Sean Hannity Confronted About Republican Sexual Hypocrisy: hilarious exclusive transcript in which a caller slams Hannity about Newt Gingrich's Philandering 10/06 UPDATE:Click here to read a post on how Hannity had me kicked off an aircraft carrier rather than answer a quick question for my blog. Also, at the end of this post there is an extensive list of Sean Hannity links. Also, I had another hilarious radio conversation with Hannity.
Original Post on Hannity & GOP Sexual Hypocrisy: On Friday, Sean Hannity was in San Diego and did his radio show at a local event with an audience. He interviewed Newt Gingrich. In discussing the upcoming elections, Hannity assailed African-Americans for their loyalty to the Democratic Party. It never ceases to amaze me how pundits on the right portray American blacks as sheep for not aligning themselves with the party of Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, John Ashcroft, and Trent Lott (quick note: Hannity was a major apologist for Lott after he lauded Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential run as a pro-Jim-Crow Dixiecrat). Hannity then criticized Dems for switching resources from African-American New York Gubernatorial Candidate Carl McCall to Bill McBride who is running in Florida against Jeb Bush. Hannity attacked Democrats for not having a black in the Senate.
That last part irked me because, for one thing, Democrats fielded Harvey Gantt for the Senate against Jesse Helms. Gantt was running ahead but the North Carolina Republican Party sent over 125,000 threatening and misleading postcards to mostly minority voters warning them that they might not be eligible to vote and if they attempted, they would be subject to criminal penalties (read more about it here). UPDATE: Keep in in mind that Hannity also has had close ties with Hal Turner, an unrepentant white supremacist and terrorist and Hannity once had a KKK-owned store (The Redneck Shop) as a sponsor of his radio show.
So I called and was put on hold. While I was listening to the show, Hannity did a perfunctory jab against Bill Clinton's sexual indiscretions. I thought this was ironic since on the show Hannity was giving fulsome praise to Newt Gingrich, who, in my opinion, engaged in sexual misconduct far more serious than Bill Clinton (UPDATE: in 2011, Gingrich told David Brody, an interviewer for Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcating Network that the reason he cheated was that he was "driven by how passionately I felt about this country."
In fact, sexual indiscretions commonly committed by Republicans (e.g., serial monogamy) are much more destructive to American society than those typically committed by Democrats such as Bill Clinton's serial philandering--this despite the fact that the GOP portrays itself as the party of family values. For instance, Gingrich's behavioral pattern (serial monogamy precipitated by adultery) is a destructive practice that has serious implications for society. In a column for The New Republic, Robert Wright pointed out the personally repulsive and damaging practice by men who, once they arrive, decide that it is time to give walking papers to Wife Number One (who usually is the one who helped the guy get to where he is). Someone once said (net sources attribute this epigram to different people) that many men owe their success to their first wife and their second wife to their success. To paraphrase Wright, this trading in wives for a younger model is not only bad for Wife Number One but it hurts men in young Wife Number Two's age demographic because she is taken out of circulation by older Successful Guy. There are many other reasons why these serial harems created by Republicans politicians (look at the number of divorces by the House class of 1994) are destructive to society).
One has to keep in mind also that the American right was getting on Clinton's case about his sex life since the 1992 primaries. That's particularly galling considering that it was an open secret among DC politicos that Gingrich--the most important Republican from 1994 to 1998--was boning the young blonde House clerk twenty-three years his junior, Callista Bisek who would become Wife Number Three in 2000 (after, of course, ditching Wife Number Two). Washington insiders concluded that it was well know in DC that Gingrich and Bisek were having an affair which started shortly after Gingrich made the comment during the 1992 campaign that "Woody Allen having non-incest with a non-daughter to whom he was a non-father because they were a non-family fits the Democratic platform perfectly." 2010 UPDATE: Railing against gay marraige, Gingrich spoke of "marriage as a union of one man and one woman as our national policy."
What's more: when Gingrich decided to play the field with much younger women, he made no serious attempt to get into shape.
Quick note: for a thoughtful discussion about Republican sexual hypocrisy, there's a chapter in Joe Conason's book, Big Lies.
Here is what I had to say to Hannity:
SCOOBIE: Hi, Sean. Before I go to my topic, I heard you make some cuts against Bill Clinton. Can I respond to that?
