I don't usually rely on The Superficial (and what's worse, that post was based on the NY Post) for my political news, but this is just too damn good to pass up. Bristol Palin's self-acclaimed "fuckin' redneck" baby daddy has been discovered.
It's about what the DailyKos and MoveOn.org were hoping for. Me, I'm filled with glee to be able to see Tucker Bounds again get de-stroyed by CNN reporters.
(Just a note about that video, Bounds missed his chance. He noted that their VP has as much experience than the Dems' Pres. candidate, and he should have kept hitting that note. Instead he talked about the Commander-in-Chief aspect of her job and took the conversation in an unwanted (for Republicans) direction.)
I don't much give a damn what this means for the election, and I've blogged earlier that I don't think it should have much, if any, effect on it. But damn it's fun to watch people get owned by reporters on real issues since it happens less frequently these days.
02 September 2008
01 September 2008
Correction
Earlier, I asserted that Wolf Blitzer was associated with Beverly Hills Cop. Further research has shown this to be false.It has now been learned that "The Beard" is actually a form of kuato that has been removed from the abdomen of Michael MacDonald. (Artist rendering shown above.) This was apparently done shortly before MacDonald began "Takin' it to the Streets" because, in the words of Patrick Simmons, "the Doobie Brothers don't take no damn freaks."
This development fills in some blanks that the Faltermeyer Theory could not address. The most important of the questions was why would "The Beard" be so attached to his face-mane when Faltermeyer was a bare-faced German? Now we know that "The Beard" is not only part of a keyboard-playing soft-rocker who's been rocking facial hair since before I was born, he also spent his formative years just inches below MacDonald's chest hair. "The Beard" knows nothing else. To expect him to deny the facial hair and keyboard heritage with which he was suckled is inhumane.

What has no Place in the Campaign
This is the ridiculous shit that Bennett, Palin, McCain, and Obama are rejecting and upset about. Idiocy, pure idiocy. Make sure and look at the poll at the bottom of the page.
Knocked Up: A Live Blog While Watching CNN
Oooooooooo, breaking news that Sarah Palin's daughter is a baby mama. (Maybe FOXNews can finally use that phrase in the correct context.)
Now, of course all these reporters are asking Obama to say something about the situation; he chose the high road (and for once, I agree with Bill Bennett who said whatever the reason--politics or personal ethics--it was a good move) and denounced talking about families during the campaign.
Democrats aren't usually ones to hit families (think of Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, and even McCain's imaginary Black child in the 2000 primary), so that call is probably more rhetoric than substance. Obama should have, however, used the response to put the ball firmly in the Republican court. Responding that Dems aren't really the ones who have the problem with this issue and suggesting that those questions are more appropriate for McCain, Bush, Rick Warren, James Dobson, etc. They are the ones who usually have an issue with this sort of thing. They are the ones who would be scandalized if it happened to someone they knew. Dems don't tend to be judgmental about this sort of thing--and indeed, Obama admitted his mother had him when she was 18 and he was conceived out of wedlock. It would have driven the point home--without being a "dick move"--on the differences between Democrats and Republicans on this issue.
But either Obama and the Dems didn't want to, were afraid to (the likeliest case), or didn't think of (which I seriously doubt since I thought of it in 5 minutes) hitting this note. I just don't see why there was such delicacy in this area. Sure an "I-told-you-so" is inappropriate, but it wouldn't hurt to put the conservative base to it and see what they say in response.
UPDATE: And now I am disagreeing with Bill Bennett again. Short honeymoon, I guess. Bennett is upset that the Center for Reproductive Rights has already made a statement regarding Bristol Palin and her baby. Of course, it's attacking abstinence-only education for sexual education. Bennett did not like this and ranted that it's exactly what Obama just asked people not to do. I disagree for 2 reasons.
Now, of course all these reporters are asking Obama to say something about the situation; he chose the high road (and for once, I agree with Bill Bennett who said whatever the reason--politics or personal ethics--it was a good move) and denounced talking about families during the campaign.
Democrats aren't usually ones to hit families (think of Billy Carter, Roger Clinton, and even McCain's imaginary Black child in the 2000 primary), so that call is probably more rhetoric than substance. Obama should have, however, used the response to put the ball firmly in the Republican court. Responding that Dems aren't really the ones who have the problem with this issue and suggesting that those questions are more appropriate for McCain, Bush, Rick Warren, James Dobson, etc. They are the ones who usually have an issue with this sort of thing. They are the ones who would be scandalized if it happened to someone they knew. Dems don't tend to be judgmental about this sort of thing--and indeed, Obama admitted his mother had him when she was 18 and he was conceived out of wedlock. It would have driven the point home--without being a "dick move"--on the differences between Democrats and Republicans on this issue.
