.... if he were a priggish bigot?
The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care.
WashPo article
Sharpton said he spoke to Hillary Clinton Saturday morning about her recent reference to the assassination of Robert Kennedy - "and she understands my feelings firmly."
[...]
"I don't believe either candidate meant it when they said it, but I do believe if you strike a match in a flammable environment, you run the danger of something catching fire," Sharpton said. "I'm asking them to be careful how they handle their matchbook."
| In the spirit of injecting a little variety into this sequence of musings I have tried not to create consecutive entries having to do with politics. However, this week it seems a bit hard not to. The recent news that the Clinton campaign has been making use of the practice of "plants" (putting their own people in the audience pretending to be part of the general public, asking softball questions) has been a practice perfected to a perverse art by the Bush campaigns (and the administration itself). This seems to me the proof in the pudding (whatever that means) that my fears of a Clinton administration being a natural extension of the previous one, with all its character and process flaws, have become true even before the primary election is started. (It also in my mind raises an issue of competency and experience; let's see her try to use those two words again without making me think of this) |  a plant (clicky for article) |
..... and they will argue until the death of their stock price and a literal decimation of the world 's GDP (and most likely the world's population), a la tobacco companies, that their product is more expensive and less available due to consumer choice (and, as a masterstroke, that "they always predicted it so").[...]Dr Campbell, is a former chief geologist and vice-president at a string of oil majors including BP, Shell, Fina, Exxon and ChevronTexaco. He explains that the peak of regular oil - the cheap and easy to extract stuff - has already come and gone in 2005. Even when you factor in the more difficult to extract heavy oil, deep sea reserves, polar regions and liquid taken from gas, the peak will come as soon as 2011, he says.
This scenario is flatly denied by BP, whose chief economist Peter Davies has dismissed the arguments of "peak oil" theorists.
"We don't believe there is an absolute resource constraint. When peak oil comes, it is just as likely to come from consumption peaking, perhaps because of climate change policies as from production peaking."[...]
The Germans have Schadenfreude (indeed, with a capital 'S' as is their style). The Spanish have "me alegro". I'm sure the Italians have something pithy that involves a fraction of a syllable and some sort of hand-flapping gesture.
Americans need to invent a single word (something better than your typical "sniglet" pls) that expresses the unbounded yet specific joy at seeing somebody who could not be saved from the comeupance demanded of their catastrophically bad behavior by their fortune and the connections and favors thus purchased. Think Martha Stewart, Bernie Ebbers, Enron's Lay and Skilling... These are the American royalty who did not dodge the Bullet of Justice (if I may gag you and me both with a bad metaphor).
Perpwalk was fantastic; however it is not specific to serving time but rather the event of being arrested / arraigned in a public manner. How about, to put it in dermatological terms in honor of Paris Hilton's unnaturally smooth skin (which will surely begin to fall off as a result of multiple chemical peels in the next 5-to-10) . . . Karmapimple?
(link goes to BoingBoing)
Cory "BoingBoing" Doctorow comments (in a "shocked, shocked!" manner) on how the Democratic National Council has hired a former Director of Communications for the Recording Industry Association of America, Jenni Engebretsen.
The point Cory misses is that lobbyists are for the most part amoral. They are paid for their connections and the persuasiveness with which they can put out their clients' message in an undiluted fashion. Consider that for a second; they become True Believers with an unvarying and unshakable opinion that happens to coincide 100% with that of the person whose name is on a check handed to them.
I once had the pleasure of dining at the home of Hillary Rosen (CEO of the RIAA '98 - '03) and Elizabeth Birch, her partner at the time (and Executive Director of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-funded equal-rights lobbying group). The occasion was that I and a small team of co-workers had donated our time to setting up a write-a-letter-to-your-congressman web site for HRC (first of a kind in '95). They both seemed like lovely people.
Three years later Ms. Rosen would become the head of an organization that, instead of recognizing that their business model is not sustainable given new technology, litigates (then and now) against twelve-year-old girls for downloading N*Sync songs. For a check.