HANNITY: Are you a friend of Bill Clinton's?
SCOOBIE: Yes, I think he's a pretty good guy. I mean, I really disapprove of his fooling around with women, but on the other hand--
HANNITY: Would you like him to date your daughter?
SCOOBIE: Well, no but I'll tell you what, I prefer him--
HANNITY: Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Wait. Wait. Wait. If he's such a good guy, why can't he date your daughter?
SCOOBIE: Well, I don't think he's perfect by any means, but he's a lot better than Newt Gingrich who seems to like to dump his wives, trade them in for a new model every once in a while, once he gets--
HANNITY: You took your shot at Newt. Is Bill Clinton an honest man?
SCOOBIE: Compared to Not-My-President Bush, certainly he is. He didn't cheat to get into the Oval Office. That's one thing.
HANNITY: They can't get over it, can they? You guys lost and you can't get over it.
SCOOBIE: And that really segues into my topic: I really had to chuckle about your talk of this misguided loyalty of blacks to the Democratic Party.
HANNITY: Why aren't they supporting Carl McCall in New York? Why are they abandoning an African-American who is running for office? I think--
SCOOBIE: Well, that's practical politics. He really didn't have a chance against Pataki. You have to put your resources towards viable candidates, such as getting rid of George, er, I'm sorry, Jeb Bush, who was responsible for purging tens of thousands of minority voters from the polls back in 2000 through this felony--
HANNITY: Can I ask you--what is it about all these liberals; they're so filled with vitriol. They are so filled with animosity. Sir, no such thing happened. It's an absolute lie and it's even a bigger disgrace that you repeat the lie.
SCOOBIE: BBC journalist Greg Palast--
HANNITY: BBC, now we're quoting the Brits, okay.
SCOOBIE: He did a study and he found how Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush used the felony voter purge to get tens of thousands of eligible voters off the voter rolls and these people didn't have access to any kind of ballot once they were at the polls--
[HANNITY DISCONNECTS SCOOBIE]
HANNITY: First of all, that's untrue. It's never been proven. It's never even been alleged except by the real extreme left like yourself. But what is true and what was chronicled is the systematic disenfranchisement of brave men and women who were out there serving their country--and that's what Al Gore did. We have to break...
NOTE: Since Hannity disconnected me without giving me a chance to respond, I will respond now by pointing out that being in uniform doesn't give one the right to vote twice or vote after election day. Despite the fact that members of the Bush campaign discussed approaching military voters to get them to vote after the election (read Jake Tapper's book Down & Dirty), the Gore team allowed military ballots to be counted despite the fact that many of them lacked the legal criteria for being a legal ballot. On the subject of disenfranchising military, here's Palast discussing how the GOP used caging lists to disenfranchise minority members of the military who were sent to Iraq:
Campaign 2008 Update: This is hilarious! A little background: John McCain was married to his first wife, Carol stayed true to her husband during his captivity (she even suffered severe injuries as a result of a 1969 automobile accident. After John McCain's return to the United after being a POW, he began to have extamarital affairs. This culminated in a relationship that McCain began in 1979 with Cindy Lou Hensley, a rich 25 year-old woman. She eventually became Cindy McCain. Sean Hannity's excuse for John McCain's behavior: He was a POW. If you don't believe me, watch the YouTube vide. It's unbelievable.
Addendum: Talk Show Radio Accessibility--Follow-Up Survey Results Research 2000 thought it would be an interesting endeavor to find out how six nationally syndicated talk radio programs handle incoming calls among individuals who wish to engage in the live talk show over the air. The our original April ‘06 ‘Talk Show Radio Accessibility Survey Results‘ were interesting enough to report in the hopes that “ALL” talk radio hosts and formats in the future will make it less restrictive and more accessible for potential call in guests regardless of whether or not they have a differing point of view. Findings:
* Ed Shultz “as the easiest to get on the air with regardless of the caller’s “view point for the simple reason that the show is the only format of the six that does not ask the caller what they want to discuss.” * Sean Hannity comes in last place with “none” of the callers “with a different view point” getting on the air. * The “one caller of five dissenting view points” allowed on Limbaugh’s show “went through three screeners before getting on the air.“ * Ingraham, Miller and Rhodes showed “no significant differences” in terms of getting on the air “if one had a dissenting view point. * In all cases, callers with dissenting views were able to get on the air with the host.
