Telling Stories

I Love America!!! But . . .

. . . I'm really getting fed up with our puritanical obsession about sexual matters.  I'm talking about Gov. Mark Sandford.  In my opinion, the only thing he did that's worth taking him to task over was leaving for Argentina without leaving someone in charge while he was out.  That's just plain stupid and irresponsible.

But what's making news - of course - is the affair.

This is why I have so much difficulty with the GOP.  Was he wrong to have an affair?  Was he wrong to cheat on his wife?  Was he wrong in trying to conceal it from everyone?

The answer is: who the heck knows?  If you are married or have been in any kind of serious relationship, you know that the only people who know what's going on in that relationship are the two persons involved in it.  They - and, unfortunately, the kids - will have to deal with this issue.  It's an intensely personal matter that does not belong in the public arena.  Period.

If you want him to quit because he flaked out, went to Argentina, and didn't leave anyone in charge, I'm OK with that.  Love may make you do stupid things, but if you're a governor, you can't afford to do dumb stuff like that for love, money, or anything else.

But if you just think it's immoral that he's running around having an affair and it offends your sensibilities, remember this:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."  Matthew 7.1-2

Conservatives Engage in CENSORSHIP (as Defined by a Fellow Conservative)

In response to my last post, a fellow blogger and I had the following exchange (relevant parts only):

El Loco:   I don't think the original comment was a personal attack, but rather, a bad joke. A really ill-conceived bad joke. But again, that stuff happens when you're a public persona.

Offensive? Yes. But lets move on to something a little more substantive, shall we? If the right is so bent out of shape, it can boycott Letterman's sponsors, and it can use the power of the remote to watch something else.

Oh, wait. I forgot you call that censorship and not free speech.

Conservative Blogger's Response: No Loco, we call it censorship if NOW (the group not the time) all of a sudden would ask for Letterman to be fired, the way they fired Imus.

He can say whatever he wants, and he can be boycotted, there are responsibilities for your actions.

Unless my fellow blogger suggests that it's only censorship when NOW does it, and I know she's too smart to suggest that, it appears that Conservatives are engaged in censorship.  Via The Raw Story:

In spite of Letterman's apology, conservatives have launched a Web site calling for his job. The site, FireDavidLetterman.com, appears to mimic the layout of The Drudge Report. The group responsible is planning to protest outside New York's Ed Sullivan Theater on Tuesday afternoon.

Emphasis added.  If you feel compelled to check out their site, by all means.  But it only goes to show that, for some people, freedom of speech only applies if you say stuff I don't find offensive.

The moral of the story?  There are way too many people with waaaaay too much time on their hands out there right now.

"Sarah Palin & David Letterman : Dan Quayle & Murphy Brown"?

I really don't know what to make of this. To me, it was clear from the first time I heard Letterman's monologue that he was referring to Bristol Palin.  Sarah Palin's older daughter whose out-of-wedlock teenage pregnancy became something of an issue during last year's presidential campaign.  And who is also over 18.  And the reason I thought so is that nobody else seems to care about the other Palin children.

It's particularly revealing that this person, who many consider a "front runner" in the GOP for the '12 presidential election, is choosing to spend this much time and effort on such a small issue.  It's really not Letterman's fault that while Palin was advocating abstinence-only, her daughter was not abstaining and because she did not practice or believe in using prophylactics she got pregnant.  And it's not Letterman's fault that it became revealed to everyone because her mother agreed to become the GOP's vice-presidential nominee.

Politicians should know that picking fights with entertainers is not in their interest: they have very little to gain, and the entertainer gets better ratings.

Let it go, Sarah.  There's so much work the GOP must do to pick itself up and become a meaningful alternative to the Democrats for you to waste it on this.

Nothing to see here.

Moving right along . . .

The Most Adequate Representation of New York State's Senate

 

I don't think we need to elaborate . . .

Jack Kemp, R.I.P.

It won't take anybody too long to figure out my political preferences by reading this blog.  That said, my disagreements with the Republicans are more on social conservatism than anything else.  When it comes to economics, I'm a pragmatist.  And if it works, then it's good no matter what it is.

