I shall not confirm or deny anything.
But, I will add this to the debate...
A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I got a gal in Kalamazoo
Don’t wanta boast but I know she’s the toast of Kalamazoo-zoo-zoo-zoo-zoo-zoo
Years have gone by, my, my, how she grew
I liked her looks when I carried her books in Kalamazoo-zoo-zoo-zoo-zoo
I’m gonna send away, hopping on a plane, leaving today
And my dreamin’. I can hear her screamin’
Hi-ya, Mr Jackson, everything’s OK-A-L-A-M-A-Z-O
Oh, what a gal, a real pipparoo
I’ll make my bid for that freckle-faced kid I’m hurrying to
I’m goin’ to Michigan to see the sweetest gal in Kalamazoo
Zoo-zoo, zoo-zoo-zoo
Kalamazoo
K-A-L-A-M-A-Z-O-O
Oh, I gotta gal, a real pipparoo
We’re going to Michigan to see the sweetest girl in Kalamazoo
Zoo-zoo-zoo-zoo-za-zoo-za-zoo-za-zoo-zoo
Kalamazoo
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Changes in Democratic leadership -- the readers write!
Concerned reader Anonymous made this witty comment to my entry regarding the possible changes in Democrat leadership.
I suppose I have a couple of things to say about that. I'm not really sure if the GOP would love that, in fact I don't think they would really notice. They wouldn't notice until the new leaders actually do something different.
And, as far as the "amendment against homosexuals," I suspect you are referring to the Federal Marriage Amendment, which Karl Rove said the President is recommitted to passing. I just don't think this will ever pass. First off, neither house will ever muster the 2/3 needed to get it to the states, and there is no way that 3/4 of all the state assemblies will ever ratify it. There just isn't that much party-line political support. Right now Democrats control both the state senate and state assembly in 16 states, and in it is split in another 17. There is no way it would ever pass if, and this is an important if, the elected officials stuck to their party.
As for the rest of the statement, well, what I can I say? I'd quickly dismiss the writer and other's of that ilk as if it didn't mean dismissing so many people. But the hate filled anti-gay movement in the United States has reached such a level that one cannot simply dismiss its followers. The followers have one thing in common: they are weak in the mind. They have no arguments, just rhetoric. And, it isn't even good rhetoric (although I must admit to chuckling at the the slogan "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.").
It is lazy and mindless, just like those who believe it.
I do believe that Anonymous is outnumbered, that most people in the United States are caring, open individuals. They aren't taken in by the empty, amoral rhetoric of the religious right. Anonymous, and others like him, are not qualified for life in a liberal democracy that thrives on a plurality of experience, like the United States does. That statement is paradoxical -- liberal democracy actually needs hate filled social war mongerers like Anonymous. It is people like him who galvanize decent citizens with tolerant and virtuous beliefs, turning them from the silent majority to a political force that will undoubtedly defeat the politics of people like Anonymous.
I suppose I have a couple of things to say about that. I'm not really sure if the GOP would love that, in fact I don't think they would really notice. They wouldn't notice until the new leaders actually do something different.
And, as far as the "amendment against homosexuals," I suspect you are referring to the Federal Marriage Amendment, which Karl Rove said the President is recommitted to passing. I just don't think this will ever pass. First off, neither house will ever muster the 2/3 needed to get it to the states, and there is no way that 3/4 of all the state assemblies will ever ratify it. There just isn't that much party-line political support. Right now Democrats control both the state senate and state assembly in 16 states, and in it is split in another 17. There is no way it would ever pass if, and this is an important if, the elected officials stuck to their party.
As for the rest of the statement, well, what I can I say? I'd quickly dismiss the writer and other's of that ilk as if it didn't mean dismissing so many people. But the hate filled anti-gay movement in the United States has reached such a level that one cannot simply dismiss its followers. The followers have one thing in common: they are weak in the mind. They have no arguments, just rhetoric. And, it isn't even good rhetoric (although I must admit to chuckling at the the slogan "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.").
It is lazy and mindless, just like those who believe it.
I do believe that Anonymous is outnumbered, that most people in the United States are caring, open individuals. They aren't taken in by the empty, amoral rhetoric of the religious right. Anonymous, and others like him, are not qualified for life in a liberal democracy that thrives on a plurality of experience, like the United States does. That statement is paradoxical -- liberal democracy actually needs hate filled social war mongerers like Anonymous. It is people like him who galvanize decent citizens with tolerant and virtuous beliefs, turning them from the silent majority to a political force that will undoubtedly defeat the politics of people like Anonymous.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Changes in Democratic leadership
The AP is reporting that Howard Dean may make a run for the chair of the Democratic National Committee, currently held by Terry McAuliff, whose term is ending soon.
At first glance, I'd have to say that this is potentially a good things. With Daschle out at the minority leader in the Senate, perhaps it is time for a real change in direction. Dean would provide that. He is certainly not a Third Way Democrat, a Clinton Democrat. Clinton was certainly successful directing the party during his time as President, but since then Democrats have struggled. In fact, they started to struggle in Congress ever since the 1994 Contract with America Republicans took over. Though the Contract was a failure, the congressional Republicans have been successful at defeating Democrats ever since then.
Donna Brazile, who ran Gore's election campaign and Clinton aide Harold Ickes have also been named as possibilities, but I still think a refocus on traditional Democratic idealogy is needed, and Dean, from what I saw during the primaries, can provide that.
At first glance, I'd have to say that this is potentially a good things. With Daschle out at the minority leader in the Senate, perhaps it is time for a real change in direction. Dean would provide that. He is certainly not a Third Way Democrat, a Clinton Democrat. Clinton was certainly successful directing the party during his time as President, but since then Democrats have struggled. In fact, they started to struggle in Congress ever since the 1994 Contract with America Republicans took over. Though the Contract was a failure, the congressional Republicans have been successful at defeating Democrats ever since then.
Donna Brazile, who ran Gore's election campaign and Clinton aide Harold Ickes have also been named as possibilities, but I still think a refocus on traditional Democratic idealogy is needed, and Dean, from what I saw during the primaries, can provide that.
The Salvador Deli -- the readers write!
Well, the telephone lines have been lighting up over this post. Lots of good suggestions posted. So far, the Persistance of Sauerkraut is my favorite. One reader suggested I melt a clock in the microwave and put it up on the wall. While I applaud the imagination, I worry that my diners would miss their train. That idea, and the idea of designing the menu in the Cubism style, might put off customers. I prefer door handles shaped like his moustache.
And yes, I know that Dali was not a Cubist.
And yes, I know that Dali was not a Cubist.
Monday, November 08, 2004
What's for lunch?
Do you think anyone would eat at a restaurant called the Salvador Deli? I could put paintings of the wall of melting balogna draped along the branches of trees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)