Monday, April 09, 2007

Quick Hits

Boy, oh boy, where to start?

I've been so busy I am giving up lunch for a quick trip on my thoughts:

  • A.G. Alberto Gonzalez: I believe him when he said he wasn't involved in the decision process when he was involved in the process. I believe he tasked his staff to make the decisions and he signed off on them; that is what managers do. This was a routine hiring/firing act, completely legitimate and above-board. His utter incompetence at handling the media frenzy of an otherwise simple matter, and the growing storm about it, might be grounds for dismissal. Give the loyal opposition another head, and they'll demand more. Unless and until he displeases President Bush, he should stay.
  • Speaker of the House of Representative, Nancy Pelosi: Congresswoman Pelosi -- or is it Congressperson? Speaker Pelosi does have every right to go on fact-finding missions, clearly. And, yes, on the taxpayers dime. Going to nations who are our enemies may be over-the-top. Ignoring the requests of the Executive branch could be considered inconsiderate. Changing the State Departments message on said nation is outrageous. Botching a simple message from our ally to that enemy stands on its own: she blew it, big time. So let's see... since January, the House has failed to anything meaningful, legislative-wise, and its Speaker has made herself and the body a laughing stock among our allies and enemies alike. Never doubt that elections have consequences!
  • John Donald Imus: This is probably the longest of my quick-hits posts for this installment. I've been a fan of Imus for over 30 years. He is like no other. Last week he crossed a line that he has regretted, and is now facing the music for that. Anyone who has listened to him for any length of time knows he is not a racist, a bigot or filled with any sort of hate. His shtick is to act as if he does, even recently dubbing the motto of the program We're not happy until you're not happy. I've spent some time over the last several days defending him to a bunch of critics at the ImusBlog, a blog written by an Imus fan, who has no connection to the man or the show. What surprised me most about those critics is nearly all of them hardly listen to his show (much like the most vocal critics of Rush Limbaugh, et al).

    Today Imus will be on the Rev. Al Sharpton Radio Show to face one of his most vocal critics. No one doubts the good deeds Rev. Sharpton has done through the years, but what of the bad things he has said and done? What about Freddy's, where he said we're going to see that this cracker suffers? What about Tawana Brawley and the baseless accusations he made on her behalf? When has Rev. Sharpton been called to account for these racist things? What about an apology? As in bad taste as what Mr. Imus did say, it was framed as humor. Can anyone demonstrate that what Rev. Sharpton was saying (in these examples) was anything but hate?

    Why is it when certain people say something inflammatory, there's an uproar, but when others say things at least as equally inflammatory, there's an automatic pass given. Case in point: what I said 3 years ago today.
  • N.Y. Mets: What? I haven't yet spoken about baseball this season? I really didn't notice the season had started until this weekend! That's when the Mets started to lose... coincidence? Who knows?



Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook