So, now George Bush is lecturing about the true lessons of Vietnam. Which may be setting a whole new standard when it comes to chutzpah. Call it "chutzpah-platinum."
Earlier in the week, before a VFW convention, Bush used America's experience in Vietnam (i.e., it's failure) as a cautionary tale for Iraq. (i.e., our need for to stay and be victorious, whatever that means.)
Bush's conflation with Vietnam and Iraq is about as accurate as his conflation of Saddam and Al-Qaeda. His grasp and reading of the particular history alone is shoddy; his political willingness to make the connection at all is shameless. "Desperate presidents resort to desperate rhetoric," is how Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland put it.
What's most suprising about Bush bringing up Vietnam is not America's troubled history with that war, but his own. Bush has never been to Vietnam. When he had the opportunity to go and indeed, do his part to ensure the victory there which he now so laments not achieving, he passed.
That much we know.
In 1968, he had been able to get into the highly competitive Texas Air National Guard. Also known as the fabled "Champagne Unit." Much has been written about where and how exactly Bush spent his remaining four years of service time. He was in Alabama for a while working on a sentatorial campaign. One place he wasn't, was Vietnam.
But now professor Bush lectures about the real lessons of that horrible conflict.
As if he would know.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
"I Was A 9/11 Hero Once Myself!"
First, there was Mitt Romney equating his son's service to his presidential ambitions with actual military service to the country. That was merely nauseating.
Not to be outdone in the "The Man, the Mitt, the Legend" department, rival Republican Rudy Giuliani boasted this past week that he is just the same as the tireless, heroic rescue workers at the World Trade Center. And thus we pass from the merely nauseating to the actual act of throwing up.
"I am one of them," Giuliani told reporters at a Cincinnati Reds baseball game.
"This is not a mayor or a governor or a President who's sitting in an ivory tower," Giuliani said. "I was at Ground Zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. I was there working with them. I was exposed to exactly the same things they were exposed to. So in that sense, I'm one of them."
Oh, in that sense.
In other words, in the sense that I am perfectly willing to say virtually anything imaginable, however implausible, inappropriate, insulting and untrue. Just that like that loathsome lizard of a liar, Mitt Romney.
And for the record, many of those that actually were working at Ground Zero, and actually were exposed to horrible, toxic shit, and actually have been worrying about what they might eventually come down with--those people actually were insulted by St. Rudy's effing-effrontery.
"I personally find that very, very insulting," said Marvin Bethea, who suffered a stroke, post-traumatic stress disorder and breathing problems after responding to the attacks.
Who, exactly, elected Rudy Giuliani "America's Mayor", anyway? Certainly not the voters of New York City, who had so utterly tired of Giuliani's tenure that, on September 10, as Giuliani himself knows only too well, his political career at least in New York was effectively over. Like countless others--including New Yorkers--I have nothing but respect for Giuliani's grace under the pressure and fire of that horrific day. But I have nothing but disgust for his appropriating 9/11 like a personal franchise, and for his milking it for the millions that have made him a hugely wealthy man. Tell me how Giuliani's exploitation of 9/11 is any different than the rankest war profiteering?
Hey, embellishment and pandering in politics is nothing new, and odds are, whether it was ever recorded or not, George Washington himself likely muttered something in broken dutch to some farmers in Pennsylvania, in the same smarmy and cynically deliberate way that candidates today would easily understand.
But there's pandering, and then there's pandering...
My personal favorite all-time pandering anecdote involves the late Minnesota Senator and former U.S. Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey. In his "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail," the late-great Gonzo Journalist Hunter Thompson swore that Humphrey, as a presidential candidate in 1972, said a most remarkable thing late one night after one of those "seven states in one day" days. Speaking to a group of Haddasah women, Thompson claimed Humphrey cried out at one point in his speech, "Why, I was a Jew once myself!"
Sounds absurd, right? Any more absurd than the inanity that Giuliani and Romney are tossing around these days? Before the right group, properly lubed up by the moment, either one of them is capable of that legendary Humphrey-ism.
Friday, August 10, 2007
"Mitt." Rhymes With "Bullsh--"
I think it’s terrible that there are some Americans who say they will not vote for Mitt Romney because he’s a Mormon.
You’d think we were past that sort of thing as a nation.
