A couple of tidbits in the press caught my eye this week. The first is from New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman: "I've had a chance to travel all across the country since September, and I can say without hesitation there was not a single audience I spoke to where I felt there was a majority in favor of war in Iraq. ...I don't care what the polls say, this is the real mood." (Of course, he goes on to say that the President needs to work harder to sell his "audacious" but wonderful plan to run Iraq as a US colony, but whatever.) Second is Camille Paglia's neo-paganist perspective, from an interview in Salon: "As we speak, I have a terrible sense of foreboding, because last weekend a stunning omen occurred in this country. Anyone who thinks symbolically had to be shocked by the explosion of the Columbia shuttle, disintegrating in the air and strewing its parts and human remains over Texas -- the president's home state!" I'm not sure popular resistance or omens will deter a man bent on Armageddon, though. In view of this, I'm really sick of the press continuing to use the terms "hawks" and "doves" to describe the positions on Iraq. Doves sounds wimpy and unrealistic post 9/11 and hawks sounds decisive and tough. As far as invading & colonizing Iraq are concerned, the camps should be "the War Party" and "sane people."
more "omen"izing. i wonder whose idea it was to focus on palestine, texas as one of the signature towns for the location of debris. there must have been dozens to choose from.
Aside from its topicality, it flows more trippingly off the tongue (and keyboard) than Nacogdoches.
Speaking to the wimpy vs. tough issue I was struck by the tv coverage of the prez's last very well delivered malarky which of course shows the DEMs on one side of the room and the ruling REPs on the other side. The Republicans really are a lot tougher looking, what with the massive, almost ridge-like square jaw of our new Homeland Defense chief, and Rumsfield's (and his team all) got the look, and the president himself borrows (with as far as I can tell, no collateral) from his gene pool to carry off the raw-boned tough-guy look, which in the foreseeable future is the look I think most reality tv watching American nincompoops are going to lean towards, regardless of message. On the other side of the room the Dems seemed to be trying out a 2004 package featuring Leiberman and Miss Hillary, which on first glance I said, yeah, those two on an intellectual level could sure kick some ass and talk some sense, but then I realized that Leiberman, despite his superior intellect and his mellifulous speaking voice, by appearance, contrasted by all those bad ass Reps, really looks somewhat the wimp, while Hillary, uh oh, how did this happen, really looks too tough.
I knew we were in trouble when, during campaign 2000, a fairly well-educated European-born woman I know was looking at the candidates and saying "Oh, God, it's going to be Bush." I asked why and she said, "Bradley has that all that loose flesh under his neck that looks like a, how do you say..." "Goiter?" "Yes, and McCain has loose skin under his neck too, and when it comes down to it, Bush is just better looking than Gore, and that's what people look for." I hate to say she's right, but the Bush campaign had already raised 70 million at that point, and a lot of it was because Republicans were delighted to have a telegenic candidate again. When I look at Bush on TV I see an angry little Texas frat rat, but apparently some people think he radiates honesty and plain-folks straighforwardness. No distracting wobbly skin or anything.
How about Foxnews anchor Alan Colmes, could his wardrobe and hairstyle look any more calculated to evoke the wimpy libral stereotype? I've never seen the elbows of his jacket but I'm sure they're suede.
I heard somewhere that Sally Jessy Raphael's contract stipulates that she must wear red rimmed glasses.
you must mean "wimpy moderate."
Right. And I've always thought of Bill Press and The Ragin' Cajun as straight up Democrats, not Liberals.
|
A couple of tidbits in the press caught my eye this week. The first is from New York Times op-ed columnist Thomas Friedman: "I've had a chance to travel all across the country since September, and I can say without hesitation there was not a single audience I spoke to where I felt there was a majority in favor of war in Iraq. ...I don't care what the polls say, this is the real mood." (Of course, he goes on to say that the President needs to work harder to sell his "audacious" but wonderful plan to run Iraq as a US colony, but whatever.) Second is Camille Paglia's neo-paganist perspective, from an interview in Salon: "As we speak, I have a terrible sense of foreboding, because last weekend a stunning omen occurred in this country. Anyone who thinks symbolically had to be shocked by the explosion of the Columbia shuttle, disintegrating in the air and strewing its parts and human remains over Texas -- the president's home state!" I'm not sure popular resistance or omens will deter a man bent on Armageddon, though.
In view of this, I'm really sick of the press continuing to use the terms "hawks" and "doves" to describe the positions on Iraq. Doves sounds wimpy and unrealistic post 9/11 and hawks sounds decisive and tough. As far as invading & colonizing Iraq are concerned, the camps should be "the War Party" and "sane people."
- tom moody 2-07-2003 6:25 pm
more "omen"izing. i wonder whose idea it was to focus on palestine, texas as one of the signature towns for the location of debris. there must have been dozens to choose from.
- dave 2-07-2003 8:28 pm
Aside from its topicality, it flows more trippingly off the tongue (and keyboard) than Nacogdoches.
- tom moody 2-07-2003 8:36 pm
Speaking to the wimpy vs. tough issue I was struck by the tv coverage of the prez's last very well delivered malarky which of course shows the DEMs on one side of the room and the ruling REPs on the other side. The Republicans really are a lot tougher looking, what with the massive, almost ridge-like square jaw of our new Homeland Defense chief, and Rumsfield's (and his team all) got the look, and the president himself borrows (with as far as I can tell, no collateral) from his gene pool to carry off the raw-boned tough-guy look, which in the foreseeable future is the look I think most reality tv watching American nincompoops are going to lean towards, regardless of message. On the other side of the room the Dems seemed to be trying out a 2004 package featuring Leiberman and Miss Hillary, which on first glance I said, yeah, those two on an intellectual level could sure kick some ass and talk some sense, but then I realized that Leiberman, despite his superior intellect and his mellifulous speaking voice, by appearance, contrasted by all those bad ass Reps, really looks somewhat the wimp, while Hillary, uh oh, how did this happen, really looks too tough.
- jimlouis 2-08-2003 5:07 pm
I knew we were in trouble when, during campaign 2000, a fairly well-educated European-born woman I know was looking at the candidates and saying "Oh, God, it's going to be Bush." I asked why and she said, "Bradley has that all that loose flesh under his neck that looks like a, how do you say..." "Goiter?" "Yes, and McCain has loose skin under his neck too, and when it comes down to it, Bush is just better looking than Gore, and that's what people look for." I hate to say she's right, but the Bush campaign had already raised 70 million at that point, and a lot of it was because Republicans were delighted to have a telegenic candidate again. When I look at Bush on TV I see an angry little Texas frat rat, but apparently some people think he radiates honesty and plain-folks straighforwardness. No distracting wobbly skin or anything.
- tom moody 2-10-2003 6:07 am
How about Foxnews anchor Alan Colmes, could his wardrobe and hairstyle look any more calculated to evoke the wimpy libral stereotype? I've never seen the elbows of his jacket but I'm sure they're suede.
I heard somewhere that Sally Jessy Raphael's contract stipulates that she must wear red rimmed glasses.
- steve 2-10-2003 8:20 pm
you must mean "wimpy moderate."
- dave 2-10-2003 9:10 pm
Right. And I've always thought of Bill Press and The Ragin' Cajun as straight up Democrats, not Liberals.
- steve 2-10-2003 9:53 pm