Showing posts with label PIRATES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label PIRATES. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Michael Jackson Splitting Democrats? Sounds Like the Summer Doldrums To Me

First, let me say I am a pretty big Michael Jackson fan. I think he meant a lot to the African-American community, meant a lot to many other communities, and hey, I can moonwalk.

So I'm not not too beside myself about the MJ coverage. There's an argument such a presentation was in demand. Let it be. I was surprised however to see the beltway political Web site Politico launch into a bevy of articles about the death of the pop icon. Two stuck out, one because it was interesting, the other because it was a stretch.

First, Al Sharpton said that it was Michael Jackson that made it possible for a man like Barack Obama to be elected President.

This isn't the aforementioned stretch I was referring to earlier. I think, in, of course the broadest sense of the terms, that Michael Jackson may have helped ease some of the previous tensions that in times past would have kept some white voters from voting for Obama. He certainly wasn't the only reason, and I doubt he was even a big reason. Maybe just in the societal subconscious. I'm just saying. Okay, it's a stretch, I admit it. Happy?

Plus, I don't think Al Sharpton saying something as ridiculous as that should have surprised anyone.

But a Politico article that shamefully used the pun "moonwalking" to connote delicately toeing around a divisive issue was brought to my attention last night. Since the new administration took office in January, there has been a theme over the past few months regarding a possible schism between the far and middle left. It happens to every majority. Some want to keep it going in the other direction (In the early decade, it was the Far Right and to much success on their part, now it's the Far Left, with less-than-expected success) others fight to keep it more moderate.

Politico asserted that since Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, was announcing that she was planning a resolution to honor MJ and his humanitarian efforts, and the leftward Congressional Black Caucus being in support of such a bill, could further the divide in House Democrats.

I think this is a wild, crazy idea, personally. There are resolutions submitted every single day on the House floor for things more crazy than Michael Jackson and his humanitarian bent. And no matter how bust Congress is right now (which they are) a twenty minute break to talk a little bit about the actual tangible good MJ did might be a good breather.

Plus, if there are such stark cultural differences between the pro-Michael and anti-Michael camps within the Democratic Party, I think those differences would have already made themselves apparent by this point.

I think what this is is a good opportunity for the media to get a quick respite from what are called the summer doldrums. You know, the slow news times where nothing seems to happen and that seem to go on without end and are endless and go on without end? Making something out of nothing, I guess.

By the way, the blog post is an example of summer doldrums respite.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor Nabs Obama SCOTUS Nod and Whaddyaknow the Local Angle Is a Gaffe

"Well, I was driving, see? And it was a stick shift and pretty heavy traffic, and there was that school pretty nearby...Needless to say, I was a little preoccupied and when I misspelled Sonia. I was just mashing my fingers furiously and got it to M-A-R- instead of S-O-N. To be honest, I got 40 percent of it right, and that's pretty impressive when considering all of the business-types and vagrants wandering the streets I avoided with my Honda." -Huckabee staffer (but not really)
---------

I don't know if you heard this or not, as you may or may not have had access to a television set, computer, telephone, newspaper, fax machine, or friends with any of those accouterments, but Obama made his Supreme Court nomination.

It's District Judge Sonia Sotomayor, making her the first Latin American justice (milestone: check), and only the third female justice (bronze medal milestone: check). Pretty much no national politicking is going to get done today, as everyone else is freaking out one way or another on this, the first of Obama's possibly several SCOTUS picks.

I say "one way or another" because it depends who you ask. Many conservatives are mad and eyeing a tough vetting process. A couple of the leadership Republicans are saying they're going to wait until they get all the facts, theeen they'll attempt to verbally skewer her.

I'm told that on the record she's a centrist, but off the record she's an avowed liberal. Either way, it wouldn't be much different than what we have now. Souter turned out to be plenty liberal, appointed by G.H.W. Bush, who also happened to appoint Sotomayor to her district seat. COINCIDENCE?!?!?

There is one concern that she perhaps leans on her own feelings and experiences while exercising her judicial opinions, which really lends itself to more of a philosophical question about the nature of justice and how we execute it here in the good ole U.S. of A.

A judge ought to be void of conflicting emotions and ought to rely on nothing but cold, hard reason in order to execute the law, right? But how often is that actuated in court? People are people any way you slice it and might not be able to differentiate between their job and their humanity, although few are so quick to admit it (in public, anyway) like Sotomayor has done (and on video, no less).

I spoke with two attorneys today about it and they both said it happens but that a.) it always happens b.) it's not that big of a deal. Seems to be that these guys are humans and like humans do, use their experiences to weigh their decisions, even ones that are intended to be unbiased.

After all, it doesn't seem that odd that a President would pick someone who would be at least somewhat in the slightest bit just maybe and perhaps would select someone who might be the least bit sympathetic to their cause, which is likely the case here.

Maybe it's a simple case of honesty, saying that she uses her feelings on the bench. But it's going to be an attacking point for conservatives. Politico's Mike Allen said that both sides got what they wanted in the pick: Conservatives got a controversial candidate they can sink their teeth into and use as an example of Obama bias, and Liberals get a lock.

And of course, the local angle is that former Gov. Mike Huckabee called her 'Maria' instead of her actual name 'Sonia.' The misnomer is apparently due to the staffer writing on the Web site while driving. D'oh! Oh well. Typos happen. Not sure that a typo includes giving someone a completely different name, but yeah, it happens.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

What Does Lincoln Think About Blue Dog Backlash on Health Care?

I am admitting it on the front end: I don't know.

I'm not clear on what Sen. Blanche Lincoln's stance is on the issue of health care, other than that in my conversations and interviews with her, is that it's something she's very passionate about fixing, especially for the uninsured in Arkansas, and so on and so forth with the political ramblings that one should expect from a Senator.

I know she's introduced legislation and initiatives and gone on 'listening tours' but the problems remain.

And I'm not clear what she thinks about her fellow Arkansans in the lower chamber, the barking Blue Dogs, as they openly question the many in which health reform is being handled.

The Hill quotes Arkansas' very own Mike Ross as saying "We are becoming increasingly troubled that this process has yet to be structured in a way that includes the contributions of the majority of our Caucus.”

I'm just posing the question: What does she think about all of these Blue Dogs barking about her most treasured initiative, health care? And more importantly, would this be helping or hurting her cause to get closer to Arkansans and further away from the far left?

It's just a question.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

American Epidemic: PIRATES


Forget the economy. Health care reform is negligible. We've got bigger fish to fry.

Who in the Wide World of Sports would have thought Pirates would be a problem for the Obama administration to face?

Handling a kajillion dollar deficit, facing the worst economic climate since the Depression, and overcoming partisan polarity that is simply unprecedented isn't enough for Obama to inherit, sayeth the Gods. Let's throw pirates in there too.

(Slaps forehead.)