Mitt Romney shouldn’t be disqualified because of his religious beliefs.
Mitt Romney should be disqualified because he has no beliefs, period.
Actually, scratch that.
If there is one overriding belief that binds Mitt Romney and his preppy progeny, it is…well, Mitt Romney. No one could ever accuse the Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor of lacking belief in the Romney brand. Mitt Romney oozes such gooey and glistening self-confidence, it’s a wonder his pores aren’t blocked.
Among Romney’s five sons, whose ages range from 26-37, the belief in Mitt is so strong that they are willing to go to war for him. No, no -- not that kind of war. Not like, say, a real war like the one in Iraq.
No. More like the war to elect Mitt Romney president.
At a campaign event Wednesday in Bettendorf, Iowa, Romney was asked by a citizen why none of his own five sons have served in the military.
In response, Romney initially sounded a simple and sensible note:
“My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.”
Fair enough.
Then Romney went off the scale with a note so sour it made national news.
“One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation,” Romney explained, “is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”
Gee, thanks boys!
Romney had begun the campaign event by calling for a “surge in support” for the troops in Iraq. For some, whether one agrees or not, that surge actually involves standing shoulder to shoulder with those troops. One of Romney’s republican rivals, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has two sons in active military service, one of whom is currently on an Iraq deployment.
But why quibble? To Romney, service is service, whether it is dodging enemy bullets or dishing on your blog.
See, the Romney sons -- Josh, Tagg, Craig, Matt and Ben -- don’t just drive back and forth across Iowa in service to their dad -- er, nation -- they also blog about it all, too.
But the Bettendorf incident only adds to what is growing on Mitt Romney like Pinocchio’s nose -- namely, the sense that this man will say virtually anything
to appeal to the more troglodyte tier of the Republican base.
At the same time, Romney will also disavow anything he has said if it helps him politically. Hell, he’s even disavowed an entire state. Romney has taken great pains to make sure no taint of Massachusetts blue has rubbed off on his new red state persona.
Whether it’s his changed positions on abortion, stem cell research, gun control or gay rights, the Mitt Macarena is the most entertaining dance of the ’08 campaign so far. Equating actual military service with helping daddy be president? Hey, why not? I’m Mitt Romney and dammit, I believe in me. And so do my sons the bloggers.
But what is blind belief for Mitt and his sons, conjures a different “b” word for lots of others who are observing this smarmy snake-oil salesman slither his way across America.
In a bit of irony perhaps lost on the boys, their latest blog entry shows Josh and Tagg in Audubon County, Iowa, posing beneath the massive statue of Albert, “the world’s largest bull.”
All in support of their dad, Mitt Romney, who is perhaps the world’s biggest bull--
…….well, you get the idea.
You’d think we were past that sort of thing as a nation.
Mitt Romney shouldn’t be disqualified because of his religious beliefs.
Mitt Romney should be disqualified because he has no beliefs, period.
Actually, scratch that.
If there is one overriding belief that binds Mitt Romney and his preppy progeny, it is…well, Mitt Romney. No one could ever accuse the Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor of lacking belief in the Romney brand. Mitt Romney oozes such gooey and glistening self-confidence, it’s a wonder his pores aren’t blocked.
Among Romney’s five sons, whose ages range from 26-37, the belief in Mitt is so strong that they are willing to go to war for him. No, no -- not that kind of war. Not like, say, a real war like the one in Iraq.
No. More like the war to elect Mitt Romney president.
At a campaign event Wednesday in Bettendorf, Iowa, Romney was asked by a citizen why none of his own five sons have served in the military.
In response, Romney initially sounded a simple and sensible note:
“My sons are all adults and they’ve made decisions about their careers and they’ve chosen not to serve in the military and active duty and I respect their decision in that regard.”
Fair enough.
Then Romney went off the scale with a note so sour it made national news.
“One of the ways my sons are showing support for our nation,” Romney explained, “is helping me get elected because they think I’d be a great president.”
Gee, thanks boys!
Romney had begun the campaign event by calling for a “surge in support” for the troops in Iraq. For some, whether one agrees or not, that surge actually involves standing shoulder to shoulder with those troops. One of Romney’s republican rivals, Arizona Sen. John McCain, has two sons in active military service, one of whom is currently on an Iraq deployment.
