I've been listening to The Jim Rome Show on local AM radio for years. For the most part, I enjoy it. Far more often than not, Mr. Rome has a fine talk show, knows what he's talking about, invites
great guests (typically sports figures, naturally), is an excellent interviewer (one of the very best), and sets up
thought-provoking topics for good discussions.
During his show, Jim Rome has an open phone line and takes phone calls from his listeners, and if his show has a weak spot, it's possibly this: oftentimes these callers are just terrible and they end up embarrassing themselves to a national audience. The pace of the show can slow after each one of these silly calls is rejected and Mr. Rome admonishes the caller for some silly or stupid or rude thing that was said.
Now, calls can either be racked --- the show's term for its acceptance of what it deems a
good call --- or rejected, usually with Jim Rome offering a vocalized buzzer sound-effect to end the rejected call.
But it's which calls are racked and which are rejected that is
most interesting.
Apparently, if callers manage to copy the call style of previously acceptable callers, they are racked (they are deemed acceptable), but if callers do not copy other callers properly --- have a "take that sucks," to use the show's parlance --- they are rejected (they are deemed unacceptable), and oddly enough, Mr. Rome refers to his avid listeners as Clones, which is something I've not been able to figure out... until recently.
Although Jim Rome might take exception to this comparison, the name Clone is somewhat similar to Rush Limbaugh's Dittoheads (Limbaugh's listeners), and although the only things Rush and Jim seem to have in common are that they're both white males with talk shows on AM radio, it seems there is a certain similarity in the monikers of their respective listeners.
Dittoheads tend to repeat and reinforce the ideas offered by Mr. Limbaugh, and, in a similar way, Clones tend to clone the jargon of Mr. Rome as well as the call styles of other successful callers, so much so that the show has an annual Smack Off program for the best Clone callers to call in and talk smack on any topic they wish (or about other Smack Off callers), and the show also has an annual Hack Off program for the worst Clone callers (the hacks) to compete with one another in similar fashion.
No, this is not at all important to anything or to anyone, but it's something I've been trying to figure out for a while, and I think I finally have. At least I feel better now.
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
"Moderate Mitt" is a myth...
In this article Gov. Mitt Romney is quoted saying...
Make no mistake, "Moderate Mitt" is a myth. If he believes doing so can help him somehow, he will say anything, to anyone, about any subject. Full stop. He will eventually piss off his conservative base, and soon.
There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda.He said this to a reporter for the Des Moines Register on Tuesday, 10/9. But what does this actually mean? To see his trick, reformulate the sentence this way...
There's no recipe with regards to beef stew that I'm familiar with that would become a part of my cookbook.What happens when one encounters a new recipe for beef stew (or Mr. Romney encounters a new legislation for abortion)? Wouldn't this leave an out? Couldn't this mean one might be able to include the newly encountered beef stew recipe? Mitt instantly renders his own statement meaningless through this obvious double-speak.
Make no mistake, "Moderate Mitt" is a myth. If he believes doing so can help him somehow, he will say anything, to anyone, about any subject. Full stop. He will eventually piss off his conservative base, and soon.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Do some on MSNBC sink to Fox News' level?
In the left's post-debate angst-fest, a few MSNBC folks felt it necessary to vent harshly and vent loudly.
Chris Mathews, as one example, suggested President Obama should "bring the knives out," and Lawrence O'Donnell, who I think is a wicked smart man most of the time, referred to an analogy made by a newspaper writer who suggested the debates are like a bullfight, with Obama as matador and Romney as bull. The writer, and by using it, O'Donnell, intimated that we all know how a bullfight ends, metaphorically suggesting Romney would be killed by Obama.
Really? A murder metaphor?
For clarity and in fairness, I repeat: this was not O'Donnell's metaphor, he was referring to someone else's use of it, but... O'Donnell did refer to it to make his point, ergo ipso facto.
Previously and throughout the day, a few other MSNBCers also made some fairly general statements and close-to-mean-spirited remarks, but my goal here is not to detail particular anecdotal shortcomings, it's to make a larger and, I feel, more important point.
There has been a meme taking shape for a couple years that MSNBC is the left-wing news channel and Fox is the right-wing news channel. It's as if each is the mouthpiece for the corresponding political party. The short answer is no freaking way!
Considering it's on record that Fox News does receive and follow memos from the RNC (see video of Steve Doocy's direct referral to one such memo on the Fox News morning show last year), there is no argument available to counter this claim. It's a fact.
On the other hand, MSNBC's talking heads' overwhelmingly negative responses to Obama's performance is fairly effective proof that MSNBC is nowhere near the Obama tank, let alone the DNC's. If it were, MSNBCers would have spun his poor performance far more than was done, which almost wasn't done. Most called it like they saw it: Obama did not show up, he sucked as a debater, and he allowed Romney to walk all over him.
Full stop.
Conversely, and to be honest, when has Fox News said a discouraging word about Romney, aside from when it was trying to overtly influence the Republican primary by first favoring an uninterested Christie, then an unqualified/unbelievable Trump, and then "real" condidates Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and finally Romney only when it was clear they weren't going to get their way with who they saw as the "truer" conservatives? But here they are now, offering Romney as the savior of conservative thought, even as they spit over their collective shoulder after the very words leave their mouths.
In other words, whether some of them like it or not, Fox News is in effective lockstep with the Romney parade; it's all aboard the Romney-Ryan Express. It's full speed ahead, even as Fox News accuses MSNBC of "liberal bias."
Hello... kettle? This is pot.
Easy, albeit wholly ineffective, arguments are made that MSNBC and Fox News are two sides of a coin, but they aren't. MSNBC has managed, for the most part, to remain "fair and balanced," able to see and present both sides of arguments, and stay above the mean-spirited and hateful opprobrium, by instead offering reasoned and thoughtful presentations, with a few exceptions: Ed Schultz's loaded questions can make him less credible; Martin Basheer's naked sarcasm is quite often tiring; and Chris Mathews recent ranting makes him seem just shrill and annoying, rather than the wise elder he clearly wishes to present.
