I watched some of the You Tube debates last night- up until Big Love started. Up until now, I avoided the debated because the election is so far away. I was a little curious about the format and because it would not have been as scripted (the candidates had some idea of what questions that would be asked so a debate can never be unscripted-- and it may be bad if it were) but this debate still possessed the same problems as other debates: (1) not enough time to respond to respond to the question or to the other candidates-- essentially to debate and (2) there is a lack of depth because there are too many types of questions-- why not have one debate on Iraq or maybe foregn policy and then another debate on domestic issues, economic issues, or social issues.
But- if were to submit a question for a debate (the Republican debate is in September), what question would you ask?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Monday, July 23, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
With what level of economic exploitation....
...are you comfortable?
My wife and I watched Blood Diamond last night. It is a good movie, with an interesting point. One criticism of western style capitalism is that it pushes economic exploitation into third world countries. While there is little economic exploitation in the United States (there may be some with immigration and a low minimum wage, but these can be serious topics for debate), the economic exploitation that should be in the US is now in other countries.
For example: criticism against Wal-Mart is that it sells very cheap products that it gets from foreign nations, especially China. Since the cost to make the products is so low, the store can pass that savings on to the consumer. In the process, the people that make the products receive very little for their work, hence the economic exploitation. But people in the United States are either (1) not aware of this portion of the free market equation or (2) do not care because the prices are so low. (At one point the giant retail store mainly sold products that were made in America but that was not economically viable for a large chain that aims for the lower classes.)
In Blood Diamond, the story goes that because there is a demand for diamonds (people in the west want them for their engagement rings and other forms of fancy jewelry), that countries fight for the ability of mine and sell them. In this economic process, Civil Wars emerge in Africa to wet the appetites of the West. (There is also a sub-plot that major diamond outlets in the West do not meet the demand for diamonds by keeping the diamonds in storage so as to artificially raise the price of the stone. By keeping some diamonds off the market companies can charge more for the diamonds which are on the markets-- there is more supply available but it could ruin the profit).
And yet, with Blood Diamond, there not a rejection of buying diamonds but a
"realistic" call to action- demand that consumers buy conflict-free diamonds, which would be similar to clothing lines advertising that the clothes are not the product of child-labor.
But this post raises the simple question: how much economic exploitation are you willing to allow in the marketplace in order to fulfill your lifestyle?
This would include clothing (shirts, pants, shoes), technology, food (soft-drinks, especially in plants are in South America, which may not let workers unionize), and shelter?
My wife and I watched Blood Diamond last night. It is a good movie, with an interesting point. One criticism of western style capitalism is that it pushes economic exploitation into third world countries. While there is little economic exploitation in the United States (there may be some with immigration and a low minimum wage, but these can be serious topics for debate), the economic exploitation that should be in the US is now in other countries.
For example: criticism against Wal-Mart is that it sells very cheap products that it gets from foreign nations, especially China. Since the cost to make the products is so low, the store can pass that savings on to the consumer. In the process, the people that make the products receive very little for their work, hence the economic exploitation. But people in the United States are either (1) not aware of this portion of the free market equation or (2) do not care because the prices are so low. (At one point the giant retail store mainly sold products that were made in America but that was not economically viable for a large chain that aims for the lower classes.)
In Blood Diamond, the story goes that because there is a demand for diamonds (people in the west want them for their engagement rings and other forms of fancy jewelry), that countries fight for the ability of mine and sell them. In this economic process, Civil Wars emerge in Africa to wet the appetites of the West. (There is also a sub-plot that major diamond outlets in the West do not meet the demand for diamonds by keeping the diamonds in storage so as to artificially raise the price of the stone. By keeping some diamonds off the market companies can charge more for the diamonds which are on the markets-- there is more supply available but it could ruin the profit).
And yet, with Blood Diamond, there not a rejection of buying diamonds but a
"realistic" call to action- demand that consumers buy conflict-free diamonds, which would be similar to clothing lines advertising that the clothes are not the product of child-labor.
But this post raises the simple question: how much economic exploitation are you willing to allow in the marketplace in order to fulfill your lifestyle?