While the following survey results do not possess the standard 95 percent confidence level or 5% margin for error which is standard within the scientific polling community, Research 2000’s follow yielded almost identical results.
In August and September, we examined the same six nationally syndicated talk shows we did back in April which are heard in the Washington DC ADI five days weekly between August 21 through September 19, 2006. Three liberal: Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes and Ed Shultz. Three conservative: Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh. Back in April, each program was called ten times (5 with a point of view compatible with the host and most of the callers and 5 that were not). In the August-September follow up survey, we called each show 15 times with a point of view which was not compatible with the host and most of the callers. We decided not to do any calls with compatible view points because the April survey showed that those callers with compatible views with the host and most of the callers were able to get through and on the air between 15-30 minutes with each of the hosts.
The rank order below is based on how accessible it was for one to get through to the host with both a liberal and conservative point of view.
Once again, there was no significant differences between the Laura Ingraham, Stephanie Miller and Randi Rhodes shows in terms of getting on the air if one had a dissenting view point. In all cases, callers with dissenting views were able to get on the air with the host. The wait on hold was longest for the Laura Ingraham show and that averaged 40 minutes to one hour and fifteen minutes. For Miller it was 35 minutes to one hour and for Rhodes it was 30 minutes to 40 minutes.The difference between number 2 and 4 are slight and the rank order is based purely on the amount of time one was on hold. Both Ingraham’s and Miller’s wait on hold increased slightly from April, while Rhodes had a slight decrease.
Only two callers of fifteen dissenting view points was successful in getting on the Rush Limbaugh show. Both callers went through three screeners on the show before getting on the air with the host. However, the other thirteen callers with dissenting view points were told politely that the host would not be taking calls on either the subject matter or a dissenting point of view.
Upcoming Must Read According to Tapped, The Columbia Journalism Review is going to have an article on Ann Coulter's fast and loose treatment of the facts. Thanks to Tapped for including me in the group of people who were fact-checking the abrasive blonde. My blog on Slander is here.
Must Read I realize this article is a few days old, but I urge to read Bryan Keefer's take on Limbaugh's lumping together the recent Iraqi sham elections with the high percentage of African-Americans who support Democrats. I heard Limbaugh says these ugly things on his radio show, but I didn't have the chance to record them. I'm glad Keefer did and responded to it. According to Limbaugh:
I want to draw another comparison to the Iraqi outcome and elections in this country. Saddam got 100 percent of the vote ... Al Gore in 2000 got 94 percent of the votes, of some votes. Now, if we can say that Saddam Hussein's 100 percent of the vote is a result of fear, or in Iraq's case, death, why would 94 percent of a certain group vote for Gore?
...Now in Iraq, of course, the way they do this is fear - you don't vote for Saddam and may not vote ever again, you may not even breathe ever again if you don't vote for Saddam ... How in a democracy, where nobody gets over 60 percent of the vote in the general election, how in the world do the Democrats get 94 percent of the black vote every year? Fear! And how they get whatever percentage of the senior citizens vote they get every presidential [election]? Fear! You see the similarities here my friend! You see why Carville is probably on [his] way to Iraq now to study this election - they're oh so close! Fear! The Democrats scare their voters as much - not so much about them, but about their opponent.
Rush is half-right. Fear is an important factor, but this is fear created by the Republican Party. As I have pointed out numerous times on this site, American blacks overwhelmingly vote Democratic by default. The Party of Lincoln intimidates black voters (did you hear about this in Arkansas?); the GOP is full of neo-Confederates like Trent Lott (who gives sickening tributes to Jefferson Davis); Jeb and Katherine (what a pair) purged tens of thousands of African-Americans from the voter rolls; I could go on.
Limbaugh seems to think it's unusual for a demographic to vote in one particular way. Well, I would suggest that George W. Bush got at least 99 percent of a key Limbaugh listener demographic: People whose car horns play Dixie and who don't use dental floss.
IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION: I was about to hit "Post & Publish" when I felt the urge to make a clarification. I don't mean to suggest that everyone who listens to talk radio is a gap-toothed yokel. I will assert that the yahoo-meter runs high when it comes to the listening demographic of Limbaugh's show. However, some thoughtful people listen to talk radio (and are misinformed); that's why it's so important to call talk radio shows and set the record straight when you hear lies and distortions.
I Spy Sucks
Last night, I went to an advance screening of the film I Spy that was sponsored by a station in the Clear Channel radio conglomerate that has Rick Dees as a DJ. The movie sucked almost as much as Dees' deejaying. Another one churned out from the Eddie Murphy crap machine. Mind you, I'm saying this after I got free food and drinks at the I Spy World Premiere after-party (see my 10/28 post). This is actually a step down from Pluto Nash for Eddie Murphy (the theatre was across the street from Murphy's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame and I was tempted to take a whizz on Murphy's star; I was also tempted to take a whizz on Rick Dees' star). I'm just glad I didn't have to pay money.
Thanks for the hits According to Sitemeter, I'm getting a big spike in hits by people who want to read about my conversation with Sean Hannity (see yesterday's post). Thanks to Atrios, the American Politics Journal, Cursor, and Skippy.
I Spy Premiere Party
I went to the I Spy World Premiere after-party last week in Hollywood. Columbia has the best parties and this was no exception. They had great food--Mexican, Thai, etc. They had some go-go dancers (can you say booty call?). Premiere parties are not these decadent affairs. There are a lot of studio and parent company execs, so the atmosphere is fairly low key. There was a huge outdoor area near the VIP area. The strangest thing happened. All of the sudden there was a pungent odor of marijuana that permeated the outdoor area. We're not talking schwag. This must have been something potent (BC Bud?) because I didn't see anyone with a lit pipe or joint (I figure someone took a quick couple hits). I didn't see the stars but I was tempted to sit at Owen Wilson's table, since we're sort of like kin.
I will Post Later in the Afternoon Just a few minutes ago, I had a hilarious but revealing conversation with Sean Hannity on his radio program. The topic was related to a new web site I'm launching very soon. I thought I would use the ocasion to announce the new web site. I will transcribe my conversation with Hannity and put it on along with more information about the forthcoming web site in a few hours.
UPDATE: I didn't finish the post and I have to leave for a party. I promise I will do it tomorrow.
Gay Music? I received many detailed e-mails regarding gay music (see my posts from the last few days). Thanks to everyone for the info. Gay music is a rather amorphous concept, but from what people have written about the topic, it would be a big stretch for Andrew Sullivan to characterize the music in the anti-Taylor ad as gay. What I inferred from the music and graphics was it was an attempt to present an obviously dated, cheesy 70's feel to the commercial--to accompany Taylor's dated clothing and hairstyle. One can find a cheesy 70's music/gayness nexus only if one were to conclude that the music was an attempt at camp. Although I didn't infer anything innuendos about Taylor's sexuality after viewing the commercial, a reasonable person could raise questions about it. However, the accusation of gay-baiting is misplaced without further evidence. One last note: It is fun to gloat at the outrage over the alleged dirty pool by Bush Coup enabler and mouthpiece Marc Racicot and by Montana Senator Conrad "Chucklehead" Burns (whose idea of political discourse is to call people "niggers" and "ragheads"; see my 9/12 post).
Help me out! On my critique of Robert Bartley's hatchet job (10/20), I pointed out how Andrew Sullivan cited the Anti-Mike Taylor commercial as having gay music. I indicated that I didn't know what gay music was (The Village People?) and asked for help on the matter. I haven't received any e-mails. Is it me or is Sullivan full of crap?
Off Today Doing an extras gig for Will & Grace. I've only seen the show once and it seemed goofy.
UPDATE: I'm in Hollywood. It was a short day on the set. Since I was in the wedding scene for the show, I'm in a tuxedo so I'm going to some bars to meet babes. I'll give details (of the shoot, not the bar scene) later.
LATEST UPDATE: The shoot was fun. It was of a wedding scene and I'm led to believe it was a dream sequence. It was shot at Temple Israel on Hollywood Blvd. I'm the wedding guest who is checking out Grace (Debra Messing) big time as she's walking down the isle with Eric McCormack. I'm kidding. I didn't leer, but she's a hottie. Debbie Reynolds was there and Harry Connick, Jr. did some a cappella crooning between takes.