But either Obama and the Dems didn't want to, were afraid to (the likeliest case), or didn't think of (which I seriously doubt since I thought of it in 5 minutes) hitting this note. I just don't see why there was such delicacy in this area. Sure an "I-told-you-so" is inappropriate, but it wouldn't hurt to put the conservative base to it and see what they say in response.
UPDATE: And now I am disagreeing with Bill Bennett again. Short honeymoon, I guess. Bennett is upset that the Center for Reproductive Rights has already made a statement regarding Bristol Palin and her baby. Of course, it's attacking abstinence-only education for sexual education. Bennett did not like this and ranted that it's exactly what Obama just asked people not to do. I disagree for 2 reasons.
- Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council said, "Fortunately, Bristol is following her mother and father's example of choosing life in the midst of a difficult situation. We are committed to praying for Bristol and her husband-to-be and the entire Palin family as they walk through a very private matter in the eyes of the public." He said this today. He's attempting to downplay Bristol's mistake (premarital sex, getting knocked up) and playing up her choices that do fall in line with his organization's policies (pro-life). If Perkins can do it, why can't the CCR? I just don't understand why when something happens to a conservative it's private and is never discussed in terms of national policy (Rush Limbaugh and drug addiction, Bill Bennett and gambling, Larry Craig and homosexuality, etc.). Outlawing abortion, which McCain and Palin both support, seems to take away that personal, individual choice. It ceases to allow a difficult situation like this to be a "private matter" and involves the government in what would otherwise be a medical and moral issue that should not extend beyond the bounds of the family.
- Obama was talking about the election and the campaign, not about issues. Sure the Dems shouldn't use this for cheap political points, but advocacy groups aren't running for office and don't have any reason to follow those rules--especially when it hits right at the heart of the issue they center their work on. Talking about it makes total sense to me. The CRR is all about sex-ed and is against what Palin's mom stands for, so there's no reason not to point to Bristol as a shining example of the policy failures they see right now. Bennett's argument that we should stay away from family issues is either disengenuous or deeply flawed because people and the events and issues in their lives make up the damn policy. Bennett seems to have forgotten that the government exists to serve and protect the people, and the people do not exist to advance some sort of governmental moral imperative.
Labels:
CNN,
democracy,
idiot box,
incoherent rant,
politics
29 August 2008
28 August 2008
Wolf Blitzer is Secretly a Rock God
Wolf Blitzer (aka, "The Beard") loves him some music. He keeps commenting on the good music, and Anderson Cooper called him out tonight and let everyone know that The Beard used to rock it on the keyboards. Really. Apparently, The Beard wears that well-groomed face-mane in order to hide his earlier identity as Harold Faltermeyer, the keyboardist par exellence who performed "Axel F"--known to most people as the Beverly Hills Cop song.
I don't know why. John Roberts can morph from a vee-jay named J.D. Roberts into the host of CNN's American Morning.
So why won't The Beard admit that he was and is a keyboard savant? Is he afraid of being associated with Beverly Hills Cop and that if he finds The Beard, Eddie Murphy will ask him for money? Or perhaps The Beard was somehow responsible for Eddie Murphy's "hit" single? Whatever it is, I think Cooper is investigating or blackmailing and The Beard really doesn't want people to know about it.Peter Fonda Makes me Sad
I just saw a commercial for some TimeLife series of 60s psychedelic rock, and I'll be damned if they didn't trot an over-the-hill Peter Fonda out in his little Easy Rider leather jacket and shades to shill for this collection. That's a damn shame. It's on the level of using Nirvana's "Heart-Shaped Box" on Guitar Hero II. Or Bob Dylan shilling for GAP.
I want to ask if this is what we've been reduced to, but I think I know the answer. It probably has something to do with Foucault, or Zizek, or Althusser, but that doesn't make it any less depressing for Fonda, Dylan, or...Courtney Love or Dave Grohl. Not sure who would control Nirvana songs, but he or she should be ashamed.
I want to ask if this is what we've been reduced to, but I think I know the answer. It probably has something to do with Foucault, or Zizek, or Althusser, but that doesn't make it any less depressing for Fonda, Dylan, or...Courtney Love or Dave Grohl. Not sure who would control Nirvana songs, but he or she should be ashamed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