This would include clothing (shirts, pants, shoes), technology, food (soft-drinks, especially in plants are in South America, which may not let workers unionize), and shelter?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Damn you Walt Whitman II
My wife, daughter, and I attended the house where Walt Whitman was born but we did not go to the Walt Whitman shopping center across the street. I am sure he would endorse that center if he were alive today.
My wife would like it to be known that she breast-fed on Whitman's front lawn, behind a tree. We are quite sure he would enjoy that as it afforded both an earth-mother vibe and public nudity.
Interesting facts:
The ghost in the armoire: Rumor has it that there is a spirit in the house though it resides in a cabinet in the birthing room. Every once in a while, the armoire shakes without reason. It appears as if modern science has not made its way inside the home.
Sleep tight; don't let the bed bugs bite: Older beds had rope for a mattress (think hammock). Before you went to sleep you would tighten the bed. About the bed bugs, you would use hair from a horse's tail to prevent being bitten.
Whitman's voice: there is a recording of Whitman reciting his poem "America." He has a very rich, deep voice to match his large, burly frame. The inflections were very old-fashioned.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
May lead to an increase of glambling
In the past few days, I have seen a few commercials over and over. One is for Miraplex, which is a medication to cure restless leg syndrome.
At the end of the commercial, the company offers a few disclaimers. One line states, "If you you have an increased urge to gamble, for sexual activity, or other strong urges, please consult your physician."
An increase urge to gamble from medication?
At the end of the commercial, the company offers a few disclaimers. One line states, "If you you have an increased urge to gamble, for sexual activity, or other strong urges, please consult your physician."
An increase urge to gamble from medication?
"Damn you Walt Whitman!!!"
My wife and I ill be heading to the birth place of Walt Whitman either today or tomorrow. In honor of one of America's greatest poets, here is a tribute to Whitman by Allen Ginsburg.
"A Supermarket in California" by Allen Ginsberg
What thoughts I have of you tonight, Walt Whitman, for
I walked down the sidestreets under the trees with a headache
self-conscious looking at the full moon.
In my hungry fatigue, and shopping for images, I went
into the neon fruit supermarket, dreaming of your enumerations!
What peaches and what penumbras! Whole families
shopping at night! Aisles full of husbands! Wives in the
avocados, babies in the tomatoes!--and you, Garcia Lorca, what
were you doing down by the watermelons?
I saw you, Walt Whitman, childless, lonely old grubber,
poking among the meats in the refrigerator and eyeing the grocery
boys.
I heard you asking questions of each: Who killed the
pork chops? What price bananas? Are you my Angel?
I wandered in and out of the brilliant stacks of cans
following you, and followed in my imagination by the store
detective.
We strode down the open corridors together in our
solitary fancy tasting artichokes, possessing every frozen
delicacy, and never passing the cashier.
Where are we going, Walt Whitman? The doors close in
an hour. Which way does your beard point tonight?
(I touch your book and dream of our odyssey in the
supermarket and feel absurd.)
Will we walk all night through solitary streets? The
trees add shade to shade, lights out in the houses, we'll both be
lonely.
Will we stroll dreaming of the lost America of love
past blue automobiles in driveways, home to our silent cottage?
Ah, dear father, graybeard, lonely old courage-teacher,
what America did you have when Charon quit poling his ferry and
you got out on a smoking bank and stood watching the boat
disappear on the black waters of Lethe?
Berkeley, 1955
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Divine Intervention and Inspiration in Big Love
On the last episode of Big Love, there were two very interesting religious themes in the episode.
First theme: ho one religious group believes that another religious group is "cult-like." The second wife, Nikkie no longer wanted her son to attend a Catholic school after the school gave the son a Crucifix and the son played with it like he would any other toy. Rather than try to understand the religion, Nikkie just attacked Catholicism for its pagan rituals and belief structures, which is similar to how other members of the LDS, as well as other religions, view The Compound. This seems to be a problem with almost every religion. If you read the Supreme Court Case Santa Fe Independent School System versus Jane Doe, according to the facts of the case, a teacher in the school system told a Mormon student that the student belonged to a cult and not a religion (and therefore could not attend a Baptist revival.)
Second, and more interesting, Bill thought about taking a fourth wife and inviting her to live the principle. (One of the best lines in the episode was when a male friend of Bill's stated that that you could help it when you were "Sucker Punched by the Holy Spirit.") So far, Bill has not taken the fourth wife.