This is just so simple. Guys, don't be assholes. Don't be pricks. Olbermann is gone. There's no need to imitate his ineffectual anger, and more importantly, it just makes you look like the schmucks on Fox News.
Stay above this. Don't go there. Don't drop to that low level in order to make your points.
You don't have to do it. Look to your colleagues Maddow, Wagner, Hayes, Harris-Perry, et al., for how it's done, because MSNBC's youth movement is excellent and can teach the elders a few lessons in decorum.
Chris Mathews, as one example, suggested President Obama should "bring the knives out," and Lawrence O'Donnell, who I think is a wicked smart man most of the time, referred to an analogy made by a newspaper writer who suggested the debates are like a bullfight, with Obama as matador and Romney as bull. The writer, and by using it, O'Donnell, intimated that we all know how a bullfight ends, metaphorically suggesting Romney would be killed by Obama.
Really? A murder metaphor?
For clarity and in fairness, I repeat: this was not O'Donnell's metaphor, he was referring to someone else's use of it, but... O'Donnell did refer to it to make his point, ergo ipso facto.
Previously and throughout the day, a few other MSNBCers also made some fairly general statements and close-to-mean-spirited remarks, but my goal here is not to detail particular anecdotal shortcomings, it's to make a larger and, I feel, more important point.
There has been a meme taking shape for a couple years that MSNBC is the left-wing news channel and Fox is the right-wing news channel. It's as if each is the mouthpiece for the corresponding political party. The short answer is no freaking way!
Considering it's on record that Fox News does receive and follow memos from the RNC (see video of Steve Doocy's direct referral to one such memo on the Fox News morning show last year), there is no argument available to counter this claim. It's a fact.
On the other hand, MSNBC's talking heads' overwhelmingly negative responses to Obama's performance is fairly effective proof that MSNBC is nowhere near the Obama tank, let alone the DNC's. If it were, MSNBCers would have spun his poor performance far more than was done, which almost wasn't done. Most called it like they saw it: Obama did not show up, he sucked as a debater, and he allowed Romney to walk all over him.
Full stop.
Conversely, and to be honest, when has Fox News said a discouraging word about Romney, aside from when it was trying to overtly influence the Republican primary by first favoring an uninterested Christie, then an unqualified/unbelievable Trump, and then "real" condidates Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and finally Romney only when it was clear they weren't going to get their way with who they saw as the "truer" conservatives? But here they are now, offering Romney as the savior of conservative thought, even as they spit over their collective shoulder after the very words leave their mouths.
In other words, whether some of them like it or not, Fox News is in effective lockstep with the Romney parade; it's all aboard the Romney-Ryan Express. It's full speed ahead, even as Fox News accuses MSNBC of "liberal bias."
Hello... kettle? This is pot.
Easy, albeit wholly ineffective, arguments are made that MSNBC and Fox News are two sides of a coin, but they aren't. MSNBC has managed, for the most part, to remain "fair and balanced," able to see and present both sides of arguments, and stay above the mean-spirited and hateful opprobrium, by instead offering reasoned and thoughtful presentations, with a few exceptions: Ed Schultz's loaded questions can make him less credible; Martin Basheer's naked sarcasm is quite often tiring; and Chris Mathews recent ranting makes him seem just shrill and annoying, rather than the wise elder he clearly wishes to present.
This is just so simple. Guys, don't be assholes. Don't be pricks. Olbermann is gone. There's no need to imitate his ineffectual anger, and more importantly, it just makes you look like the schmucks on Fox News.
Stay above this. Don't go there. Don't drop to that low level in order to make your points.
You don't have to do it. Look to your colleagues Maddow, Wagner, Hayes, Harris-Perry, et al., for how it's done, because MSNBC's youth movement is excellent and can teach the elders a few lessons in decorum.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Same as it ever was...
I'm sure the talking heads will be talking about last night's Presidential Debate in this news cycle, and little else, so I thought I'd pose some questions to them, even though I'm nowhere near naive enough to believe they read this blog. This said, though, I do believe these questions deserve to be asked:
Sorry, but I just don't see how anyone who has paid even a little attention to him could take away that he's in any way sincere about anything. He's constantly changed his positions on too many things to think otherwise.
Look, it's OK to change your mind about things. We all do this. We think a certain way, then we're confronted with a new reality, or some new perspective, or some new information, and we adapt or change our thinking in the face of this new thing (or cling desperately to the wrong position). But Romney doesn't do this. What he does is abruptly state a changed position based on the situation in which he finds himself, the people he's talking to, the person interviewing him.
There is a big difference here. And this isn't just a flip-flop argument, rather, this is a naked-pander argument.
Regardless of what he said last night, and I admit he was well-rehearsed (more on that in a moment), he remains nothing more than who he is: Willard "Mitt" Romney, the guy who has so transparently and consistently proven time and time again that he cannot speak consistently about, or be consistent with, any topic. The guy who constantly forgets that there is a technology called video that captures for posterity that which someone says, a position someone has had, and allows for later comparisons.
Mitt is consistently inconsistent.
And... how does the far right feel about him coming so abruptly to the middle on so many things? Didn't he just throw his base off a cliff? Didn't he just put them in a position to show they're being inconsistent, being hypocritical? Or am I just being naive... again?
Although Romney was well-rehearsed, well coached, he just came off sounding as if he was repeating, by rote, what he was told to say. I didn't get any sort of feeling that he believes what he said. He was merely doing what he has so consistently done in the past: saying anything depending on the situation, in order to close the deal.
