department advisers three weeks before the reelection.