Monthly Archives: April 2012

I said earlier that there are aspects of the White House Correspondents' Dinner that make me uncomfy. They're pretty well summarized by Alex Pareene, who thinks it's all about shmoozing, Hollywood style. I don't go for that in Hollywood and I expect better of Washington.

By the way, people keep calling this thing the Nerd Prom and arguing that that's what you call the Comic-Con in San Diego. I'm really sick of the word "nerd" and feel it's one of those words (like "diva") that gets used so casually and thoughtlessly that it's pretty much lost any meaning it once had. How is any event attended by George Clooney and Jon Hamm a "nerd anything?"

Wikipedia, which given its contributors oughta know, defines "nerd" as "…a derogatory slang term for a person typically described as socially-impaired, obsessive, or overly intellectual." And first, let's pause to note the unfortunate state of a society in which being intellectual evokes a derogatory slang term. But these days, who isn't socially-impaired to some extent and are folks who go to Comic-Con any more so than the norm? I don't think so. I think they are the norm. And if we're all nerds then no one is a nerd…if you follow me.

But I really don't know what the word means anymore and won't unless someone can point out to me a sizable constituency to which the word does not apply. Or is it just the few, like Clooney and Hamm, who are wildly successful and sexually-attractive?

By now, you know the drill: Barack Obama does X. G.O.P. leaders (John McCain, especially) rush to the microphones to condemn him for doing X, to argue that it is shameless and immoral to do X, that the mere fact this man has done X is reason enough to kick him out of the Oval Office…

…and then with very little research necessary, reporters find plenty of examples of George W. Bush and other prominent Republicans (often, the sainted Reagan, himself) not only doing X but often doing 2X or 3X.

Latest example: Bragging about taking out Osama and suggesting that Romney wouldn't have had the guts to make that call.

Obama should announce he's picking Sarah Palin as his Vice-President this time around. She would of course doom his campaign but it might be fun to see McCain rush out and talk about how any man who'd do such a thing is unfit to serve.

So Rick Santorum made this silly statement a few weeks ago, saying that our colleges had deteriorated to the point where none of the University of California schools offered classes in U.S. History. A number of voices, but mainly that of Rachel Maddow, pointed out that this is not true; that plenty of U.S. History courses have always been available at those schools and still are. Weeks later, Santorum sent the following message to Ms. Maddow…

Rachel, on a recent show you discussed a statement I made that American history was not being taught at a number of California state universities. You questioned the accuracy of my statement. Based upon your broadcast I went back and reviewed the facts. It's clear that my memory about what was taught was faulty. What I should have said was that none of the UC campuses teach a survey course in Western Civilization. Rachel, I appreciate your efforts pointing out my misstatement, and for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.

Rick Santorum

And of course, he's wrong again. As Maddow pointed out on her show the other night, those schools also have plenty of survey courses on Western Civilization. This, they confirmed with a few minutes of Googling.

I really don't get this. If you're Rick Santorum and you're issuing an apology like this, you have to know it's going to make it to the air and be fact-checked. Don't you turn to an intern or someone and say, "Hey, before I send this out, call up the University of California and make sure they don't offer courses in Western Civilization so I don't look like an idiot again"? And there were people who wanted this man to have the job where you get to order a nuclear attack.

North Carolina is about to vote on an amendment to their state constitution that would enshrine their ban on Gay Marriage in a firmer manner. A local writer named Tommy Tomlinson wrote a simple argument against the amendment that makes a strong case. If you know someone who thinks the drive to allow same-sex wedlock is just a commie plot by them Godless Hollywood Liberals, have them read this little essay.

Ron Rosenbaum resurrects a topic that not many care about these days but I do: Watergate. His particular question is whether it is provable that Richard M. Nixon, the 37th President of these United States, ordered the infamous break-in that failed and thus destroyed his presidency.

As a longtime wallower, I would say the evidence is almost airtight that Nixon knew that kind of thing was being done even if he didn't know the specifics of where and when. And there's pretty solid evidence that he did at least know where.

However, a lot of those who've addressed this matter seem to be operating from the view that there had to have been a specific area of information that the wiretaps were intended to collect; i.e., what did Democratic Party Chairman Larry O'Brien know about Nixon's financial dealings with Howard Hughes? Well, maybe. But I could sure accept that they wanted to spy on the opposition just to find out what, if anything, the opposition was up to.