But this plot device raises an interesting question about divine intervention. The men on big love claim that it is inspiration that causes them to take another wife. However, only the men receive that inspiration. When the youngest wife, Margie finds out about Bill "dating" and meets the women in question, she tries to help Bill pursue the girlfriend because she believes that she is inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit. At first Bill denies that is the case, but Margie establishes that she too could feel the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Bill could not respond to that point in any adequate way. Yet, this confrontation between Bill and Margie seems to call into question the patriarchal society in which the family lives.
This seems to be an interesting discussion of faith, and a better plot device, than has occurred in recent other episodes.
It does leave the viewer with one major question about religion: how do you know when your faith is speaking to you? What are the consequences for the individual and the community in larger society.
This could be problematic for many reasons. Recently, a man from Houston, Texas killed a gay man. The killer stated that he acted after 1,000s of hours studying the Bible. He believed he was doing the right thing and G-D told him to do this.
When I lived in Texas, I heard a story about Jury duty whereby one juror wanted to convict the defendant because the juror prayed about it and G-D told him that the defendant as guilty.
First theme: ho one religious group believes that another religious group is "cult-like." The second wife, Nikkie no longer wanted her son to attend a Catholic school after the school gave the son a Crucifix and the son played with it like he would any other toy. Rather than try to understand the religion, Nikkie just attacked Catholicism for its pagan rituals and belief structures, which is similar to how other members of the LDS, as well as other religions, view The Compound. This seems to be a problem with almost every religion. If you read the Supreme Court Case Santa Fe Independent School System versus Jane Doe, according to the facts of the case, a teacher in the school system told a Mormon student that the student belonged to a cult and not a religion (and therefore could not attend a Baptist revival.)
Second, and more interesting, Bill thought about taking a fourth wife and inviting her to live the principle. (One of the best lines in the episode was when a male friend of Bill's stated that that you could help it when you were "Sucker Punched by the Holy Spirit.") So far, Bill has not taken the fourth wife.
But this plot device raises an interesting question about divine intervention. The men on big love claim that it is inspiration that causes them to take another wife. However, only the men receive that inspiration. When the youngest wife, Margie finds out about Bill "dating" and meets the women in question, she tries to help Bill pursue the girlfriend because she believes that she is inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit. At first Bill denies that is the case, but Margie establishes that she too could feel the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Bill could not respond to that point in any adequate way. Yet, this confrontation between Bill and Margie seems to call into question the patriarchal society in which the family lives.
This seems to be an interesting discussion of faith, and a better plot device, than has occurred in recent other episodes.
It does leave the viewer with one major question about religion: how do you know when your faith is speaking to you? What are the consequences for the individual and the community in larger society.
This could be problematic for many reasons. Recently, a man from Houston, Texas killed a gay man. The killer stated that he acted after 1,000s of hours studying the Bible. He believed he was doing the right thing and G-D told him to do this.
When I lived in Texas, I heard a story about Jury duty whereby one juror wanted to convict the defendant because the juror prayed about it and G-D told him that the defendant as guilty.
Monday, July 16, 2007
How to lose your mond in 30 hours or less...
Recently, my wife and I moved from Texas to the New York City area. I drove; my wife and daughter flew. I left on the tenth and arrived on the telfth. My wife and daughter flew out and arrived on the thirteenth.
Highlights (or lowlights) from the trip:
1) Some where in North East Texas (while trying to reach Route 20) I ran over a turtle. I thought it was a leaf on the road. As I loked at it, I drifted a bit, realized it was a turtle but it was too late at that point. Sadly, my wife also killed one on a trip to Houston early in the week.
2) I do not know how I arrived to NYC. On the trip I noticed that my tires were low and needed air. Yesterday, one tire was almost completely flat. That tire contianed a nail and I needed to get a new one. Another tire has a gash in it (maybe from the turtle) and I need to get a new one tomorrow.