But why quibble? To Romney, service is service, whether it is dodging enemy bullets or dishing on your blog.
See, the Romney sons -- Josh, Tagg, Craig, Matt and Ben -- don’t just drive back and forth across Iowa in service to their dad -- er, nation -- they also blog about it all, too.
But the Bettendorf incident only adds to what is growing on Mitt Romney like Pinocchio’s nose -- namely, the sense that this man will say virtually anything
to appeal to the more troglodyte tier of the Republican base.
At the same time, Romney will also disavow anything he has said if it helps him politically. Hell, he’s even disavowed an entire state. Romney has taken great pains to make sure no taint of Massachusetts blue has rubbed off on his new red state persona.
Whether it’s his changed positions on abortion, stem cell research, gun control or gay rights, the Mitt Macarena is the most entertaining dance of the ’08 campaign so far. Equating actual military service with helping daddy be president? Hey, why not? I’m Mitt Romney and dammit, I believe in me. And so do my sons the bloggers.
But what is blind belief for Mitt and his sons, conjures a different “b” word for lots of others who are observing this smarmy snake-oil salesman slither his way across America.
In a bit of irony perhaps lost on the boys, their latest blog entry shows Josh and Tagg in Audubon County, Iowa, posing beneath the massive statue of Albert, “the world’s largest bull.”
All in support of their dad, Mitt Romney, who is perhaps the world’s biggest bull--
…….well, you get the idea.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Bridge To Nowhere
In running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton spoke frequently about “building a bridge to the 21st century.” That was metaphor. Little did we know that some of our actual, physical 20th century bridges would not last long into the new century.
The fatal I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a cry for help from the nation’s aging, crumbling infrastructure.
Too bad too few are listening.
As campaign issues go, it’s not a “sexy” one.
It’s not about war, gay marriage or climate change.
And yet, as we see, it is nonetheless about life and death.
Some big-city mayors focus on infrastructure elements like bridges, roads, and water systems. And they get nicknames like Boston’s Thomas M. Menino: “Mayor Pothole.” We need more “Mayor Potholes.” We need a “President Pothole.”
How bad and how pervasive nationally is our ailing infrastructure? Perform the following quick, simple test: How often do you drive over a bridge or under an overpass, notice clearly old, rusting metal or crumbling concrete, and think to yourself, “God, just don’t let this thing go while I am going through?”
I do that several times a week. And you?
I have driven for years under a stretch of Route 9 in Wellesley that has finally been undergoing re-construction. Before that, I would pray that my drive through did not coincide with an 18-wheeler passing overhead.
Turns out I wasn’t imagining things.
Among states, Massachusetts ranks second-to-last when it comes to bad bridges. The American Society of Civil Engineers has found that 51% of bridges in Massachusetts are are “structurally deficient” or “functionally obsolete.” .
Ironically, just days before the disaster in Minnesota, the Berkshire Eagle reported on an overpass in Hadley, Massachusetts that is one of 39 rated “structurally deficient” just in that western section of the state alone..
Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, is quoted as calling the Hadley span, “a disaster waiting to happen.”
Eerie words now.
The Minneapolis bridge had also been rated “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete.” Yet Minnesota’s bridges are supposed to be some of the country’s safest. With only 12.2% of its bridges rated “deficient,” the state ranks third in the country in terms of bridge quality. No matter. Minneapolis now becomes the poster child of our decaying infrastructure.
How expensive would it be to repair the nation’s infrastructure? Hugely.
Most estimates begin at $1-trillion. Can we afford it? It is, as they say, a matter of priorities.
Each day, America spends $200-million in Iraq. By September, we will have spent upwards of $456-billion since the invasion itself in 2003. Recently released projections estimate that, even if all U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq within three years, the long-term financial costs to American taxpayers may approach $2 -trillion dollars. Um, that’s a lot of bridgework.
We have a pretty simple choice. And smart presidential candidates, in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, would be wise to frame it so. We can continue to waste lives and money on a foreign policy disaster, or we can redirect that money to averting disaster and saving lives here at home.
And you don’t have to have a degree in civil engineering to make that choice.
The fatal I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis was a cry for help from the nation’s aging, crumbling infrastructure.
Too bad too few are listening.
As campaign issues go, it’s not a “sexy” one.