Anyway, it makes no sense to me that anyone could come away from last night thinking Romney's somehow different than he's proven to be.
And even as the talking heads talk, please allow me to paraphrase the Talking Heads: Romney has been, is, and will be, same as he ever was.
- What difference does Gov. Romney's change in demeanor, this reset, the appearance of this new self, this Makeover n-point-O, really make?
- Isn't he still the same inconsistent panderer he's always been?
- Doesn't this "performance" just point to his well-documented slippery, chameleon tendency to say anything depending on the circumstance?
- Didn't he just pander on far more topics than usual last night and do it all in one sitting?
Sorry, but I just don't see how anyone who has paid even a little attention to him could take away that he's in any way sincere about anything. He's constantly changed his positions on too many things to think otherwise.
Look, it's OK to change your mind about things. We all do this. We think a certain way, then we're confronted with a new reality, or some new perspective, or some new information, and we adapt or change our thinking in the face of this new thing (or cling desperately to the wrong position). But Romney doesn't do this. What he does is abruptly state a changed position based on the situation in which he finds himself, the people he's talking to, the person interviewing him.
There is a big difference here. And this isn't just a flip-flop argument, rather, this is a naked-pander argument.
Regardless of what he said last night, and I admit he was well-rehearsed (more on that in a moment), he remains nothing more than who he is: Willard "Mitt" Romney, the guy who has so transparently and consistently proven time and time again that he cannot speak consistently about, or be consistent with, any topic. The guy who constantly forgets that there is a technology called video that captures for posterity that which someone says, a position someone has had, and allows for later comparisons.
Mitt is consistently inconsistent.
And... how does the far right feel about him coming so abruptly to the middle on so many things? Didn't he just throw his base off a cliff? Didn't he just put them in a position to show they're being inconsistent, being hypocritical? Or am I just being naive... again?
Although Romney was well-rehearsed, well coached, he just came off sounding as if he was repeating, by rote, what he was told to say. I didn't get any sort of feeling that he believes what he said. He was merely doing what he has so consistently done in the past: saying anything depending on the situation, in order to close the deal.
Anyway, it makes no sense to me that anyone could come away from last night thinking Romney's somehow different than he's proven to be.
And even as the talking heads talk, please allow me to paraphrase the Talking Heads: Romney has been, is, and will be, same as he ever was.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Diana Krall: (the) Glad Rag Doll
Oh joy. Last night I received my copy of Diana Krall's latest CD, Glad Rag Doll. I advance ordered it and have been keen to hear it for weeks.
I've always thought Diana was a beautiful woman, but it was her voice that first drew me and continues to, as it does, I'm sure, millions of others. That smoky, throaty thrum and perfectly placed phrasing that make any lyric just work better; her wonderful arrangements; her clean piano playing; and those delightful musicians who back her up: what a combination.
But then I opened the package and saw the Glad Rag Doll cover photo for the first time.
Oh my.
Speechless.
Breathless.
Heart racing.
Wh-wh-what did I order?
And then I remembered... oh yeah... there's music on this thing... it's a CD!
Whew.
Thank you, Diana, one more time.
I've always thought Diana was a beautiful woman, but it was her voice that first drew me and continues to, as it does, I'm sure, millions of others. That smoky, throaty thrum and perfectly placed phrasing that make any lyric just work better; her wonderful arrangements; her clean piano playing; and those delightful musicians who back her up: what a combination.
But then I opened the package and saw the Glad Rag Doll cover photo for the first time.
Oh my.
Speechless.
Breathless.
Heart racing.
Wh-wh-what did I order?
And then I remembered... oh yeah... there's music on this thing... it's a CD!
Whew.
Thank you, Diana, one more time.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The largest media voice is blaming the media...
No doubt about it, Fox News is the ratings winner, day after day, night after night, and week after week. One of its top-rated shows (if not the top-rated show), The O'Reilly Factor, draws among the largest audiences by far. Although Fox News claims to be "fair and balanced" and says "we report you decide"to anyone who will listen, Fox News offers a wide-range of right-centric pundits and hyper-conservative talking heads.
Its guests are right-focused and its spin is right-focused. Its one token lefty, Alan Colms, left Sean Hannity's show years ago, and even Colms knew he wasn't a Liberal.
Indeed, the right-focused Fox News is the heavy-weight contender in the prime-time ring, and it wins round after round by pounding down its non-right rivals with huge ratings wins.
Yet Fox News claims to be a lightweight, to not have the influence of what it perceives as "the media," the real media, the left-aligned media. It's as if Fox News somehow feels it's unable to have its voice heard because the pervasive, omnipresent, left-aligned "media" is speaking louder.
Sure it is.
So the questions are... is "the media" not anyone or anything that offers glimpses into the news of the day, the current events and topics that affect us, affect and effect our opinions, and influence both? And, therefore, is Fox News not part of the media?
The answers are yes and yes.
And so, by any definition, Fox News is part of the media, but to hear Fox News folks tell it, "the media" is always liberal and left, and Fox News has no place being lumped in with anything that's not right of center (i.e., not the media).
Yup. Fox News blaming "the media" for its bias is akin to a bass blaming a bluegill for peeing in the pond.
If only Fox News, et al., could accept this simple truth: some parts of "the media" have a left-to-Liberal bias and other parts of "the media," including Fox News, have a right-to-Conservative bias.
But this is how Fox News sees it: "The media" = left, Liberal, biased; Fox News = the truth.
Its guests are right-focused and its spin is right-focused. Its one token lefty, Alan Colms, left Sean Hannity's show years ago, and even Colms knew he wasn't a Liberal.
Indeed, the right-focused Fox News is the heavy-weight contender in the prime-time ring, and it wins round after round by pounding down its non-right rivals with huge ratings wins.