3) Surprisingly, I did not listen to my Ipod for the entire trip. Instead, I listened to AM radio only. (Though, for about two hours, I listened to an old tape made from songs that aired on WBER in Rochester, NY. The songs were from the late nineties, early oughts. The highlights from trip:
(a) Somehere around Birmingham, Alabama (which doesn't surprise me), a Christian Radio station allowed a women to discuss why true Christians should not read Harry Potter. Roughly, the argument is that the books are bad (because it features witches and wizzards whom are alays bad and pagan and good Christians cannot read anything that invovles Pagan images because it takes away from the message). it seems that those against Harry potter are not familiar with inoculation theory and would rather have people avoid it than try to understand it or deal with it. In terms of argumentation, it seems that these people would use inventional techniques from the bible and evangelical cultures and, beacuse of this, ould fail to persaude the larger culture. Rhetorically, it seems incest for arguments.
(b) I agreed with some Bill O'Reilly said. Luckily, I forgot what it was. Also, he attacked the San Diego Padres for hosting two promotions at one time: one was for gays and lesbians and another gave little kids hats. He said it was inappropriate for the Padres to do both at the same time. Though he is not anti-gay, it seems he just does not want them to have a public life. One caller challenged him on the fact that gays and lesbians are people too and what difference does it make. He said "Do you your children to see it... Do you ant to explain it to your kid." So it is okay to be gay but not in public.
On a side note. When the HSBC arena in Buffalo opened years ago, I went to a game against the Flyers. Throughout the night, the jumbotron showed to very attractive girls sitting next to one another. From the looks of it, they drank heavily throughout the game. The first time the camera man got them on the jumbotron, they waved, suggestively. The second time, they hugged. The third time: they stood up and they kissed. The cameraman dwelled on it for a few seconds and then turned to something else. The crowd applauded while the women kissed.
c) I listened to Hugh Hewitt for the first time. His ploy was to play out of context clips of the Senate discussion over Iraq and then asked soldiers how they felt over the comments. One thing I have always wondered: If the US has the finest fighting force in the world, then would discussions of how poor the Iraq war is going affect the troop morale? Either the first or second part is not true. Somehow, I would suggust it is the second.
d) Hannity seems to be the least intellectually honest of those that I heard. For example, on today's show, a caller stated that he taught college debate from a consertvative point of view and because of this they did well in tournatments. Now, I have taight debate many times and never realized it was possible to teach it from either a conservative or liberal point of view. The purpose of teaching debate is to teach invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory and not which ideological standpoint is True. But, Hannity seemed pleased that a professor "Hannitized" a student (one of the prof's students was liberal but learned to love big brother, er, I mean hannity.
Now, the intellectual dishonesty comes in over the point of education. Hannity hates "liberal indoctrination" of students but this example shows that conservative indoctrination is fine and even encouraged. Demonize one form of "indoctrination" but accept the other,
e) The fairness doctrine: I am against it as a form of legislation. However, they way in which Conservative radio hosts address the issue seems shallow at best. For example, hannity states that liberal would use it to censor conservative talk-show hosts. But, that would not be the case. It would only suggest that if a station gives time to one candidate it should for another. Even if it suggested that a radio or tv show should allow time for one liberal program for one conservative show, you still cannot reach the conclusion that liberals want to censor conservatives.
I am not expecting deep and naunced thought but maybe a little fairness.
f) Mark levin may tie Hannity for the worst radio host ever. On Thursday, Levin began his show with comments from the Democratic Representative that represents Ground Zero. While discussion what legal protections criminal and terrorist suspects should have, the reprsentative in question suggested that on September 10th, 2001 the government would not have been able to detain Mohammed Atta, one of the chief hijackers in September 11th. Levin could not believe this to be the case and decided that the democratic representative is not worhty to serve as a representative, the democrats are bad for the country, or whatever else you can think of.
Logically, Levin's comments present a challenge. Levin wants to detain (maybe torture, who knows these days), people before they commit crimes. What then becomes the determining factor in decieding who to detain: race? religion? color of the eyes? Whether or not the person possesses an Iphone?.
4) While I drove for 30 hours, I spent 1/10 of the trip stuck in traffic within Brooklyn and Queens. I left Staten Island at 4pm and did not reach my hotel in Suffolk county until 7:30.
Welcome to New York.
Highlights (or lowlights) from the trip:
1) Some where in North East Texas (while trying to reach Route 20) I ran over a turtle. I thought it was a leaf on the road. As I loked at it, I drifted a bit, realized it was a turtle but it was too late at that point. Sadly, my wife also killed one on a trip to Houston early in the week.