It’s not about war, gay marriage or climate change.
And yet, as we see, it is nonetheless about life and death.
Some big-city mayors focus on infrastructure elements like bridges, roads, and water systems. And they get nicknames like Boston’s Thomas M. Menino: “Mayor Pothole.” We need more “Mayor Potholes.” We need a “President Pothole.”
How bad and how pervasive nationally is our ailing infrastructure? Perform the following quick, simple test: How often do you drive over a bridge or under an overpass, notice clearly old, rusting metal or crumbling concrete, and think to yourself, “God, just don’t let this thing go while I am going through?”
I do that several times a week. And you?
I have driven for years under a stretch of Route 9 in Wellesley that has finally been undergoing re-construction. Before that, I would pray that my drive through did not coincide with an 18-wheeler passing overhead.
Turns out I wasn’t imagining things.
Among states, Massachusetts ranks second-to-last when it comes to bad bridges. The American Society of Civil Engineers has found that 51% of bridges in Massachusetts are are “structurally deficient” or “functionally obsolete.” .
Ironically, just days before the disaster in Minnesota, the Berkshire Eagle reported on an overpass in Hadley, Massachusetts that is one of 39 rated “structurally deficient” just in that western section of the state alone..
Michael Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, is quoted as calling the Hadley span, “a disaster waiting to happen.”
Eerie words now.
The Minneapolis bridge had also been rated “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete.” Yet Minnesota’s bridges are supposed to be some of the country’s safest. With only 12.2% of its bridges rated “deficient,” the state ranks third in the country in terms of bridge quality. No matter. Minneapolis now becomes the poster child of our decaying infrastructure.
How expensive would it be to repair the nation’s infrastructure? Hugely.
Most estimates begin at $1-trillion. Can we afford it? It is, as they say, a matter of priorities.
Each day, America spends $200-million in Iraq. By September, we will have spent upwards of $456-billion since the invasion itself in 2003. Recently released projections estimate that, even if all U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq within three years, the long-term financial costs to American taxpayers may approach $2 -trillion dollars. Um, that’s a lot of bridgework.
We have a pretty simple choice. And smart presidential candidates, in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, would be wise to frame it so. We can continue to waste lives and money on a foreign policy disaster, or we can redirect that money to averting disaster and saving lives here at home.
And you don’t have to have a degree in civil engineering to make that choice.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Why I'm Not Running
These are troubling times for the nation. Citizens have questions about the direction the nation is heading in, about emerging threats, and how we will
deal with them.
I also realize that in many ways, I am uniquely suited to lead my nation. And despite the fact that the campaign for president is in full swing, and despite the fact that I feel I am as qualified as many other candidates, I must regretfully decline to run.
For President of Red Sox Nation.
Having latched on to the once-hazy concept of a Red Sox “nation” with the suction of a mosquito on warm, wet skin, the Boston Red Sox ownership is now promoting a contest/campaign to award some lucky person the title of “First Fan,” and President of Red Sox Nation.
Spare me.
According to a team press release, “the ceremonial ‘First Fan’ would have an assortment of powers, privileges, and perquisites designed to unify the club’s unique global fan base.”
The President would also have a blog provided by the team. Presumably then, the President could compete with fellow Sox blogger Curt Schilling to see whose site gets more hits during a game.
(Even one or two hits would be more than J.D. Drew will get.)
“While this innovation is light-hearted, it is nonetheless real,” said Sox President/CEO Larry Lucchino in a press release. Yes it is real. Another real crafty commercial ploy all dressed up in team colors.
See, first the Red Sox decided in 2005 to offer paid membership in the Nation. A fan could buy a basic membership for $9.95. (And get a genuine membership card!) Now the team is offering packages ranging from the “Fan Pack” for $14.95, to the “Monster Membership” option for $199. You want perks? “Monster Membership” actually offers a “guaranteed opportunity to purchase two Green Monster seats.” A guaranteed opportunity to purchase tickets, mind you.
Wow. Heady stuff.
Guess what? You can purchase tickets without paying for the right to purchase them.
See, what Red Sox Nation really needs is not an orderly transfer of government but a full-scale insurrection. I remember when there was no “nation.” (A term first coined by the Boston Globe’s Nathan Cobb in 1986, then shamelessly appropriated by his colleague Dan Shaughnessy.) The Sox fan based more closely resembled the Balkans -- a disparate group of generally dispirited followers who expected their team to compete but lose in the end.