Yet Fox News claims to be a lightweight, to not have the influence of what it perceives as "the media," the real media, the left-aligned media. It's as if Fox News somehow feels it's unable to have its voice heard because the pervasive, omnipresent, left-aligned "media" is speaking louder.
Sure it is.
So the questions are... is "the media" not anyone or anything that offers glimpses into the news of the day, the current events and topics that affect us, affect and effect our opinions, and influence both? And, therefore, is Fox News not part of the media?
The answers are yes and yes.
And so, by any definition, Fox News is part of the media, but to hear Fox News folks tell it, "the media" is always liberal and left, and Fox News has no place being lumped in with anything that's not right of center (i.e., not the media).
Yup. Fox News blaming "the media" for its bias is akin to a bass blaming a bluegill for peeing in the pond.
If only Fox News, et al., could accept this simple truth: some parts of "the media" have a left-to-Liberal bias and other parts of "the media," including Fox News, have a right-to-Conservative bias.
But this is how Fox News sees it: "The media" = left, Liberal, biased; Fox News = the truth.
Friday, September 28, 2012
My dad loved "47"...
I don't know about you, but our family always seemed to have inside jokes, gags, expressions, sayings that ran continuously and seemed to work in every case. We often listened to comedy records, Smothers Brothers and Bill Cosby, among others, and would recite memorized lines to one another. Mostly, these were used spontaneously and uniquely. Over time they would be subtly modified or altered to suit someone or some situation, but a few never changed.
One of those that has never changed for my family is the number 47. My dad coined it and would use it as follows, among other ways:
Well, this latest case of Mitt Romney's Olympic-class dick-stepping just had to involve 47% of Americans who Mitt managed to make angry. It had to. It couldn't have been an even 48%. It had to be 47%.
Perfect. The mystical recurring number again appears.
This would have my dad smiling and chuckling. Even though this gaffe might have put him off doing so, he probably would have voted for Mitt, but either way, he would have liked to know that his favorite number, our family's favorite number, was at the heart of this foolishness.
I will have to hear this news story another 47 times before my own smile diminishes even 1/47th. Thank you for this, Harry, 47 x 47 times.
One of those that has never changed for my family is the number 47. My dad coined it and would use it as follows, among other ways:
- I have 47 chores to do today.
- There are always 47 things they want from you on these forms.
- You kids seem to have 47 excuses for everything.
- etc.
Well, this latest case of Mitt Romney's Olympic-class dick-stepping just had to involve 47% of Americans who Mitt managed to make angry. It had to. It couldn't have been an even 48%. It had to be 47%.
Perfect. The mystical recurring number again appears.
This would have my dad smiling and chuckling. Even though this gaffe might have put him off doing so, he probably would have voted for Mitt, but either way, he would have liked to know that his favorite number, our family's favorite number, was at the heart of this foolishness.
I will have to hear this news story another 47 times before my own smile diminishes even 1/47th. Thank you for this, Harry, 47 x 47 times.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
If Romney doesn't Reed history, he might repeat it...
Ralph Reed came as close as one can to being indicted for his part in a Jack Abramoff scheme, in which Reed accepted money for lobbying against casino gambling even as Abramoff was trying to get a gig as a casino gambling lobbyist. In so doing, Ralph managed to drag Focus on the Family, the US Family Network, and his own Christian Coalition into his questionable dealings, and even benefited from Grover Norquist's own organization, Americans for Tax Reform, as a money-laundering "pass-through."
Yup. Ralph is a real sweet guy.
But now, almost inexplicably, the Republican nominee for POTUS, Mitt Romney, might use this sweet guy's call-list databases in his own venal and cynical push for the Oval Office. (See the NYT news story here.)
Is there anything that could better demonstrate Mitt's raw and desperate desire to gain office than accepting assistance from Ralph Reed, a guy who cavorted with a convicted con man and who gives smarm a bad name?
Does this lapse of reason suggest Romney might not be doing his homework by reading up on a little recent history? Because surely if he had read, even a little, he'd realize the credibility trap he's falling into by aligning himself with the incredible Mr. Reed, wouldn't he?
I know the ability to forgive is big in the Christian faith, but how many times can someone be forgiven their bad behavior before those doing the forgiving realize there's a pattern in behavior that is, in truth, unforgivable?
Yup. Ralph is a real sweet guy.
But now, almost inexplicably, the Republican nominee for POTUS, Mitt Romney, might use this sweet guy's call-list databases in his own venal and cynical push for the Oval Office. (See the NYT news story here.)
Is there anything that could better demonstrate Mitt's raw and desperate desire to gain office than accepting assistance from Ralph Reed, a guy who cavorted with a convicted con man and who gives smarm a bad name?
Does this lapse of reason suggest Romney might not be doing his homework by reading up on a little recent history? Because surely if he had read, even a little, he'd realize the credibility trap he's falling into by aligning himself with the incredible Mr. Reed, wouldn't he?
I know the ability to forgive is big in the Christian faith, but how many times can someone be forgiven their bad behavior before those doing the forgiving realize there's a pattern in behavior that is, in truth, unforgivable?
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
The Mitt has hit the fan... again
Dear Mitt…
Really? Forty-seven percent of the country is irresponsible? You do realize this is about 150,000,000 people, right? You also realize that tax cuts promoted by your own party are why so many people pay so little income tax, right? But most importantly, you have to realize this number includes some of your own voters, right?
No?
Oops. Mitt happens.
Of this “dependent” 47% who “don’t pay income taxes,” 61% do pay payroll taxes (the middle-class and blue-collar workers about which you claim to care so deeply), and 22% who are elderly (who you also claim as part of your base), receive Social Security payments that are possibly also taxed.