2) I do not know how I arrived to NYC. On the trip I noticed that my tires were low and needed air. Yesterday, one tire was almost completely flat. That tire contianed a nail and I needed to get a new one. Another tire has a gash in it (maybe from the turtle) and I need to get a new one tomorrow.
3) Surprisingly, I did not listen to my Ipod for the entire trip. Instead, I listened to AM radio only. (Though, for about two hours, I listened to an old tape made from songs that aired on WBER in Rochester, NY. The songs were from the late nineties, early oughts. The highlights from trip:
(a) Somehere around Birmingham, Alabama (which doesn't surprise me), a Christian Radio station allowed a women to discuss why true Christians should not read Harry Potter. Roughly, the argument is that the books are bad (because it features witches and wizzards whom are alays bad and pagan and good Christians cannot read anything that invovles Pagan images because it takes away from the message). it seems that those against Harry potter are not familiar with inoculation theory and would rather have people avoid it than try to understand it or deal with it. In terms of argumentation, it seems that these people would use inventional techniques from the bible and evangelical cultures and, beacuse of this, ould fail to persaude the larger culture. Rhetorically, it seems incest for arguments.
(b) I agreed with some Bill O'Reilly said. Luckily, I forgot what it was. Also, he attacked the San Diego Padres for hosting two promotions at one time: one was for gays and lesbians and another gave little kids hats. He said it was inappropriate for the Padres to do both at the same time. Though he is not anti-gay, it seems he just does not want them to have a public life. One caller challenged him on the fact that gays and lesbians are people too and what difference does it make. He said "Do you your children to see it... Do you ant to explain it to your kid." So it is okay to be gay but not in public.
On a side note. When the HSBC arena in Buffalo opened years ago, I went to a game against the Flyers. Throughout the night, the jumbotron showed to very attractive girls sitting next to one another. From the looks of it, they drank heavily throughout the game. The first time the camera man got them on the jumbotron, they waved, suggestively. The second time, they hugged. The third time: they stood up and they kissed. The cameraman dwelled on it for a few seconds and then turned to something else. The crowd applauded while the women kissed.
c) I listened to Hugh Hewitt for the first time. His ploy was to play out of context clips of the Senate discussion over Iraq and then asked soldiers how they felt over the comments. One thing I have always wondered: If the US has the finest fighting force in the world, then would discussions of how poor the Iraq war is going affect the troop morale? Either the first or second part is not true. Somehow, I would suggust it is the second.
d) Hannity seems to be the least intellectually honest of those that I heard. For example, on today's show, a caller stated that he taught college debate from a consertvative point of view and because of this they did well in tournatments. Now, I have taight debate many times and never realized it was possible to teach it from either a conservative or liberal point of view. The purpose of teaching debate is to teach invention, arrangement, style, delivery, and memory and not which ideological standpoint is True. But, Hannity seemed pleased that a professor "Hannitized" a student (one of the prof's students was liberal but learned to love big brother, er, I mean hannity.
Now, the intellectual dishonesty comes in over the point of education. Hannity hates "liberal indoctrination" of students but this example shows that conservative indoctrination is fine and even encouraged. Demonize one form of "indoctrination" but accept the other,
e) The fairness doctrine: I am against it as a form of legislation. However, they way in which Conservative radio hosts address the issue seems shallow at best. For example, hannity states that liberal would use it to censor conservative talk-show hosts. But, that would not be the case. It would only suggest that if a station gives time to one candidate it should for another. Even if it suggested that a radio or tv show should allow time for one liberal program for one conservative show, you still cannot reach the conclusion that liberals want to censor conservatives.
I am not expecting deep and naunced thought but maybe a little fairness.
f) Mark levin may tie Hannity for the worst radio host ever. On Thursday, Levin began his show with comments from the Democratic Representative that represents Ground Zero. While discussion what legal protections criminal and terrorist suspects should have, the reprsentative in question suggested that on September 10th, 2001 the government would not have been able to detain Mohammed Atta, one of the chief hijackers in September 11th. Levin could not believe this to be the case and decided that the democratic representative is not worhty to serve as a representative, the democrats are bad for the country, or whatever else you can think of.