In the Montana Senate race, Republican Mike Taylor dropped out, charging that a Democratic ad insinuated that he was homosexual. Some 20 years ago he promoted beauty products on TV, and a clip showed him in flamboyant clothes and patting a man's face. Democrats claim the ad was about financial improprieties at his beauty school, but on his pro-gay Web site Andrew Sullivan, citing the music and tagline, concludes "I'm sorry, this was gay-baiting." It would be a scandal if run by a Republican against a Democrat, he adds, "But because it's a Democratic ad, it's a non-story."
REALITY: Bartley is full of it. The ad dealt with improprieties with Taylor's business during the 1980's. It's a television comercial; Duh, accordingly, it usually makes sense to provide a visual aid. The visual aid was a television bit Taylor himself produced of himself. When I saw the ad, I didn't think it presented Taylor as gay; I thought it presented him as a shady businessman. So Andrew Sullivan cited the music and tagline to conclude it was gay-baiting. Who cares what a hack like Sullivan thinks? The music was funky, not gay (actually I have no idea what gay music sounds like; could someone help me out with this one?). The tagline dealt with the business issue. Talk about PC fascism. Portraying one's opponent in a negative light isn't gaybashing--it's politics.
Clarence-T Gets Some Deserved Criticism In his article on today's National Review Online, John A. Foster-Bey writes, "October 15, 2001 marked the ten-year anniversary of the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. While the hearings should have been used as an opportunity for the nation to hear and assess the legal philosophy and judicial perspectives of the second black nominee to the Supreme Court, liberal opponents to his confirmation chose instead to attack his character and private life rather than debate his ideas."
Here are the problems with this assessment: 1. Thomas doesn't have a meaningful "legal philosophy and judicial perspectives" to hear or assess. Thomas was a mediocre law student at best. Although Thomas' law school transcript is not available, his grade in Thomas I. Emerson's first year course on politics and civil rights was a 69. [Quick note: 69 was the lowest score Al Gore had when he was a law student. The right has falsely accused Gore of flunking out of law school. Rather, Gore dropped out to win election to Congress (the same year, George W. Bush's most notable activity was to drink like a fish and drive around his friends and family).] The American Bar Association gave Thomas the low rating of simply "qualified" (with a minority rating him "unqualified")--the lowest rating of a modern nominee. It's kind of pathetic when a guy is rated lower than the infamous G. Harold Carswell (remember Senator Roman Hruska's endorsement of Carswell: "Even if he is mediocre there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?"). Since perjuring himself in order to get on the high court, Thomas has been a Scalia clone and was part of the 2000 coup.
By Popular Demand: The Characters From Futurama Without Pants I had mentioned that I had a drawing of the characters form the TV series Futurama nude. Well, with the exception of Mom (of Mom's Old-Fashioned Robot Oil) who also shows off her hooters, the characters are just without pants.Click here to see the drawing. It was done by Matt Groening and an artist from Rough Draft Studios. This is a family site so I painted over the naughty bits. However, I'll let you in on a few secrets: 1) In one Futurama episode, Frye is in a sauna with Leela and Amy; the women comment on how better men were because of genetic engineering. Frye closes his legs more and acts inadequate. The drawing confirms that Frye's feelings of inadequacy were justified. 2) Kif and Nibbler are in aroused states (or perhaps the males of their species normally are erect). 3). Leela has a 1970's fur pie, a la the infamous Dr. Laura nude photos that were released (which I won't link to because, A) again this is a family site; and B) It's more that any sane person needs to see. 4) Scruffy the janitor (farthest right) must be related to John Holmes. Also his pubic hair matches his mustache.
Maybe This Movie Doesn't Suck My 9/6 post announcing the cancellation of the I Spy World Premiere needs to be amended. I just found out that Columbia Pictures is having a premiere after all (click here for details) When I wrote of the inital cancellation, I pointed out that it was a red flag--suggesting that the movie is a dog (studios want to avoid as much exposure of a bad film prior to its general release). Columbia is promoting the film heavily. This might be a good flick.