My late parents were Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries and extremely responsible, Mitt. They worked their asses off for decades (as so many do), paid FICA and payroll and income taxes (as so many do), and were lucky enough to have meager pensions to boot. But they were nothing like “victims.” In fact, my dad voted for George Bush --- twice --- and probably would have wanted to vote for you too had he lived. (My mom? Not so much.)
But the point is, Mitt, my dad was not unique. The US has plenty of Harry O’Briens in its 47%; however, by speaking “inelegantly” to your base at a fundraiser, you have managed to alienate guys just like my dad, one of the most elegant, most responsible, hardest working men you would ever want to know.
So if this latest nonsense of yours is part of your campaign’s “reset,” then you might want to rethink it, because shooting yourself in the foot and then stepping on your own d!@k with that same foot will not inspire confidence in folks like my dad, and you definitely need all the Harry O’Briens you can muster.
Sincerely…
Harry’s son
Really? Forty-seven percent of the country is irresponsible? You do realize this is about 150,000,000 people, right? You also realize that tax cuts promoted by your own party are why so many people pay so little income tax, right? But most importantly, you have to realize this number includes some of your own voters, right?
No?
Oops. Mitt happens.
Of this “dependent” 47% who “don’t pay income taxes,” 61% do pay payroll taxes (the middle-class and blue-collar workers about which you claim to care so deeply), and 22% who are elderly (who you also claim as part of your base), receive Social Security payments that are possibly also taxed.
My late parents were Medicare and Social Security beneficiaries and extremely responsible, Mitt. They worked their asses off for decades (as so many do), paid FICA and payroll and income taxes (as so many do), and were lucky enough to have meager pensions to boot. But they were nothing like “victims.” In fact, my dad voted for George Bush --- twice --- and probably would have wanted to vote for you too had he lived. (My mom? Not so much.)
But the point is, Mitt, my dad was not unique. The US has plenty of Harry O’Briens in its 47%; however, by speaking “inelegantly” to your base at a fundraiser, you have managed to alienate guys just like my dad, one of the most elegant, most responsible, hardest working men you would ever want to know.
So if this latest nonsense of yours is part of your campaign’s “reset,” then you might want to rethink it, because shooting yourself in the foot and then stepping on your own d!@k with that same foot will not inspire confidence in folks like my dad, and you definitely need all the Harry O’Briens you can muster.
Sincerely…
Harry’s son
Sunday, February 12, 2012
The Catholic 98 Percent...
Contraceptives have been available for decades. They are legally prescribed and sold. Millions of women have used them. Women and their families have relied on them to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
No child asks to be born, nor can a child choose its parents. This is not a custom-ordered thing. The Octamom's children didn't ask for that woman as their mother, but they ended up with that woman as their mother. Lucky them.
You need a license to own a dog, but you don't need a license to have a child. What if some people just aren't fit to have children? All too often children are born into situations that prove to be bad for them. If some children unfortunate to be born into dysfunctional situations were never born, would they not be better off?
Contraceptives can prevent these questions from ever being asked. Contraceptives can benefit families in particular and societies as a whole. Contraceptives can allow families that want children to decide for themselves when they'll have their children, or they can allow families who don't want children (which is a legitimate and fair decision to make) to never have children should they decide that.
For centuries the Catholic Church (a male-dominated organization, let's remember) has preached "go forth and multiply," but they've simultaneously preached that marriage is about procreational sex not recreational sex; and they've preached against any sort of contraceptive method, save the rhythm method. Wow. There was a great idea, an idea developed by men who, given their chosen occupation, could never have children of their own. This is like the Major League Baseball Commissioner telling Aaron Rodgers when to throw a pass, how to throw it, and to whom.
So many families with at least one child my age had a "surprise baby." Oops. "It just sort of happened." "We didn't expect her." "He arrived as a surprise to us." Yup, the rhythm method works really well and should be commemorated with its own Catholic feast day: The Feast of the Inaccurate Conception.
But bad puns aside, this policy of the Catholic Church is archaic and wrong and runs completely counter to another of the church's stated goals of alleviating suffering: it does little more than cause suffering. So it must be OK with the bishops for an unwanted child to suffer in a loveless family but not OK for a woman to take a pill that would save that child a life of pain.
This policy has doomed millions of innocent children to sad, dreadful fates and it's led to critical population explosions in many parts of the world. (And don't even get me started on "original sin," which dooms children in utero.)
It's well past time for this absurd prohibition to be ended, for contraceptives to be embraced to the extent that they can alleviate potential suffering among those who want them, and for a more supportive realistic policy to take its place, one that enables families to have children when they want to have them and not when an organization whose childless membership tells these families when they can reproduce, how they can reproduce, and how often.
And now the Catholic Bishops are pissed because the Affordable Health Care Act says that insurance companies have to make contraceptives available to everyone for free, including their parishioners, but only if those parishioners want contraceptives. But here's the kicker your eminences... if someone does not want contraceptives, they don't have to have them. Full stop.
This portion of the Affordable Health Care Act is not a case of someone being forced to do something, but if you stop and think about it, it is a case of the Catholic Bishops forcing millions of Catholic women and families to do something. This glaring contradiction aside, this is an issue of providing a service that is legal and ethical, that approximately 98% of Catholic women have used at some point in their lives, and that can help them decide when they have their own children.
Because after all, their children belong to them and not to the Catholic Church, which is a good thing because the church's record on how it treats its "children" has not exactly been a good one.
What if those children had never been born?
P.S. I was a Catholic from birth until about 1970, and I was an altar boy for four years. I made it through unscathed. I'm now in full recovery and remain blissfully unaffiliated.
No child asks to be born, nor can a child choose its parents. This is not a custom-ordered thing. The Octamom's children didn't ask for that woman as their mother, but they ended up with that woman as their mother. Lucky them.