Logically, Levin's comments present a challenge. Levin wants to detain (maybe torture, who knows these days), people before they commit crimes. What then becomes the determining factor in decieding who to detain: race? religion? color of the eyes? Whether or not the person possesses an Iphone?.
4) While I drove for 30 hours, I spent 1/10 of the trip stuck in traffic within Brooklyn and Queens. I left Staten Island at 4pm and did not reach my hotel in Suffolk county until 7:30.
Welcome to New York.
Reviving the Situation
Okay... it has been over one month since the last post; I do not know how long it has been since my last post.
It is time for a revival.
Daily posts begin today.
Solon
It is time for a revival.
Daily posts begin today.
Solon
Friday, June 15, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Cormac McCarthy's The Road: Another Snippet for Everyone, but especially for Solon and Oxymoron
This passage makes Harrogate think of his fellow Board Members, Solon and Oxymoron.
they sat there in silence with their hands outheld to the flames. He tried to think of something to say but he could not. He'd had this feeling before, beyond the numbness and the dull despair. The world shrinking down about a raw core of parsible entities. The names of things slowly following those things into oblivion. Colors. The names of birds. Things to eat. Finally the names of things one believed to be true. More fragile than he would have thought. How much was gone already? The sacred idiom shorn of its referents and so of its reality. Drawing down like something trying to preserve heat. In time to wink out forever.
Just. Stunning.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Congratulations, Cormac McCarthy!!!!!
Cormac McCarthy's incredible novel, The Road, has won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.It was a long time coming. Mr. McCarthy will surely get a Nobel Prize one day to honor a body of literary output that is very arguably second to none in American letters, past or present.
Here is a snippet from The Road
He loaded the flarepistol and as soon as it was dark they walked out down the beach away from the fire and he asked the boy if he wanted to shoot it.
You shoot it, Papa. You know how to do it.
Okay.
He cocked the gun and aimed it out over the bay and pulled the trigger. The flare arced up into the murk with a long whoosh and broke somewhere out over the water in a clouded light and hung there. The hot tendrils of magnesium drifted slowly down the dark and the pale foreshore tide started in the glare and slowly faded. He looked down at the boy's upturned face.
They couldn't see it very far, could they, Papa?
Who?
Anybody.
No. Not far.
If you wanted to show where you were.
You mean like to the good guys?
Yes. Or anybody that you wanted them to know where you were.
Like who?
I don't know.
Like God?
Yeah. Maybe somebody like that.
None are too busy to squeeze in a little time to read this novel, which is a fast-paced read. Once committing to the undertaking, Harrogate promises, ye won't easily recover from it.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
God Bless You Mr. Rosewater
Sad news today: Kurt Vonnegut died. He was 84.
Kurt Vonnegut was the first author I enjoyed while I was young. I remember first reading his some of his short stories in grade school, in either 7th or 8th grade. "The Euphio Question" was the first story I read.
What are your favorite stories/ books/ moements from Kurt Vonnegut?
What I remember most from his work is his discussion of humanism. Two examples: From Slaughterhouse Five (the intro).
"Be Kind. God Doesn't Care whether you are kind or Not."
And from God Bless You Mr. Rosewater:
“Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — ‘God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.’ ”
Imus Aint Funny, But Snoop Dogg Sure Is
Snoop Dogg's statement on the Imus situation is really funny and makes you think, sort of like a passage out of Henry Miller.
Don Imus (hat tip Talk Left for the "dogg-house" picture), Readers will recall, is the rich, old, white male icon of talk radio/television who referred to the Rutgers Women's Basketball team, whose dream season came crashing to an end at the hands of perennial powerhouse Tennessee (Pat Summit thou hast done it again! Way to go! Good ole Rockytop, Rockytop Tennessee!) as "nappy headed hos." Now that the shit has hit the fan (one of the truly great dead metaphors ever) MSNBC has dropped its simulcast of him and CBS meanwhile is perhaps on the verge of yanking Imus off of Westwood 1.
The Rutgers Ladies, meanwhile, appear on Oprah Winfrey today. Harrogate thinks it will be worth checking out, as Vivien Stringer, their head coach, speaks off the cuff as well as any figure in sports--in this way she's the women's b-ball equivalent of Florida Head Coach and Philosophe, Billy Donovan (congratulations Gators, by the way. If you're not a Gator you're Gator Bait, that's what Harrogate hears anyway).
