Comments are now closed for this post.
Opinion the First: If I were to cheat on my wife, would that be any of Tiger Woods's business? No? Then his marital problems are none of mine. He owes me nothing by way of explanation or apology. That this story is commanding so much press in the sports world makes me ill.
Opinion the Second: Just when I think that the New York State Senate has exhausted the number of reasons I could loathe that institution, they come up with something new.
Opinion the Third: I'm unconvinced that President Obama's on the right track in Afghanistan.
That is all.
The personal blog of author Kelly Sedinger, chronicling the adventures of one overalls-clad wanderer.
17 comments:
While I agree that the tabloid-style coverage, even on major news networks, of Tiger's "transgressions" has been over the top and more than sensational, I disagree that this is not news. And remember that it started out as nothing more than a sports figure involved in a potentially career-ending (as far as anyone knew) car accident, which is news.
He is a role model and a public figure, and he took a spectacular fall from grace. An age-old story, unfortunately. I want to say Ichabod... but what I mean is... hang on, it'll come to me... Icharus.
Retort the first:
Role model. I am a role model and I curse, argue, and tell off color jokes in front of my kids. I am taken to task for it but still, if I demand some golfer take over my duties as role model than I have failed my children in the worst way.
Retort the second. Ousting Gov Spitzer was their biggest failing. He was the only one taking the money grabbers to task. His replacement by a blind man led to cheers in the money pits on wall street. Ironic in a sad way.
Retort the third
Soliders under Caligula and ordered to gather shells on the seashore in a quest conguer Bittain. His soldiers were much more civilized then the barberic gauls.
Soldiers under Napoleon had buttons sewn on the arms of their coats to prevent them from using them to wipe their nose. Despite having to march thousands of miles in the dead of winter. They were afterall expected to act more civilized.
Soldiers under Johnson were drafted to fight a war against an enemy that booby trapped children as weapons. They returned to be called baby killers. Our soldiers were after all expected to act much better as we were much more civilized than the Vietnamese.
Soldiers today are sent to fight an invisible enemy that decapitates its prisoners while our soldiers are court marshaled for poor albiet but non fatal interrogation tactics.
Our soldiers are put in prison if they mistakenly kill the wrong person on the battlefield, which thanks to the enemy has become neighborhoods.
Our soldiers are expected to act more civilized then an enemy which just wants to win.
My point on the last retort:
When politicians run wars they always become about appearances and not about victory.
At the beginning of the American Revolution they used to stand in lines and shoot at each other until the soon-to-be Americans wised up. The British thought it was totally uncivilized to hide behind trees.
This means what? History has different examples at different times?
Somehow I wouldn't feel better if out troops were to act like in the manner of the enemy.
To Thee Earl: You're a fine role model, if you want your kids to grow up to be arrogant blowhards who hide behind a shield of anonymity.
To Lady Becky,
Do we want to win or not? If so then we must accept that war is hell. Always has been and always will. We were not angels in WWII despite being able to cast the enemy as the anti christ. Why do we censure history?
To Lady Kerry,
I don't think it is arrogant to have an opinion. Here is an example:
I took my kids to Universal and a promotion for Spiderman was underway. The guy dressed as Spiderman came up and introduced himself. I told him we are from Cleveland.
Nothing.
I repeated myself and still nothing. I then had to remind this "Spiderman" that his last movie was filmed in Cleveland. The fact that he did not know this did not phase him and so a bit of an argument ensued as I feel a character such as this should indeed be versed on MAJOR issues that pertain to his character.
I feel I was teaching the kids that it is important to hold people accountable for their roles, no matter what slight embarrassment I may bring to the family in the process.
Does this make me an arrogant blow hard? I think not. We should be teaching the kids responsibility and the value of opinion
1. I sort of agree with Kerry's point about the accident. But no, I don't care about the sex thinh=g either.
2. I totally agree with you on this as you see here.
3. It is probably an unwinnable war, as everyone from the Russians back could tell you.
Note to Kelly - why do you bother engaging Earl in debate? Talk about unwinnable...
Sir Roger:
He whose opinion is prefaced with "sort of" and "probably" may very well be confused with a gelding.
Oh and Lady Kerry becomes quite indignant when addressed by the wrong name. "Kelly" is much too common a moniker for the circles she runs in.
The Russians threw almost everything they had into Afghanistan--and showed no shyness about hanging back in the face of bad p.r. They showed no hesitancy about killing children and no hesitancy about killing noncombatants.
Moreover, previous activities in Hungary and Czechoslovakia showed no reason for the Russians to anticipate being slowed down in Afghanistan. Had they not prevailed over hostile forces before? Were they not the world's second largest superpower? And weren't the Marxists showing those poor backward Muslims a better way than they had previously enjoyed prior to the Soviet invasion?
If the Russians could beat an industrialized country the size of Germany in about five years, then beating a ragtag team of Afghan tribesmen within a decade should have been a piece of cake.
So what happened?
More importantly, how much better are our military strategies likely to fare in Afghanistan than those of the Russians?
I wish our President's advisers were asking these questions but we'll see...
The fact that some of Spider-Man 3 was shot in Cleveland was not a major detail to the character. It did not affect his motivation or anything at all, really. On the other hand, if one is a blowhard from Cleveland who is seeking validation and/or a source of false outrage, then such a blowhard could behave as though the purpose of the entire movie was to validate him and his place of origin. The Spider-Man 3 blog does mention that a chase scene was shot in Cleveland, but also notes that other parts were shot in New York. In terms of, you know, the plot and characters of the movie, some may recall that Gwen Stacy's father was an NYPD Captain (page 15 of the notes); therefore, it would always make far more sense for anyone to think of NYC as the film location since the story takes place there. Were one to choose to list just one place for any one or all of the Spider-Man movies to have been shot, though, it would be CGI, or perhaps NYC, but certainly not Cleveland.