Glad I Missed It I missed the Jeopardy! tryouts (car trouble). I regret that. However, one thing I missed that I don't regret was the film The Rules of Attraction (see my 10/11 post). I read the review in the American Prowler and it reiterates what I have read from other sources (it must be bad when I agree with something written in the Prowler--which is a web site from the boys formerly at the American Spectator). Good news--the film is tanking at the box office.
I’m the last person to defend either Sharpton or Falwell. Both are shameless demagogues. However, the rioters in India and Crown Heights are the ones responsible for the mayhem. Falwell is not guilty of violating the sixth Commandment (Thou shalt not kill). However, because of the aforementioned video, he is guilty of violating Commandments eight and nine (Thou shalt not steal; and Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor).
Sweet Link I checked on Sitemeter a blog that has a link to me. It hasn't been updated recently, but it has some cool pics (click here--Adults only).
UPDATE: The above link has some cheesecake nudes--pretty tame stuff, but nude shots nevertheless. I apologize to anyone who unwittingly clicked to it and was offended. I just thought it was funny that such a site would link to me.
Bill O’Reilly: Hack Yesterday and today, I listened to O’Reilly’s radio show. Okay, he’s a dick but he’s logic magnet compared to El Rushbo. O’Reilly expressed disbelief that Bush would have clamp down on freedom of information. Sounding like a true populist, he pointed out that Bush, unlike Clinton, was not capable of being corrupted by money since he was born wealthy. Apparently, O’Reilly and the boys at Fox News aren’t familiar with the latest revelations about Bush’s exploits with Harken. Also, O’Reilly and the Fox gang are unaware that George W. Bush’s entire business career was one in which he was a major league doofus who was bailed out by friends of Daddykins (unlike with the Rich pardon, O’Reilly won’t ask if there was a quid pro quo with these questionable business arrangements). The working-class son of an accountant did have some challenging observations about the legal gifts Bill and Hillary Clinton received: “[It’s] unbelievable. Unbelievable. All the stuff that people gave them and they don’t tell us about it. I don’t want to be petty about it.”
The problem is that he has been petty about it. Today was not much better. O’Reilly lambasted Harry Belafonte on his comments on Colin Powell. O’Reilly ranted, “When you make personal attacks on people, you lose credibility.” Was O’Reilly asleep during the 1990’s attack on the Clintons? This includes his boss at the “Fair and Balanced” network, Roger Ailes who was a proponent of the Vince Foster conspiracy theories; according to Ailes, "The guy who's been doing an excellent job for the New York Post [discredited Scaife mouthpiece Chris Ruddy]...for the first time on the Rush Limbaugh show said that...he did not believe it was suicide.... Now, I don't have any evidence.... These people are very good at hiding or destroying evidence." Hell, if Faux News and O’Reilly were concerned about credibility, then why do they have discredited Moonie “journalist” Bill Sammon (see my 9/29 post) on their shows as a commentator?
Bill Simon Meltdown Gloatwatch Click here for the LA Times article. Apparently Bill Simon learned from Not-My-President Bush that being a spoiled Republican legacy means never having to say you're sorry.
No Movie Review I went to the advance screening for The Rules of Attraction but was turned away because it was a full house. What I read about it in the LA Weekly article on director Roger Avery makes me think that maybe no seeing it wasn't a bad thing. As Avery points out in the article: "I will be very pleased," Avary says, "if half the people who walk out of this movie hate it and despise it, because I tend to polarize people anyway. A real movie begins when the people leave the theater." I might see the film; if it's a good film, I got my money's worth. If it's a bad film, I'll walk out and get my money back.
Micheal Moore's Bowling for Columbine I saw the advance screening of the forthcoming flick by Michael Moore, Bowling for Columbine last night. Except for the couple who thought the theater was their living room and talked during the film, it was a great experience. I reccomend this film. See it. Moore is to the left of me--so I disagree with some of his conclusions--especially when he trotted out the tired, lame accusation that US policy is responsible for deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children--though the montage to Louis Armstrong's Wonderful World was powerful. It was a thought-provoking film that takes on the extremism (and insensitivity) of the NRA under Charlton Heston (Moore does an unforgettable interview with Heston). I wish that Moore had done some undercover footage of the NRA's legal seminars; the NRA talks a good game about prosecuting gun crime--at the same time, they hold seminars that help gunloons avoid convictions for crimes committed with guns.