But anyways, Harrogate digresses. In the aftermath many other white conservative pudits have taken care to give the obligatory condemnation of Imus, but then launch headlong into "wondering" aloud why rappers can say these words but Imus cannot. Snoop provides one of several possible answers in the link above. Here is a delightful snippett:
"It's a completely different scenario," said Snoop, barking over the phone from a hotel room in L.A. "[Rappers] are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about ho's that's in the 'hood that ain't doing sh--, that's trying to get a n---a for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC [which announced Wednesday it would drop its simulcast of Imus' radio show] going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."
That's just funny, Harrogate don't care who ye are.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Manifestations of Oxymoron
What if readers....?
What if you saw the spiritual, physical, and emotional embodiment of one of the lead authors at the rhetorical situation in a commercial? Would you post it?
As readers, would you want to know more about who we are?
Well, too bad because I will post it anyway.
If you were ever curious about who Oxymoron is, watch this clip.
What if you saw the spiritual, physical, and emotional embodiment of one of the lead authors at the rhetorical situation in a commercial? Would you post it?
As readers, would you want to know more about who we are?
Well, too bad because I will post it anyway.
If you were ever curious about who Oxymoron is, watch this clip.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Hillary, Barak, and Harrogate (no it's not the title of Southpaw's newest erotic novel)
Harrogate just finished watching Bill Maher's Real Time, and early in the program one of Maher's guests, actor D.L. Hughley, stated something to the effect that Americans aren't prepared to vote either a black man or a woman of any race into the White House.
He also stated what will be obvious to anyone not perpetually on Pete's Couch that there's no way Americans are going to vote in sufficient numbers to elect a black President named Barak Hussein Obama.
These are true things, in Harrogate's opinion. Inconvenient things, bigoted things, but true things nonetheless. But what is to be done about it? If a given Dem primary voter really, truly wants to vote, say, for Hillary Clinton, and then doesn't do it precisely because he or she thinks a woman cannot win, well then ladies and gentlemen and people with loud trucks, that's what you call selling out. Nothing unusual there, of course, especially in the world of politics. But often when we liberals sell out we prefer framing it in terms like "being practical," terms which sound better, terms perhaps that make us feel a lot better, but terms that somehow always wind up failing to make it even a smidge less disgusting. What did Cool Hand Luke say? "Calling it your job don't make it right, boss." Yeah. Exactly.
A moral dilemma therefore awaits Dem primary voters in about a year. How they do will remain under the watchful jurisdiction of this award winning blog and its expert editorial board. And Harrogate has it on good authority that Oxymoron will in fact be there with all the predictions and hot tips as we move closer to the moment of truth.
Meanwhile, and fortunately, Harrogate himself will be facing no such moral dilemma. Because he's not one of those millions who inexplicably love Hillary Clinton even though she's proven over and over again to be the prime definition of a panderer.
And Obama? Please. He wouldn't know a position if it hit him in the taint. Circuitous rhetoric is the man's bread and butter: he is everywhere, he is nowhere, and noone ever remembers him ever having said anything substantive--but my oh my and damn he's pretty. And, he raises a lot of money. (And as Senator Biden kindly reminded us, he's clean. And articulate)
No, the only Dem who seems serious at this point, the only one that Harrogate has even a modicum of respect for, is Edwards. Because Edwards has apologized for past sins and has taken clear positions that can be identified.
It's early, way too early even for Oxymoron to make a prediction. But at this point things definitely don't look good for Democrats re the White House: their top two candidates really suck and also suffer from bigotry, and that's a bad combo any day of the week. So the beleagured GOP, of which a majority of Americans are finally getting sick, and a Party moreover which has screwed us over in every imaginable way since Bush's victory in 2000, nevertheless enjoys the upper hand in this early stage. Something dramatic will have to happen to change this.
On a completely unrelated note. Harrogate leaves you, oh Readers, with one of the great lines of show tune poetry:
Stay alert, and stay with Fox.
He also stated what will be obvious to anyone not perpetually on Pete's Couch that there's no way Americans are going to vote in sufficient numbers to elect a black President named Barak Hussein Obama.