There have been precious few Republicans who have made me think about crossing party lines in a positive way (and by that I mean voting for the Republican as opposed to voting against the Democrat). 

Jack Kemp was one of those Republicans.

We're all lucky to have had him around.  And now more than ever, Republicans need more guys like Jack Kemp.

Thank you, Jack.

"That Deaf, Dumb, and Blind Kid" . . . Doesn't Seem to Know Better

And, no, this is not about The Who's Tommy.  It's about someone who seems to be just as deaf, dumb, and blind, but by choice: Bryan York of the Washington Examiner.  Back on Tuesday he wrote an article that started like this:

On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with white Americans than with black Americans, and his sky-high ratings among African-Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

Emphasis added.  In the end, the article is about how Obama's high positives in the African-American community allegedly skew the results of opinion polls.  Now, some people have called Bryan a racist.  I don't think I would go that far.  I do think the guy's either dumb (doesn't know wtf he's talking about) or disingenuous (knows wtf he's talking about but insists in making a flawed argument).  And my two main problems with it are these.

First, let's take a look at that quote.  There are a number of issues for which you could write pretty much the same thing.  Like

On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with gun owners and the NRA than with pro-gun control Americans. and his sky-high ratings among pro-gun control Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

Or how about this:

On his 100th day in office, Barack Obama enjoys high job approval ratings, no matter what poll you consult. But if a new survey by the New York Times is accurate, the president and some of his policies are significantly less popular with anti-abortion Americans than with pro-choice Americans, and his sky-high ratings among pro-choice Americans make some of his positions appear a bit more popular overall than they actually are.

Get my point?  And what's more pathetic, Bryan goes out of his way to point out that African-Americans overwhelmingly support a Democratic President over a Republican one (I know, I'm utterly shocked too) but he argues that it's because he's Black.

I looked at the poll, which you can find by following one of the previous links, and although African-American support for Obama is higher than, say, African-American support for Bill Clinton, I really can't say it's that much higher.  Why?  Because African-Americans were already overwhelmingly Democratic.

Now, if Bill Richardson had become President and you started seeing those numbers from the Latino community, I'd agree that yes, as a group, we drank the Kool-Aid.

The second issue, which I find more offensive, is the suggestion that African-American's opinion of Obama should be discounted because they are more strongly in his corner.  If that's the case, then we need to find out where the recalcitrant White racist fringe is in this poll and adjust the poll out.  Don't want to go that far?  Fair enough.  Lets find out who out of those self-described Republicans would never say anything positive about Obama no matter what happens and lets adjust the poll by removing them out.

If the suggestion is that sectors that overwhelmingly support President Obama need to be removed from the poll because they skew the results, doing the same thing for those sector that overwhelmingly oppose him should balance things out.

But the real reason the poll doesn't need to be adjusted at all is this (and this may be a news flash for some): African-Americans are people too and their opinion, individually and collectively, count just as much as anyone else's.

Like I said, the guy isn't racist.  He's the worse kind of blind man out there:the kind that sees only what he wants to see.

Really? People Bent Out of Shape Over This?

Not that I care about Miss USA - or Miss PR, for that matter - or Miss Universe.  But I had to chuckle about this one:

First runner-up Carrie Prejean (Miss California) was asked about legalizing same-sex marriage from judge Perez Hilton, the Internet blogger behind perezhilton.com.

"I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be," Prejean said during Sunday night's live telecast.

Hilton was visibly upset, and there was a mixed reaction from the live audience. Prejean ultimately came up short, losing the title to Miss North Carolina, Kristen Dalton.

Emphasis in original.  This is a win-win situation all around.  First, Miss California gets whacked a la Castrol Oil commercial from Perez Hilton.  Second, Perez Hilton was upset.  (BTW, how did that a**hole become a somebody? He's fat, ugly, and shallow in a business dominated by thin, beautiful, and shallow people.)