But that was also when the team was run by amiable bumblers with generally as little business sense as baseball sense. (They did, after all, let Carlton Fisk get away, yet traded for the immortal Jack “car collection” Clark.)
Today, it’s as if Forbes itself is running the team. All business, all promotion, all the time. A team mascot for the Boston Red Sox would have been unimaginable 20 years ago. “Wally” would have been hooted off the field and showered with boos to rival real-life duds like Dick Stuart and Jack Brohammer.
Hey, to be fair, under this regime the Sox threw off the bitter past and won a World Series. And they are having a great season thus far. But enough with the relentlessly promotional ploys already.
What Red Sox Nation needs is not a president but a civil war -- between the new, Johnny-come-lately fans who freely shell out a $100 bucks to sit and squeal on cue in their $150 team jerseys, and the real fans for whom baseball comes first and baseball promotions second.
No, I won’t be running for President of Red Sox Nation. And I’ll go further: If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.
There.
On the other hand, I remain always open to anyone offering free tickets.
Thank you, God bless, and vote your conscience.
deal with them.
I also realize that in many ways, I am uniquely suited to lead my nation. And despite the fact that the campaign for president is in full swing, and despite the fact that I feel I am as qualified as many other candidates, I must regretfully decline to run.
For President of Red Sox Nation.
Having latched on to the once-hazy concept of a Red Sox “nation” with the suction of a mosquito on warm, wet skin, the Boston Red Sox ownership is now promoting a contest/campaign to award some lucky person the title of “First Fan,” and President of Red Sox Nation.
Spare me.
According to a team press release, “the ceremonial ‘First Fan’ would have an assortment of powers, privileges, and perquisites designed to unify the club’s unique global fan base.”
The President would also have a blog provided by the team. Presumably then, the President could compete with fellow Sox blogger Curt Schilling to see whose site gets more hits during a game.
(Even one or two hits would be more than J.D. Drew will get.)
“While this innovation is light-hearted, it is nonetheless real,” said Sox President/CEO Larry Lucchino in a press release. Yes it is real. Another real crafty commercial ploy all dressed up in team colors.
See, first the Red Sox decided in 2005 to offer paid membership in the Nation. A fan could buy a basic membership for $9.95. (And get a genuine membership card!) Now the team is offering packages ranging from the “Fan Pack” for $14.95, to the “Monster Membership” option for $199. You want perks? “Monster Membership” actually offers a “guaranteed opportunity to purchase two Green Monster seats.” A guaranteed opportunity to purchase tickets, mind you.
Wow. Heady stuff.
Guess what? You can purchase tickets without paying for the right to purchase them.
See, what Red Sox Nation really needs is not an orderly transfer of government but a full-scale insurrection. I remember when there was no “nation.” (A term first coined by the Boston Globe’s Nathan Cobb in 1986, then shamelessly appropriated by his colleague Dan Shaughnessy.) The Sox fan based more closely resembled the Balkans -- a disparate group of generally dispirited followers who expected their team to compete but lose in the end.
But that was also when the team was run by amiable bumblers with generally as little business sense as baseball sense. (They did, after all, let Carlton Fisk get away, yet traded for the immortal Jack “car collection” Clark.)
Today, it’s as if Forbes itself is running the team. All business, all promotion, all the time. A team mascot for the Boston Red Sox would have been unimaginable 20 years ago. “Wally” would have been hooted off the field and showered with boos to rival real-life duds like Dick Stuart and Jack Brohammer.
Hey, to be fair, under this regime the Sox threw off the bitter past and won a World Series. And they are having a great season thus far. But enough with the relentlessly promotional ploys already.
What Red Sox Nation needs is not a president but a civil war -- between the new, Johnny-come-lately fans who freely shell out a $100 bucks to sit and squeal on cue in their $150 team jerseys, and the real fans for whom baseball comes first and baseball promotions second.
No, I won’t be running for President of Red Sox Nation. And I’ll go further: If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve.
There.
On the other hand, I remain always open to anyone offering free tickets.
Thank you, God bless, and vote your conscience.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
YouTube Debate: You kidding?