(have these people never read Anthem ? synopsis: in a dystopian "future" society a man is legally prosecuted for putting candle makers at risk of obsolescence by having invented the light bulb).
In 2004 she then went on to serve as interim director for HRC. (Whiplash!).
So, I'm not really too concerned who they hire to do their shilling for them. It is what it is.
http://riaa.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Birch
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rosen
Catholic Church buries limbo after centuries
Gee, they just caught up to the inherent irony in their screaming about the priceless souls of aborted babies (and ones yet to not be aborted through the forbidding of contraception) having to spend an eternity in Limbo because of their own arbitrary and cruel means of psychological control?
Strictly in Game Theory terms, this means that a woman who is seriously considering having an abortion should then automatically decide to go ahead and DO SO, as it guarantees that at least her baby will go to Heaven, whereas the alternative, to give birth and hope that her child will "earn" its way in, only provides the POSSIBILITY of a better outcome (and, given the rules of the game, very very low possibilities of even breaking even).
So, remember folks: The pope wants you to have abortions so your babies can go to Heaven.
Having said that, there are some events related to his appearance yesterday on Al Sharpton's radio show which must be commented on (which is also on video here; unfortunately I can't now find the full-length one I watched yesterday).
Let's recap a few facts: Don Imus used some stupid, ill-thought-out words to refer to some women who are part of a college basketball team. Refer to the first paragraph for my thoughts on this. Al Sharpton then calls for Imus to be fired. Please note that it is not WHAT Imus was saying that merits his dismissal, according to Sharpton, but what WORDS he used. This is the same attitude in people who recoil in horror of the word "nigger" regardless of WHAT is being said (if the reader has an issue with my using that word now then please stop reading as that is the only thing you will remember anyway; I applaud your efficiency).
Imus then invites Sharpton to his show so they could talk things out. Sharpton understandably is reluctant to do that; instead he invites Imus to his show. I personally see this as reasonable and comparable to
"You called my cousin a cunt."
"OK, that was a mistake. I would like to apologize in person in front of your whole family. Would y'all like to come over this afternoon?"
"Actually, I'd rather you came over."
"No problem."
i.e., one person knows who has the upper hand and is willing to play in the other party's "home field".
So, now Imus is on Sharpton's show. He is unqualifiedly apologetic. He does not try to defend his words; barely even attempts to explain what was being said (i.e., meaning and intent) at the time he used the words (which any reasonable person would consider a necessary step; how can you apologize for something if it is not understood for what you are apologizing?)
This is the point at which Revered Al Sharpton, a self-described man of God and a follower of Jesus Christ, having invited to converse a man who has "sinned" (and who is expressing deep, personal, remorse for his transgression and is seeking personal as well as public forgiveness), chooses to do this during a call-in segment with a member of congress (quoted from the NY Post, linked off the entry header):
(The phrase "you people" is associated with Ross Perot having used it in an ill-received way during a speech to the NAACP in 1992 and has since been used to "out" those who speak it and will not obligingly manifest themselves as racist as the listener would like them to be. Please note that, with a very small sucking sound, the nature and content of the speech has been lost to the ages.)Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, questioned whether Imus fully understood how he hurt black women. That's when Imus lost it.
"I do understand that. How do you assume that I don't understand that? Of course I understand that! It's like the old country song, 'God may forgive you, but I won't. Jesus loves you but I don't.' So I can't get any place with you people, but I can get some place with Jesus"
[...]
"Who is 'you people,' Mr. Imus?" asked Sharpton.
"You and this woman I'm talking to," Imus responded to Sharpton. "Don't try to hang that on me. That's jive.""What's jive?" Sharpton shot back.
" 'What do you mean by 'you people?' You know what I meant - you two people," Imus angrily answered. "That's not even fair. You said you were going to be fair. Keep your word!"
"I'm being very fair, I'm being fair. I'm keeping it real," Sharpton said. "I'm in charge here, I'm in charge here. I asked you the question!"
