Trent Lott is apparently reveling in the freedom of not having to pretend to be sane any more. Having permanently disgraced himself with his racist slavering over Strom Thurmond, Lott seems to have taken up Thurmond’s legacy as the Senate’s resident crackpotted old kook, as well.
First there were the illegal-alien goats . . .
If the answer is ‘build a fence’ I’ve got two goats on my place in Mississippi. There ain’t no fence big enough, high enough, strong enough, that you can keep those goats in that fence. Now people are at least as smart as goats. Maybe not as agile. Build a fence. We should have a virtual fence. Now one of the ways I keep those goats in the fence is I electrified them. Once they got popped a couple of times they quit trying to jump it. I’m not proposing an electrified goat fence. I’m just trying, there’s an analogy there.
But it’s more than just the chance to let a little of his native whackiness burst forth from time to time. Like a new member of a nudist colony, Lott is reveling in a freedom to let it all hang out that he had previously only dreamed of:
I keep trying to tell everybody “calm down, calm down, let me be the one that offends the left, the middle and the right.” I’m doing great, aren’t I? But it gives you a level of utopia that is just so blissful.
I don’t worry about offending anybody anymore, because I’ve already offended everybody.
And that’s a good reason to keep on doing it. It gives you a level of utopia that is just so blissful.
June 21st, 2007
|
General, Politics, Culture |
no comments
At the risk of re-awakening the ire of LarryE, I must agree with Hilzoy on this.
June 21st, 2007
|
General |
4 comments
This week’s Shepherd Express (a Milwaukee Indy paper) has a pretty good article on what to make of increasing cooperation among corporations and environmental groups:
Many environmental activists seem to welcome the notion of a convergence of business interests and green interests, but it all seems too good to be true. If eco-friendly policies are entirely “win-win,” then why did corporations resist them for so long? It is hard to believe that the conflict between profit maximization and environmental protection, which characterized the entire history of the ecological movement, has suddenly evaporated.
Either corporations are fooling themselves, in which case they will eventually realize there is no environmental free lunch and renege on their green promises, or they are fooling us and are perpetrating a massive public relations hoax. A third interpretation is that companies are taking voluntary steps that are genuine but inadequate to solve the problems at hand and are mainly meant to prevent stricter, enforceable government regulation.
In any event, it would behoove enviros to be more skeptical of corporate green claims and less eager to jump into bed with business. It certainly makes sense to seek specific concessions from corporations and offer moderate praise when they comply, but activists should maintain an arm’s-length relationship to business and not see themselves as partners. After all, the real purpose of the environmental movement is not simply to make technical adjustments to the way business operates (that’s the job of consultants) but rather to push for fundamental and systemic changes.
Read the whole thing.
June 21st, 2007
|
Economics, Environment |
10 comments
Via SpeedTV:
Again, it’s more evidence of the twisted state of affairs in American racing, where NASCAR is king and quality in any other flavor is ignored. The ridiculous popularity of a stock car racing is truly discouraging to the thinking race fan open to other motorsports experiences. Of course, just because The Jerry Springer Show gets big ratings doesn’t mean it’s quality material. Nor does it mean is has any redeeming social value. It only means a large number of Americans fill their leisure time with garbage.
(If yesterday’s resume/résumé thing got some heated responses, this should really get them worked up!)
June 21st, 2007
|
Sports, Weekend Flame Bait, Auto Racing |
no comments
How is this possible:
Giuliani left the Iraq Study Group last May after just two months, walking away from a chance to make up for his lack of foreign policy credentials on the top issue in the 2008 race, the Iraq war.
He cited “previous time commitments” in a letter explaining his decision to quit, and a look at his schedule suggests why — the sessions at times conflicted with Giuliani’s lucrative speaking tour that garnered him $11.4 million in 14 months.
Giuliani failed to show up for a pair of two-day sessions that occurred during his tenure, the sources said — and both times, they conflicted with paid public appearances shown on his recent financial disclosure. Giuliani quit the group during his busiest stretch in 2006, when he gave 20 speeches in a single month that brought in $1.7 million.
I find it hard to believe that anyone, even an egomaniac like Giuliani, thought that he could be President after doing something as egregious as this. Iraq is the central issue of the day and is likely to be the most important issue facing the country for years to come. Anyone who turn down an opportunity to directly affect the way the country will deal with the premier issue of the day simply doesn’t get to be President. Sorry, but in any normal, healthy democracy, you simply cannot turn your back on the country and expect to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. It would be like turning down a scholarship to play quarterback at USC and then lobbying to be the starting quarterback for one of the teams in the Super Bowl the next year.
But we, apparently, don’t live in a healthy democracy. Aside from Newsday, there has been almost no coverage of this in the mainstream media:
A quick Nexis search shows that among the mainstream media, the New York Times wrote a short piece, and the Kansas City Star and Chicago Tribune carried brief blurbs. That’s it. On TV, Olberman discussed it, but no one else.
John Edwards haircut can get more stories than I care to count and Chris Mathews can wax lyrical about Fred Thompson’s aftershave, but almost no one can talk about how one of the front runners for the GOP nomination abandoned the opportunity to help his country in order to make a quick buck. That is inexcusable, but it is also par for the course. The media refused to talk about the meat of Al Gore’s book and instead focused on whether or not he was going to run for President. The 2000 election wasn’t depicted as an election between two men with different policy sets but as if it was a prom king contest: who looked best on the dance floor was all that mattered. The policies of the candidates in 2004 were obscured by idiotic “he said, she said” coverage devoid of even the attempt to discern the truth of any matter.
The media in this country is allegoric to actual issues. Politics is a game to them, a contest of polls and sound bites and dueling bits of narrative fluff. Issue, passion, and the notion that politics actually matters are completely foreign to our press. Instead of reporting we get gossip and stenography. Instead of issues and expertise we get the re-enactments of junior high drama. It is next to impossible to run a campaign based on issues — any issues — in this media environment. We have, for all intents and purposes, a moron press.
And so the costs of haircuts are poured over as if they contained the secrets of the universe, relevant behavior is almost ignored, and the country’s el;ectiosn become more and mor elike an bad episode of American Idol every year.
June 21st, 2007
|
Politics, Media |
8 comments