-Mark
As for Opinion the Third, you already know that I'm anti-war; however, I agree with Obama that this is and has been "the good war" and that it probably needs to be fought. I especially like the 18-month time frame. It deserves the sort of attention that the Bush Regime never gave it before giving up and/or declaring false victories before giving up. I don't feel great about it because I only estimate a 25% chance of total victory, but also with a 55% chance of one or more small victories of lasting value.
-Mark
Mark,
I would have been happy with that much of a retort from the impostor Spiderman I encountered. Instead all I got was "um give me a break buddy"
Where is the pride and ethic?
As for your discounting the scenes in Cleveland, I'll have you know it was long over due. We are after all the birth place of Superman which makes us not New York superhero central.
God I hate New York City
Earl, the Bush Regime had 8 years (6 with a Republican Congress) to undo whatever needed to be undone from prior administrations. Any whining about Clinton or Carter or any other President at all is an admission of neglect and failure by the Bush Regime.
I don't need to discount the one chase scene credited to Cleveland. It's only one scene; therefore, it is impossible to reduce it to a smaller whole number.
It is probably impossible to truly love America and hate NYC at the same time. 20 million people sacrifice a great deal of personal space, comfort and privacy every minute in order to live in the greatest city on Earth. If America is nothing else, it is a melting pot of culture and ingenuity, and NYC exemplifies that far better than Cleveland and several other midwestern metropolitan statistical areas put together. Are you one of those who believe that driving a planet-eating SUV from a cookie cutter house in a homogenized subdivision to a strip mall full of national chains is what America is really all about?
-Mark
I wasn't exactly agreeing with you, Earl. In fact, I thought it odd that you appeared to be advocating a "let's just get tough with the Afghanis and pull out all stops" approach to the war when the Russians already tried such an approach in 1980 and lost horribly.
I must confess that I agree with you that much of our foreign policy in that area is fraught with hypocrisy.
I don't pretend to be wise enough to know of a solution to that problem...
Mark,
I say it is impossible to truly love America while calling most of it "fly over country".
A lot of people do indeed sacrifice quite a bit to live in NYC. They sacrifice common sense most of all and insist on living in a place where the cost of living far out weighs the median income. So much so that they necessitate the gentrification of surrounding middle class neighborhoods all the way south to New Brunswick NJ, North to Conn and west to almost Allentown.
They engage in mega commutes to satisfy their own narcissism and ego-mania so as to claim they work in the "City". Give me a break. Real people not phony punks live in Cleveland. We have our own theater district, our own national park, one of the greatest orchestras in the world, some of the finest colleges in the country, our own theater district, the greatest cardiology hospital in the world, I could go on but it is pointless to argue with people who consider everything west of NYC and east of LA "fly over country".
Eat your heart out about Spiderman III. They could have filmed it anywhere and they picked Cleveland. Guess those Hollywood types must know something.
I will stop pointing to Clinton's failures when people stop holding Bush accountable for the lack of the current administration to do, well, anything.
Tonio,
My point is that we can't fight a war while posturing for political gain. I also feel we can't fight today's war with yesterdays strategies. I don't advocate fighting Afghanistan the way the Russians did, I mean why copy failure.
I am just saying fight the war to win or don't fight it. Here are some suggestions:
1. Let them grow their cash crop, indeed, help them grow it. THen tax the piss out of them to build hospitals, roads etc.
2. Let an army like Serbia go in there and take care of the nasty. Let them be the police force that is needed to patrol the lawlessness.
3. Quit dicking around with election technology. Build something reliable and let the people vote. Make it a capital offense to corrupt the voting process. (We should apply this one to this country as well).
4. Make a small part of the region a corruption free zone. Enable free and responsible government of the people and by the people to grow unencumbered. Ironically the only way to accomplish this may be through marshall law. But if we are not going to use force to fight corruption and kill it at its impetus then we will never get anywhere.
5. Decide to hold the freaking United Nations accountable for making this plan work under the threat of pulling out of the UN all together and form a United Democratic Nations. You know an organization that recognizes countries with the SAME AGENDA AND GOALS may work together better than say a democracy along side a country like Sudan which thinks human rights are laughable.
See Tonio, all we have to do is PULL OUR HEAD OUT OF OUR BUTT!
Point of order: Mark lives farther west, and farther from each coast, than you do, Earl. You're closer to NYC than he is.
Also, there are few things more tiresome than people who constantly trot out the "flyover country" meme. I know lots of people from NYC and the only people I've ever heard refer to "flyover country" are the right-wingers with those chips on their shoulders for no apparent reason. Nobody said that Cleveland sucks or that Cleveland is worthless or that there is nothing of value to be found in Cleveland, but it is a simple fact that New York City is among the most important urban areas on the entire planet. Cleveland is not. (Nor is Buffalo.) I'm frankly always amused to hear NYC-hatred -- "They're not real Americans in NYC!" -- voiced by the same crowd who will, in the same breath, continue to act as if 9-11-01 happened to them. But then, we are talking about the same people who hold beliefs such as "Cutting taxes makes revenues go up!", so it's not as if cognitive dissonance is unknown to them.
And nobody's holding Bush accountable for whatever Obama is doing. What we're doing is continuing to hold Bush accountable for the worst results achieved by any President (and his party, since they controlled Congress for most of his time in office) in the last fifty years, if not longer. But the party of Palin and Beck and Limbaugh is so delusional that discussing the point is useless.
And with that, I'm closing this thread. It is now officially tiresome. As always, I know where to go when I want to read Republican talking points.
Post a Comment