Copyright © 2009 Frank Lynch.
Copyright © 2009 Frank Lynch.
Me: Frank Lynch Home These are my mundane daily ramblings.
Email:
|
What would Snopes' verdict on the Nativity story be? I was just imagining the Snopes treatment of Luke. How it would note how lacking in specificity the story is: Mary ("notice how these people never seem to have last names through which this can be verified?") goes to "a village in the hills of Judah" ("notice how the village is not named in this, the most detailed account?") and so on, including how the only other account (Matthew) contains very little of this, in fact, seems to focus more on completely different people, like Joseph ("notice how he doesn't have a last name?"). Just sayin'. And then I imagined Powerline closely examining the font of the Greek... Sarah Palin for President in 2012! I hope you'll join me in recognizing how important it is that Sarah Palin wins the Republican nomination for President in 2012. When I look at her skills, experience, the breadth of her world vews, her deep-seated understanding of what the country needs, and how articulate she is, I'm convinced: it's good for the country. Here's my reasoning. The Health Care bill in the Senate does much less than progressives wanted, while being nothing close (by its very existence) to what the GOP wants. There is a very good chance that the excitement and enthusiasm which Barack Obama created with his 2008 candidacy will not be there in 2012. Obama could have played to the base by pushing for a health care reform bill which was more progressive, but he wouldn't have gotten it through the Senate. Especially when you had the likes of Lieberman and Nelson continually moving their goal posts. It would have failed. Obama has already been quoted by Gibbs as willing to be a single term President if that's what it takes. And that's where he could be headed. Unless, of course, the GOP helps us out by nominatin' a certain winkin', shotgun-totin' hockey mom... you get the picture. 
I agree with Tom Coburn. On this, anyway. As part of the Senate GOP effort to talk about every thing except what America needs, Coburn is reading the covers of a variety of reports on wasteful government spending. He just highlighted one on the wasteful spending, "millions," on a government liaison to deal with Hollywood. "We spend millions to tell Hollywood how to get it right," he said (or words to that effect). The program must have come from liberal complaints about Hollywood, certainly. Nothing would please me more than to go out with my camera and get snow shots later today and tomorrow. But truth be told, whatever I came down with 9 days ago is still here, and last night I was running a fever of 101.2. And that was after an Aleve. So I'm going to be hitting the archives for shots for you, I'm afraid...
I DID tell you it's his birthday. I remember getting to see Brendel in Carnegie in maybe 1982 or 1983, when he did the whole Beethoven Sonata cycle. It was shortly after I'd moved to the area. I was young, and could afford little, but could afford to buy one ticket for one show (I think the Appassionata was on the program), ALL the way at the back on the first level. Saw Robert MacNeil (of MacNeil-Lehrer) sit down very close to the front, very recognizeable in profile, and felt as if there was nothing cooler than living in the greatest city on the planet, going to Carnegie, and hearing one of the best interpreters of Beethoven. What more to ask? And then there was the 2000 election. UPDATE. Because all fair discussions MUST include an alternative point of view, there's this, of course. Oh, no, PLEASE don't throw me into that brier patch, Br'er Bear and Br'er Wolf! Marketers sure know how to sell crap, and while David Axelrod isn't exactly from Madison Avenue, he sure knows how to use the schtick of advertising. Ed Schultz and Axelrod were on Morning Joe this morning, and in response to Schultz's point that the evolving health care "reform" bill in the Senate was too nice to insurance companies, Axelrod took the "50 Million Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong Approach": the insurance companies say they hate it, so how could it possibly be good for them? Schultz would hear nothing of it: his example wasn't Br'er Rabbit's reverse psychological ploy on Br'er Bear and Br'er Wolf so that he could clean the tar off him (must. not. mention. tar. baby. by. name.), but that the insurance companies were playing a shell game, and Axelrod should know it. Some of the head fakes going on with this health care bill, from Lieberman, and Boehner, and so on, look like episodes of The Prisoner which might have been written by a child. The varying levels of trickery are there, but they're far more obvious than Axelrod is letting on. It is OBVIOUS that if insurance companies don't have to compete with each other thanks to antitrust expemptions, the high costs of market entry, the high value of network effects, and the high "switching" cost to consumers... and that if every so-called "reform" has a wink built in (like no "life time" cap, but there are yearly caps, so if you live forever there's no life time cap)... well, then, this isn't really reform. Pardon us if we recognize that the lipstick, while covering more than a pig, may be covering something sub-primate. The Joe Lieberman Spin-O-Rama continues. Questioned by Talking Points' Brian Beutler, he acts like facts aren't facts. Hey, Joe: I think we all know why you won't go on Rachel Maddow. You know you can't deliver the truth, much less face it. It's Beethoven's birthday. Work a little of it into your day today, somewhere. It will make for a better day, trust me.
Joe Lieberman was in favor of the Medicare buy-in before he was against it. Now he's so against it that he'll side with the Republicans to filibuster. Three months ago? In favor of it, and you can see him say so on video. Now, I'm not saying Joe Lieberman is a corrupt politician: but how would you describe the bargaining tactics of a US Senator who suddenly can't tolerate something he said he'd be for? Unprincipled? Is that more flattering? Not what you think. Any group with a toon called "Flann O'Brien" is alright in my book. (Sorry I haven't written you in a while, been waylaid with a cold and so on.)
Tony Blair thinks Iraq's supposed "WMD's" were irrelevant. Not in the sense that believing they had them didn't matter but that even without them he would have found a reason to invade Iraq. If ever there was a manifestation of the Downing Street Memo — for the UK government — this is pretty much it. Find any excuse you can to whip up a frenzy, hope you can whip up a frenzy, and if not, then beat your chest and do it. Never mind that the Catholic Church said it wasn't a just war; never mind that Human Rights Watch said that all the human rights justifications were obsolete. Tony Blair wanted a war — and this puts his role in quite a different light, that he wasn't being led by the nose by Bush, but that was a full participant. I'd love to know what justifications he thinks he could have come up with that would have swayed as much of the public or more voices in the UN.
|
|