So we have now had history made with the first YouTube debate. What fun. What theatre. What horseshit.
How do I know history was made? Why, because CNN's Wolf Blitzer (CNN was the debate sponsor) said so.
Anderson--er, excuse me, "AC/360"--called the debate "groundbreaking." But he said that before a guy fondling an assault weapon asked a question about gun-control. That, I will grant you, was groundbreaking.
Don't get me wrong--there was a new and refreshing quality of people asking questions of the candidates directly. But "directly" here is a most relative term. CNN still ultimately made the decision of which YouTube questions were used and which were not. Which means that it would have been just as easy to have potential questioners simply email their video clips/questions directly to CNN, no? Or was it appropriating the supposedly young and hip mantle of "YouTube" that CNN was really after?
Either way, the debate had moments that stood out for sure. But Lincoln-Douglas it wasn't. Wonder how Abe would have responded to a guy doing a poor Mr. Bill imitation as the voice for a talking snowman worried about global warming. Here's an inconvenient truth: Just because a blogger is asking a question via a cheesy homemade video on YouTube doesn't mean we've witnessed a "What hath God wrought?" moment.
Yes, weighty issues like Iraq, immigration, education and gun control were covered. Or briefly raised, to be more precise. No candidate, Democrat or Republican, will be dramatically distinguishing themselves on any issue whatsoever in 60 seconds. Time enough to screw up, yes (think Obama would like to retool his thoughts on negotiating with Iran and N. Korea?); time enough to bend, beckon or breath through with voters, no.
But, baby steps, after all. The overall concept of trying to have voters/citizens more directly able to question presidential candidates is a good one. It can be made even better.
And give the Democrats their due--they all, for the most part, have a sense of humor. (Okay, I wouldn't want to tell a joke that Mike Gravel didn't find funny.) It will be even more entertaining to watch the Republicans have their YouTube moment come September. Maybe Lou Dobbs can moderate, and Tom Tancredo can sputter that he's for rounding up all undocumented snowmen. YouTube meets you boob.
Your thoughts, AC?
How do I know history was made? Why, because CNN's Wolf Blitzer (CNN was the debate sponsor) said so.
Anderson--er, excuse me, "AC/360"--called the debate "groundbreaking." But he said that before a guy fondling an assault weapon asked a question about gun-control. That, I will grant you, was groundbreaking.
Don't get me wrong--there was a new and refreshing quality of people asking questions of the candidates directly. But "directly" here is a most relative term. CNN still ultimately made the decision of which YouTube questions were used and which were not. Which means that it would have been just as easy to have potential questioners simply email their video clips/questions directly to CNN, no? Or was it appropriating the supposedly young and hip mantle of "YouTube" that CNN was really after?
Either way, the debate had moments that stood out for sure. But Lincoln-Douglas it wasn't. Wonder how Abe would have responded to a guy doing a poor Mr. Bill imitation as the voice for a talking snowman worried about global warming. Here's an inconvenient truth: Just because a blogger is asking a question via a cheesy homemade video on YouTube doesn't mean we've witnessed a "What hath God wrought?" moment.
Yes, weighty issues like Iraq, immigration, education and gun control were covered. Or briefly raised, to be more precise. No candidate, Democrat or Republican, will be dramatically distinguishing themselves on any issue whatsoever in 60 seconds. Time enough to screw up, yes (think Obama would like to retool his thoughts on negotiating with Iran and N. Korea?); time enough to bend, beckon or breath through with voters, no.
But, baby steps, after all. The overall concept of trying to have voters/citizens more directly able to question presidential candidates is a good one. It can be made even better.
And give the Democrats their due--they all, for the most part, have a sense of humor. (Okay, I wouldn't want to tell a joke that Mike Gravel didn't find funny.) It will be even more entertaining to watch the Republicans have their YouTube moment come September. Maybe Lou Dobbs can moderate, and Tom Tancredo can sputter that he's for rounding up all undocumented snowmen. YouTube meets you boob.
Your thoughts, AC?
Friday, July 20, 2007
Harry Potter & Homeland Security
What a week. Tense. High alert. Massive security. Attempts to circumvent those security measures all over the world.
The latest Al-Qaeda threat?
No, just the release of the new Harry Potter book.