You need a license to own a dog, but you don't need a license to have a child. What if some people just aren't fit to have children? All too often children are born into situations that prove to be bad for them. If some children unfortunate to be born into dysfunctional situations were never born, would they not be better off?
Contraceptives can prevent these questions from ever being asked. Contraceptives can benefit families in particular and societies as a whole. Contraceptives can allow families that want children to decide for themselves when they'll have their children, or they can allow families who don't want children (which is a legitimate and fair decision to make) to never have children should they decide that.
For centuries the Catholic Church (a male-dominated organization, let's remember) has preached "go forth and multiply," but they've simultaneously preached that marriage is about procreational sex not recreational sex; and they've preached against any sort of contraceptive method, save the rhythm method. Wow. There was a great idea, an idea developed by men who, given their chosen occupation, could never have children of their own. This is like the Major League Baseball Commissioner telling Aaron Rodgers when to throw a pass, how to throw it, and to whom.
So many families with at least one child my age had a "surprise baby." Oops. "It just sort of happened." "We didn't expect her." "He arrived as a surprise to us." Yup, the rhythm method works really well and should be commemorated with its own Catholic feast day: The Feast of the Inaccurate Conception.
But bad puns aside, this policy of the Catholic Church is archaic and wrong and runs completely counter to another of the church's stated goals of alleviating suffering: it does little more than cause suffering. So it must be OK with the bishops for an unwanted child to suffer in a loveless family but not OK for a woman to take a pill that would save that child a life of pain.
This policy has doomed millions of innocent children to sad, dreadful fates and it's led to critical population explosions in many parts of the world. (And don't even get me started on "original sin," which dooms children in utero.)
It's well past time for this absurd prohibition to be ended, for contraceptives to be embraced to the extent that they can alleviate potential suffering among those who want them, and for a more supportive realistic policy to take its place, one that enables families to have children when they want to have them and not when an organization whose childless membership tells these families when they can reproduce, how they can reproduce, and how often.
And now the Catholic Bishops are pissed because the Affordable Health Care Act says that insurance companies have to make contraceptives available to everyone for free, including their parishioners, but only if those parishioners want contraceptives. But here's the kicker your eminences... if someone does not want contraceptives, they don't have to have them. Full stop.
This portion of the Affordable Health Care Act is not a case of someone being forced to do something, but if you stop and think about it, it is a case of the Catholic Bishops forcing millions of Catholic women and families to do something. This glaring contradiction aside, this is an issue of providing a service that is legal and ethical, that approximately 98% of Catholic women have used at some point in their lives, and that can help them decide when they have their own children.
Because after all, their children belong to them and not to the Catholic Church, which is a good thing because the church's record on how it treats its "children" has not exactly been a good one.
What if those children had never been born?
P.S. I was a Catholic from birth until about 1970, and I was an altar boy for four years. I made it through unscathed. I'm now in full recovery and remain blissfully unaffiliated.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
No Mo CSCO...
For the first time since 1991 I do not own any Cisco stock. It's a weird feeling.
It was a great ride and a great run and changed my life for the better for, probably, the rest of my life.
Thank you Sandy for hiring me as a technician, thank you Steve for hiring me as a writer, and thank you John and John for running such a great company.
Thank you also to Cecilia, Shawn, Joe, Barbara, Ben, and everyone else who made the experience meaningful and special. I'll never forget any of you. It was an honor and a privilege working with you all.
It was a great ride and a great run and changed my life for the better for, probably, the rest of my life.
Thank you Sandy for hiring me as a technician, thank you Steve for hiring me as a writer, and thank you John and John for running such a great company.
Thank you also to Cecilia, Shawn, Joe, Barbara, Ben, and everyone else who made the experience meaningful and special. I'll never forget any of you. It was an honor and a privilege working with you all.
Monday, January 23, 2012
49ers had a good season, but...
The 49ers had a good season, but they had to play much better than they did against the Giants last night.
The Niners' wide receivers couldn't get open to catch more than one pass. The offense couldn't convert on third down more than one time. And their special teams, which were Pro Bowl caliber all season, couldn't find the handle on punts in the second half.
Their defense is excellent and did its job. But defense doesn't score points as a rule: offense does that and the Niners' offense couldn't muster more than 17.
The good news is that they have a coach at last. If they can keep their team together in the off season they'll go a long way in 2012-2013.
Eli Manning is amazing as is Victor Cruz, and the Giants' defense is every bit as good as the Niners' defense. What a great game. The Giants deserved to win. They played better overall.
Watch out New England: you are going to have your hands full.
The Niners' wide receivers couldn't get open to catch more than one pass. The offense couldn't convert on third down more than one time. And their special teams, which were Pro Bowl caliber all season, couldn't find the handle on punts in the second half.
Their defense is excellent and did its job. But defense doesn't score points as a rule: offense does that and the Niners' offense couldn't muster more than 17.
The good news is that they have a coach at last. If they can keep their team together in the off season they'll go a long way in 2012-2013.
Eli Manning is amazing as is Victor Cruz, and the Giants' defense is every bit as good as the Niners' defense. What a great game. The Giants deserved to win. They played better overall.
Watch out New England: you are going to have your hands full.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Letter to Ray McFadden, My Father-in-Law...
Dear Ray,
I want you to know that I can’t be there with you this Christmas because in my heart, the reality of losing you is far too much like losing my dad all over again.
My absence this Christmas should send no message to anyone other than to serve as an indication of my cowardice, but I’m far braver when I write, so please allow me to be brave, and candid, with you now.
Next to Harry O’Brien, you are the kindest, sweetest man I’ve ever known. Although at first I know this was not an easy thing for you to do, you accepted me into your family 30 years ago. Now, 30 years later, I believe you know in your heart how much I love and am committed to Rosemary, and to all of you.
Even before Row and I were married, you were always kind and generous, Ray, always my second-father.