These are true things, in Harrogate's opinion. Inconvenient things, bigoted things, but true things nonetheless. But what is to be done about it? If a given Dem primary voter really, truly wants to vote, say, for Hillary Clinton, and then doesn't do it precisely because he or she thinks a woman cannot win, well then ladies and gentlemen and people with loud trucks, that's what you call selling out. Nothing unusual there, of course, especially in the world of politics. But often when we liberals sell out we prefer framing it in terms like "being practical," terms which sound better, terms perhaps that make us feel a lot better, but terms that somehow always wind up failing to make it even a smidge less disgusting. What did Cool Hand Luke say? "Calling it your job don't make it right, boss." Yeah. Exactly.
A moral dilemma therefore awaits Dem primary voters in about a year. How they do will remain under the watchful jurisdiction of this award winning blog and its expert editorial board. And Harrogate has it on good authority that Oxymoron will in fact be there with all the predictions and hot tips as we move closer to the moment of truth.
Meanwhile, and fortunately, Harrogate himself will be facing no such moral dilemma. Because he's not one of those millions who inexplicably love Hillary Clinton even though she's proven over and over again to be the prime definition of a panderer.
And Obama? Please. He wouldn't know a position if it hit him in the taint. Circuitous rhetoric is the man's bread and butter: he is everywhere, he is nowhere, and noone ever remembers him ever having said anything substantive--but my oh my and damn he's pretty. And, he raises a lot of money. (And as Senator Biden kindly reminded us, he's clean. And articulate)
No, the only Dem who seems serious at this point, the only one that Harrogate has even a modicum of respect for, is Edwards. Because Edwards has apologized for past sins and has taken clear positions that can be identified.
It's early, way too early even for Oxymoron to make a prediction. But at this point things definitely don't look good for Democrats re the White House: their top two candidates really suck and also suffer from bigotry, and that's a bad combo any day of the week. So the beleagured GOP, of which a majority of Americans are finally getting sick, and a Party moreover which has screwed us over in every imaginable way since Bush's victory in 2000, nevertheless enjoys the upper hand in this early stage. Something dramatic will have to happen to change this.
On a completely unrelated note. Harrogate leaves you, oh Readers, with one of the great lines of show tune poetry:
Noone cares for you a smidge
When you're in an orphanage.
Stay alert, and stay with Fox.
Friday, March 30, 2007
The New Standard for Foreign Policy: The Costanza Doctrine
By leading foreign policy expert, George Costanza.
“If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”
“If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right.”
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Sweet Carolina
In honor of today's gigantic mathup between North Carolina and Georgetown, Harrogate offers one of the greatest songs, by one of the greatest Rock artists, in the last 15 years. Ryan Adams's original "Oh My Sweet Carolina" was recorded with the peerless Emmylou Harris, but alas, Harrogate could not find a video of the two of them performing it. But here is Adams, tearing it up.
Go Baby Blue!
Friday, March 23, 2007
Congratulations Aggies
As his many fans know, Harrogate for some time now has been consumed by the spectacle of March Madness. A&M's loss to Memphis last night was one of the bitterest pills Harrogate has ever swallowed as a sports fan. The controversial ending didn't help matters, but 'tis time to let that go.
What is in order is congratulations. And gratitude to an Aggie basketball team that made the sport matter in College Station, and likely set the stage for it to matter for years to come. In the middle of their incredible accomplishments this year was the incomparable Acie Law, depicted above walking off the court after last night's heartbreaking loss. His is without a doubt the most important basketball player Texas A&M ever had, and he will be a fine NBA player as well; likely he'll wind up with several championship rings on his finger by the time his career ends.
Bottom line, the tournament is cruel. Very Highlander. In the blink of an eye you are irrevocably gone. Only one team can win its last game. The thing to do as a basketball fan, then (that is if you want to stay sane), is to allow yourself to appreciate what your team accomplishes, rather than what it doesn't. Even perennial powerhouse North Carolina "only" has two national championships following Michael Jordan's magical shot in 1982.
So, A&M, thank you for the season.
And like cruel Nature herself, the Tournament will now March on without thee.
Enjoy the catastrophic finale to come, Readers. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)