There are few more successful franchises in the world today than Harry Potter. What began some 17 years ago as an out-of-work effort by fledgling British writer J.K. Rowling, has now made her history’s first billionaire author. Aside from the more than 250 million books sold and six movies made, there are now plans for a Harry Potter theme park to be developed in (where else?) Florida. Move over, Magic Kingdom.
The release of the seventh, and what Rowling says will be the final book in the Harry Potter series (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”) has also generated a massive promotional blitz and buzz. The world has not seen this kind of build-up toward the roll-out of a new product since…well, since the iPhone’s debut a couple of weeks ago.
Hey, but still.
The book’s public release has been mapped out with military precision. On July 21, at exactly 12:01am (“Western European Summer Time”, no less), the book ships and goes on sale across each succeeding western-speaking time zone. (When does China get it, a week from now?)
No less impressive has been the extraordinary security put in place to forestall leaks about the book prior to its release. Yes, there have been breaches. Pages of the book appeared mysteriously on the internet, the front cover has been, well, uncovered for weeks now, and one unlucky distributor even shipped its allotment early, for which it is being sued. You don’t play around with Potter.
But for the most part, in a day and age when security measures seem to exist only as templates to be tested, the Potter Plan held. For example, Amazon.com workers described a near-Defcon-Five state of readiness, with guards standing 24/7 over palettes of Potter books in cordoned-off areas of a special warehouse. They didn’t even have to say, “Bring ‘em on.” Mission accomplished. For real.
Such flawless preparation and rigid security only served to inspire envy when the other story of the week involving security broke. That would be the unsettling story beckoning from the non-fiction section of our lives. The Bush administration’s own intelligence analysts reported that Al-Qaeda is not only alive and thriving, but is stronger than ever and still very much determined to carry out a large-scale attack inside the American homeland. All this a full six years after 9/11, hundreds of billions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 7000 American lives lost, and countless more wounded and maimed.
That’s some security.
Maybe the Bush folks should talk to the Potter folks, who appear to have written the book on competent preparation and effective vigilance. After all, Harry Potter was secured and protected.
At least someone is.
The latest Al-Qaeda threat?
No, just the release of the new Harry Potter book.
There are few more successful franchises in the world today than Harry Potter. What began some 17 years ago as an out-of-work effort by fledgling British writer J.K. Rowling, has now made her history’s first billionaire author. Aside from the more than 250 million books sold and six movies made, there are now plans for a Harry Potter theme park to be developed in (where else?) Florida. Move over, Magic Kingdom.
The release of the seventh, and what Rowling says will be the final book in the Harry Potter series (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”) has also generated a massive promotional blitz and buzz. The world has not seen this kind of build-up toward the roll-out of a new product since…well, since the iPhone’s debut a couple of weeks ago.
Hey, but still.
The book’s public release has been mapped out with military precision. On July 21, at exactly 12:01am (“Western European Summer Time”, no less), the book ships and goes on sale across each succeeding western-speaking time zone. (When does China get it, a week from now?)
No less impressive has been the extraordinary security put in place to forestall leaks about the book prior to its release. Yes, there have been breaches. Pages of the book appeared mysteriously on the internet, the front cover has been, well, uncovered for weeks now, and one unlucky distributor even shipped its allotment early, for which it is being sued. You don’t play around with Potter.
But for the most part, in a day and age when security measures seem to exist only as templates to be tested, the Potter Plan held. For example, Amazon.com workers described a near-Defcon-Five state of readiness, with guards standing 24/7 over palettes of Potter books in cordoned-off areas of a special warehouse. They didn’t even have to say, “Bring ‘em on.” Mission accomplished. For real.
Such flawless preparation and rigid security only served to inspire envy when the other story of the week involving security broke. That would be the unsettling story beckoning from the non-fiction section of our lives. The Bush administration’s own intelligence analysts reported that Al-Qaeda is not only alive and thriving, but is stronger than ever and still very much determined to carry out a large-scale attack inside the American homeland. All this a full six years after 9/11, hundreds of billions spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, nearly 7000 American lives lost, and countless more wounded and maimed.
That’s some security.
Maybe the Bush folks should talk to the Potter folks, who appear to have written the book on competent preparation and effective vigilance. After all, Harry Potter was secured and protected.
At least someone is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