Thank you for sharing yourself all these years and for your abiding patience with me. Thank you also for the father you’ve been to your children, the husband you’ve been to your wife, the friend you’ve been to my folks, and the second-father you’ve been to me and my sisters.
The world will only be a sorrier place without you, but let me assure you that it has been a good and wonderful place with you. Please know this. Please know you’re a good and wonderful man, Ray, by anyone’s measure.
And please know, please believe, that good and wonderful men should have no fear of anything… of anything.
In closing, please don’t worry about your family, Ray: I’ll help however I can.
Knowing you has been my privilege, a real and true honor, and I love you far more than I can ever express. I hope you know this by now.
Always affectionately, always lovingly, always respectfully, your son-in-law,
Michael
Saturday, December 17, 2011
What does "theocracy" even mean?
What does the word theocracy actually mean and what would qualify as a theocratic government? (I'll leave the reader to look up the terms.)
Republican candidate Michele Bachmann keeps complaining in debates and the media about a "Muslim conspiracy" to create an "Islamic theocracy,"a "worldwide caliphate" that subjects everyone to "Shariah law."
OK. For the moment, let's assume she's not criminally insane and has... gulp... a legitimate argument.
What about her religion's beliefs?
What about the many Christians who claim that only believers in Jesus can get to heaven, to the exclusion of any other religion's belief in their version of heaven?
What about the artificial litmus test that questions a candidate's religious beliefs?
What about the Christian right's obvious, and decades-old desire to put a Christian president in office and, moreover, to elect Christian candidates at every level of public office?
How many times have we heard a Christian politician say he receives some divine inspiration regarding a decision he has to make, or a Christian candidate who claims he was "called by God" to run?
Do these same Christian politicians not follow the Christian bible as the foundation of their religion and thought process, much like Muslims follow their bible, the Quran?
Do these same Christian politicians not also say that they believe in God and then country?
So how, then, do these Christians differ in their beliefs and goals from the Muslims who Ms. Bachmann is forever whining about?
The answer is... they don't. A theocracy is a theocracy is a theocracy, no matter if it's Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, or whatever: it's still a theocracy.
The framers of our constitution had the brains to realize that religion and government don't mix. (See Article Six of the US Constitution where it says "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.") Sadly, Ms. Bachmann doesn't, so if she wants everyone to fear life under an Islamic theocracy, then they should also fear life under the Christian theocracy that she would run as POTUS.
P.S. As an interesting aside, check out this link. Ms. Bachmann is dissembling.
Republican candidate Michele Bachmann keeps complaining in debates and the media about a "Muslim conspiracy" to create an "Islamic theocracy,"a "worldwide caliphate" that subjects everyone to "Shariah law."
OK. For the moment, let's assume she's not criminally insane and has... gulp... a legitimate argument.
What about her religion's beliefs?
What about the many Christians who claim that only believers in Jesus can get to heaven, to the exclusion of any other religion's belief in their version of heaven?
What about the artificial litmus test that questions a candidate's religious beliefs?
What about the Christian right's obvious, and decades-old desire to put a Christian president in office and, moreover, to elect Christian candidates at every level of public office?
How many times have we heard a Christian politician say he receives some divine inspiration regarding a decision he has to make, or a Christian candidate who claims he was "called by God" to run?
Do these same Christian politicians not follow the Christian bible as the foundation of their religion and thought process, much like Muslims follow their bible, the Quran?
Do these same Christian politicians not also say that they believe in God and then country?
So how, then, do these Christians differ in their beliefs and goals from the Muslims who Ms. Bachmann is forever whining about?
The answer is... they don't. A theocracy is a theocracy is a theocracy, no matter if it's Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, or whatever: it's still a theocracy.
The framers of our constitution had the brains to realize that religion and government don't mix. (See Article Six of the US Constitution where it says "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.") Sadly, Ms. Bachmann doesn't, so if she wants everyone to fear life under an Islamic theocracy, then they should also fear life under the Christian theocracy that she would run as POTUS.
P.S. As an interesting aside, check out this link. Ms. Bachmann is dissembling.
Face it, Republicans, your presidental candidates have sucked for years...
For the last three decades, pundits have blasted the president holding power. No matter who was in office, he could never do anything good or right, as far as the other side was concerned. Each of the two major parties has demonized the other.
Past presidents are either vilified (Jimmy Carter by the Republicans; George Bush the younger by Democrats) or glorified (Ronald Reagan by, you guessed it, the Republicans). Scores of books have been written on how to talk to "Democrat" liberals, why they're fools, and why Republican conservatives are the only people who can save the world.
But since Saint Ronald left the Whitehouse, you can't name a conservative who has lived there. Not one.
Nope. The two Bushes were anything but conservatives, not in the sense that Rush and Ann and Glenn and Sean and the Tea Party mean the word. Both Bushes did things that the most conservative of the Republican Party hated, like raise taxes (Poppy Bush) or create unfunded mandates (Shrub) that drove up deficits. These were hardly conservatives standing firm, holding high the conservative banner. In truth, their vice-presidents (Quayle and Cheney, respectively) were far more conservative than either of their bosses, with Cheney the most conservative by far.
So the disconnect for the Republican Party has become one of relative depth of belief, which has led to a war within the party itself, a war that is tearing the party apart.
Sure, this same sort of schism exists in the Democratic Party as the most liberal end blasts the Democratic president as not being liberal enough. They question how liberal the president actually is. This happened with Jimmy Carter, it continued with Clinton, and is happening the most loudly with Obama. The most ideological wing of each party is never satisfied with the ideological purity of their party's president.
But, what's happening with the Republicans now, in this election cycle, is somehow different: the most conservative end of the Republican Party simply doesn't trust its candidates and the moderate end of the Republican Party actually hates them, almost to a person, and is actively working to undermine them. What used to be the job of the Democratic Party has become the job of the Republican Party.