But third, and most hilarious to me, since when do we pick our "beauty queens" for their brain?  Had they had, say, Tim Russert - wait, no, he's dead - or Charlie Rose for a follow up question, it would have made it more interesting.

Then again, if she was so concerned about that question, she should have had a canned answer.  She gets points for sticking to her beliefs.  She loses the crown.

UPDATE: I realized people may not get the "Castrol Oil" comment so, here it is:

Strange Quotes From Strange People

This would be funny if it wasn't true:

"If I'm corrupt, it's because I take care of my district"

That would be Rep. John Murtha (D-PA).  I thought he would say that if he's racist it's because he takes care of his district.  But I guess corruption is not as incendiary as racism.

Do People Really Have THIS SHORT an Attention Span?

Via CNN.com:

The housing bust is not all bad news; some homebuyers have purchased their dream homes at prices they couldn't even hope for a year or two ago.

Take Sara and Jay Senich. They're the proud owners of a newly renovated colonial just outside Washington D.C. - one they had previously rejected as too expensive. . .

For two months they kept an eye on their Takoma Park home. When the price finally fell to $500,000, they pounced, putting in a bid for $475,000. A counter-offer was made and, after negotiations, the seller agreed to $480,000.

Helping make it affordable was the great deal they got on their mortgage. After analyzing their options, they made what many might think is a surprising choice: They financed 92% of the deal with an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM).

Emphasis added.  You know, good luck to them.  But this is the exact same reason we got in the mess we're in right now.

ARMs have taken a lot of flak for the mortgage meltdown crisis. With these loans, borrowers pay out at a low initial rate for a fixed period of time. After that, mortgages reset to (usually) higher rates. Critics say they lure borrowers into purchases they can't afford.

The Senichs, however, got an initial interest rate on their FHA-insured ARM of just 3.875% for the first five years. After that, it resets once a year and cannot go up by more than one percentage point annually. It has a five point lifetime cap, so the rate can never exceed 8.875%.

Which is all well and good as long as you're ready to pay up if the interest rate goes up to the max.  We're not even close to being out of the hole yet - and I'm not talking about the future deficits here.  So, lets not do this again.  Ever.  Please?

I'll Let You Call it "Thinking Outside the Box" if You Let Me Call it "Weird"

As a disclaimer, I don't like Newt Gingrich.  Never had.  And probably never will.  Notwithstanding my ideological differences with him, he strikes me as a pompous, hypocritical ass.

That said, I still have some problems with these ideas on "health care:"

The first step in lowering health care costs and insuring all Americans is getting people to change their behavior, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich told state lawmakers Wednesday.

The Republican endorsed the carrot over the stick, saying he would pay pregnant teens to take prenatal vitamins and go to the doctor regularly so the government avoids astronomical bills when babies end up in neonatal intensive care units.

I really don't disagree with this.  How will this fit in the anti-abortion, anti-sex-ed Republican philosophy, I have no idea.

His other ideas include paying teens who don't get pregnant and stay in school;

First, this is really sexist.  Teenage girls don't get pregnant by themselves.  Hey, even with Mary the "hand of God" had to get involved there.  You can't prevent pregnancies by focusing solely on the females, not to mention that it places a burden and a responsibility on them that does not belong just to teenage girls.

Second, we're going to start paying kids to do what they're supposed to be doing in the first place?

Third, are we looking to reward the girls who have sex but don't get pregnant too?

requiring exercise for school children;

I know it's been a while since I was in school, but, when did this stop being mandatory?

giving tax breaks to grocery stores that open in the inner city;

They don't need tax breaks as much as they need security.

giving bonuses to food stamp recipients who buy fruits and vegetables;

Hmm.  I wonder if Newt has tried to feed a family fruits and vegetables on the amount of money they get on food stamps.  Nah.  I don't think he's even tried.  He's too fat.

and making students walk to school if they live close enough.

Uphill, both ways, in winter, during a snow storm too?  And what's his idea of "close enough"?  A block?  A mile?

Sure, the devil's in the details.  But you can't start out with something so obviously inadequate.