Movie Night With Michael Moore Tonight I'm going to a special screening of Michael Moore's upcoming film, Bowling for Columbine. I have mixed thoughts about Moore. I liked Roger & Me. What I don't like: Moore often plays fast and loose with the facts. He supports the Greens (talk about pointless). He often sticks his foot in his mouth (e.g., his tactless comments about 9/11--not funny). Bowling received a Special Jury Prize at Cannes. I'll let you know what I think about it.
On Thursday, I'm going to an advance screening of The Rules of Attraction. I have heard some disturbing things about this film. It sounds like the type of film that will have a lot of walk-outs. The last film I saw that had a large walk-out was Neil LaBute's Your Friends and Neighbors.
Please, spare me the kiss-blowing to George Will. Whatever reputation for thoughtfulness he may have pales in the face of his relentless, seething, overwhelming hatred of Bill Clinton. Whenever Will brings up our last elected president, he invariably tosses in the aside "It is reasonable to believe he was a rapist." (The same could be said for Ronald Reagan, and by the way, George, still beating your wife?)
It's one thing to disagree with someone politically -- character assassination is another thing entirely. Will is as much a thug -- and about as interested in facts -- as Limbaugh and O'Reilly. Hatefulness wrapped up in WASP gentility is still hatefulness.
My thoughts precisely. It seems that those on the right who bring up the completely implausible charge that Clinton may have raped Juanita Broaddrick always are big fans of the Gipper (or is it the Ripper?). What I and the letter writer are referring to are the completely plausible charges made against Reagan by Selene Walters who claims that Reagan forced himself on her when they were both in Hollywood in the 1950's. I don't bring up the the plausible charge made by Walters unless someone brings up the implausible charges against Clinton. Anyone have a problem about that?
The Power of Bloggers Blogging is powerful stuff. I did a Google search of the words "Ann Coulter slander" and found my Slander site was the first site that popped up. Right after it was another site that lampooned the nutty blonde. Right after it was another parody site. One has to go to the sixth site to get Coulter's own home page. Another Coulter site worthy of note: click here (Attention Camel Toe web site: check out the picture on the aforementioned Coulter site with the caption: "(M)Ann Coulter is hiding something"). Also, I'm getting hits for people wanting info on Bill Sammon's forthcoming book, Fighting Back (see my 9/29 post).
In this month’s issue of Playboy, my alma mater, Miami University (commonly referred to as “Miami of Ohio” to distinguish it from Florida’s University of Miami) was named Honorable Mention in rankings of party schools. This leads me to remember why I chose Miami U. My older brother (who had attended both Miami and Ohio State) told me that even though Miami had fewer than one-third as many students as Ohio State (MU 16,000 students; OSU 50,000 students), there were just as many hot women at Miami as there were at Ohio State. He was correct. The only drawback about Miami is that student body was predominately Republican. That didn’t deter me: one woman I went out with told me that Miami U. was a place her Republican father wanted her to attend in order to avoid people like me—-looks as if the joke was on him!
I have gone out with Republican women but I do have standards when it comes to dating and politics. I was at a social event in Santa Monica two years ago and I met a particularly fetching young woman. We hit it off until she told me she was a volunteer for the Green Party candidate who was running against Diane Feinstein. My eyes rolled (I know it was rude, but I just couldn’t help it). She became defensive and asked me why I wasn’t taking her choice seriously. Since I blew any chance with her, I gave her a straight answer: "I have the same chance of being elected to the Senate as your candidate and I’m not even running."
Google Search Blues The guy (I'm assuming it was a guy) who clicked to my site from the Google search of the words "free web host posted horny wife" was disappointed. The things I learn from Sitemeter.
Grade Inflation Hype Jordan Ellenberg has a thoughtful article on how the concern about grade inflation is misplaced. One thing he fails to mention is how Ivy League schools have changed over the past 40 years. In the early 1960's, the Ivy League schools were, more or less, regional universities that had many mediocre minds (I won't mention any names but I will include initials such as G. W. B.). Now, these schools are highly selective--the average Yalie in the 1960's had test scores that would be in the lower ten percent today. Meritocracy has become the standard today--much to the chagrin of today's G.W.B's who want to get into these schools.