There is not one Republican candidate in the running who either Republican ideology can truly get behind and support. To each ideological wing, each candidate is deeply, deeply flawed in some way. The most conservative are pissed because those running for president are anything but conservative; they're seen as fakes, panderers, moderates masquerading as conservatives (aka RINOs). The most moderate are pissed because none of the candidates pandering to the right, or those claiming to actually be far far right of center, will be able to beat Obama, which is their primary concern. But is this new?
What true conservatives have the Republicans fielded in the last few primary cycles? Gary Bauer? Steve Forbes? Pat Robertson? Elizabeth Dole? Dan Quayle? Alan Keyes? Pat Buchanan? Newt Gingrich? Herman Cain? Rick Santorum? Michele Bachmann?
Riiiiight.
These conservatives might be able to win the presidency of their neighborhood associations, but not the country. Never. Not a prayer. Nominee Dole didn't stand a chance in 1996, and in 2000, nominee Shrub was elected primarily because of a leg-up from the Supreme Court, with a --- perhaps arguable --- nudge from Ralph Nader in Florida. I am not saying Gore would have been a better president, but I am saying he was a far better candidate. (OK... I am saying he would have been a better president: we at the very least would not have gone into Iraq; Afghanistan, maybe, but not Iraq.)
And this has been the problem for the Republicans in the last several election cycles: they have become really bad at fielding candidates who (A) they actually like or (B) stand even a ghost of a chance of winning, let alone receiving their party's nomination, and they have become really good at (A) pissing and moaning about the candidates who are running and (B) rationalizing why the people who aren't running would be so much better.
The Republicans better realize, and fast, that this country is nowhere near as conservative as they want it to be, and they better change their 20-year trend toward insanity by trying to do the same thing again and again.
Otherwise, they're headed toward another four years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse, as well as another four years of blaming one another for why he's still there, which will lead to something far worse for them: a real schism within their party along purely ideological lines, which will become a total split, and will eventually render the Republican Party into smallish intensely ideological pieces of what it once was when it was able to field Ronald Reagan, its self-professed conservative standard-bearer.
Past presidents are either vilified (Jimmy Carter by the Republicans; George Bush the younger by Democrats) or glorified (Ronald Reagan by, you guessed it, the Republicans). Scores of books have been written on how to talk to "Democrat" liberals, why they're fools, and why Republican conservatives are the only people who can save the world.
But since Saint Ronald left the Whitehouse, you can't name a conservative who has lived there. Not one.
Nope. The two Bushes were anything but conservatives, not in the sense that Rush and Ann and Glenn and Sean and the Tea Party mean the word. Both Bushes did things that the most conservative of the Republican Party hated, like raise taxes (Poppy Bush) or create unfunded mandates (Shrub) that drove up deficits. These were hardly conservatives standing firm, holding high the conservative banner. In truth, their vice-presidents (Quayle and Cheney, respectively) were far more conservative than either of their bosses, with Cheney the most conservative by far.
So the disconnect for the Republican Party has become one of relative depth of belief, which has led to a war within the party itself, a war that is tearing the party apart.
Sure, this same sort of schism exists in the Democratic Party as the most liberal end blasts the Democratic president as not being liberal enough. They question how liberal the president actually is. This happened with Jimmy Carter, it continued with Clinton, and is happening the most loudly with Obama. The most ideological wing of each party is never satisfied with the ideological purity of their party's president.
But, what's happening with the Republicans now, in this election cycle, is somehow different: the most conservative end of the Republican Party simply doesn't trust its candidates and the moderate end of the Republican Party actually hates them, almost to a person, and is actively working to undermine them. What used to be the job of the Democratic Party has become the job of the Republican Party.
There is not one Republican candidate in the running who either Republican ideology can truly get behind and support. To each ideological wing, each candidate is deeply, deeply flawed in some way. The most conservative are pissed because those running for president are anything but conservative; they're seen as fakes, panderers, moderates masquerading as conservatives (aka RINOs). The most moderate are pissed because none of the candidates pandering to the right, or those claiming to actually be far far right of center, will be able to beat Obama, which is their primary concern. But is this new?
What true conservatives have the Republicans fielded in the last few primary cycles? Gary Bauer? Steve Forbes? Pat Robertson? Elizabeth Dole? Dan Quayle? Alan Keyes? Pat Buchanan? Newt Gingrich? Herman Cain? Rick Santorum? Michele Bachmann?
Riiiiight.
These conservatives might be able to win the presidency of their neighborhood associations, but not the country. Never. Not a prayer. Nominee Dole didn't stand a chance in 1996, and in 2000, nominee Shrub was elected primarily because of a leg-up from the Supreme Court, with a --- perhaps arguable --- nudge from Ralph Nader in Florida. I am not saying Gore would have been a better president, but I am saying he was a far better candidate. (OK... I am saying he would have been a better president: we at the very least would not have gone into Iraq; Afghanistan, maybe, but not Iraq.)
And this has been the problem for the Republicans in the last several election cycles: they have become really bad at fielding candidates who (A) they actually like or (B) stand even a ghost of a chance of winning, let alone receiving their party's nomination, and they have become really good at (A) pissing and moaning about the candidates who are running and (B) rationalizing why the people who aren't running would be so much better.
The Republicans better realize, and fast, that this country is nowhere near as conservative as they want it to be, and they better change their 20-year trend toward insanity by trying to do the same thing again and again.
Otherwise, they're headed toward another four years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse, as well as another four years of blaming one another for why he's still there, which will lead to something far worse for them: a real schism within their party along purely ideological lines, which will become a total split, and will eventually render the Republican Party into smallish intensely ideological pieces of what it once was when it was able to field Ronald Reagan, its self-professed conservative standard-bearer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
