Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Today's Political Comment

I tried to watch a little of the Alito confirmation hearing today, which just shows me that I'm not as smart as I think I am...or something like that. Hard to say which of the three was the most boring: The Democratic Senators giving long, pontificating preambles to hardball questions that Alito was not about to answer, the Republican Senators giving long, gushy prefaces to softball questions that he welcomed, or Alito saying nothing of interest in response to either. I always feel these things insult our intelligence by pretending there are open minds where none exist. The Senators all know how they're going to vote, which will be pretty much along party lines. (I saw Orrin Hatch on MSNBC. I think Alito could have confessed to strangling cocker spaniel puppies and Hatch would be saying what a fine, admirable man he was.)

And Alito knows how he's going to vote on most of the important issues that will come before him. I mean, come on. The guy's a judge. Even I have an opinion on Roe versus Wade and I write cartoon shows for a living.

Years ago in a bout of the same masochism that once caused me to eat at a Norm's Restaurant, I watched most of the Clarence Thomas hearings. I don't know why I did it...just hoping for a moment of honest candor that never came. Didn't hear it from the Senators of either party, didn't hear it from the nominee. I still don't know about Anita Hill but she wasn't aspiring to a lofty position in our government so she didn't matter as much. What I think I was waiting for was for some Democrat to say, when it was his time to speak, "Judge Thomas, all this crap about what you said to someone about privacy rights in a law lecture twelve years ago is irrelevant. The president nominated you for this position because he thinks you'll advance his Conservative agenda. I intend to vote against you for precisely that reason. Thank you. I'm done." Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and all the rest could say that today to Alito but it wouldn't get them as much camera time.

• Posted at 10:43 PM · LINK

Set the TiVo

Tonight on IFC (Independent Film Channel), they're running Comicon Chronicles: IFC News Special. I haven't seen it but my TiVo, which never lies to me, describes it thusly: "Comicon Chronicles takes you to the Convention Floor to walk amongst the fans, see the scene through their camera's eyes and reveal the truth under the cartoon." I guess that means lots of shots of people in silly costumes. On my satellite dish, it airs tonight at 9:30 PM and again tomorrow morn at 5:00 AM. If you're on the East Coast, you may need to add three hours to those times.

• Posted at 4:39 PM · LINK

Attention, Camp Followers!

On January 22 at 2 o'clock in the afternoon, those of us who were privileged to know Hamilton Camp will converge on the Improv in Hollywood for a memorial service and folks will tell stories about how much they loved him. Hamilton was an outstanding actor, folk singer, voiceover artist and human being...and those are not listed in their order of importance.

My pal Vince Waldron is helping assemble a video that will highlight some of Hamilton's many on-camera appearances and help is needed. He needs any good video of the man performing but especially a nice scene from the legendary sitcom, He and She, and footage of Hamilton singing with his old partner, Bob Gibson. The team of Gibson and Camp appeared on a number of music shows of the sixties — probably Hootenanny, maybe Shindig or The Music Scene or one of those. If you can be of assistance, drop Vince a note at ag644@yahoo.com. Obviously, this is for a very good cause...to honor a very good man.

• Posted at 2:50 PM · LINK

Briefly Noted

Now that he's mentioned it on his weblog, I guess it's okay to post here that my friend Bob Greenberger has been let go from his editorial position at DC Comics. Bob is one of the good guys and it's sad to see him going through this, even though I have no doubt he'll quickly find another gig. It'll be a big loss for comics if it's in some other field because the industry needs people like him.

• Posted at 10:18 AM · LINK

A Thought at 3:45 AM

As we all know, Pat Robertson is in the news again for saying something stupid and insulting. Question: When is Pat Robertson in the news without saying something stupid and insulting? Would we even know this guy exists if he didn't say something stupid and insulting every few months?

Is it possible that it's all just a "notice me" thing? Someone runs into Robertson's office and says, "Pat! We just did a Nexis search and it seems you haven't been mentioned in any of the major news outlets for six months."

Pat says, "Oh, can't have that. I'd better go out and say something stupid and insulting. Have you got anything?"

And the other guy pulls out some papers and says, "I had the boys draw up some suggestions. The ones marked in red are the ones we're sure will get you in every late night monologue on television."

Pat scans the list. "Hmm...this one about Jews having big noses isn't bad. The one about God smiting Ted Kennedy by enlarging his head is good but it needs more work. And what's this one about Him destroying the NBC prime-time line-up because some of their shows are too permissive? I did something very much like that with Hurricane Katrina."

How about something like...this is just off the top of my head...Ariel Sharon's illness being caused by dividing the Holy Land? No, wait. That's too nasty..."

"Hold on," Pat says. "I think you may be on to something."

• Posted at 3:45 AM · LINK

Recommended Reading

Rich Lowry on the Abramoff scandal. You'd never know it from some of the news reporting but it would seem that no Democrat took money directly from Jack Abramoff, whereas plenty of Republicans did. On the other hand, a lot of Democrats took "Abramoff-related money," mostly in the form of campaign donations from companies that were Abramoff clients. That's not quite the same thing but it doesn't mean some Democrats didn't accept money that had a quid pro quo attached.

There are websites that list the financial contributions that our lawmakers and government officials have accepted. I'd like to see one that lists the amounts, the source and all "favors" that were done for that donor. I assume there must be some websites that index this information on a bi-partisan basis but I haven't come across one.

I happen to think that most of the proposals for "campaign finance reform" are so full of loopholes (and sometimes, assaults on my right to support the candidate of my choice) as to be meaningless. Newt Gingrich, who knows a thing or two about ethical violations, is proposing that there be a law against fund-raising events in Washington, D.C. Uh, wouldn't that just mean that they'd move them the four miles to Arlington? The only thing that will stop this kind of thing is if citizens get mad about it and start voting people out of office for conflicts of interest. Right now, we don't seem to care enough to cause someone to lose an election.

• Posted at 12:21 AM · LINK