Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    October 2024
    S M T W T F S
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘clinton’

Clinton rewrites history again

Posted by Richard on November 28, 2007

Stumping for his wife in Iowa, Bill Clinton claimed he'd always opposed the war in Iraq and complained about not paying enough taxes (emphasis added):

On Iraq, he told the crowd that wealthy people like he and his wife should pay more taxes in times of war. "Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers," Clinton said, according to The Washington Post

I suppose for Bill Clinton, whether he opposed Iraq depends on what the meaning of the word "supported" is (emphasis added):

In a June 2004 article in Time magazine, Clinton also suggested that he would have acted the same way Bush did.

"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing," he is quoted telling the magazine.

As for his resentment for not being "given the opportunity" to pay more taxes: Bill, nobody's stopping you! You can pay more quite easily. For starters, just stop taking all those deductions you usually take (like the used jockey shorts you donate to charity and write off at an inflated value).

If that doesn't increase your tax bill enough to abate your resentment, Bill, you can simply make a voluntary contribution to reduce the public debt (money is fungible, so reducing the public debt is functionally equivalent to buying the Army a Humvee — they can buy their own Humvee by borrowing back what you contributed). The IRS tells you how in most of its tax form instructions: 

If you wish to do so, make a check payable to “Bureau of the Public Debt.” You can send it to: Bureau of the Public Debt, Department G, P.O. Box 2188, Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188. Or you can enclose the check with your income tax return when you file. Do not add your gift to any tax you may owe. See page 60 for details on how to pay any tax you owe.

I suspect Slick Willy won't be foregoing those itemized deductions or making any voluntary donations to the government. He doesn't really resent the fact that he wasn't "given the opportunity" to pay more taxes, he resents the fact that you and I and millions of other Americans were allowed to keep more of what we earned, instead of being forced to turn that money over to the "public servants" who can spend it so much more wisely.

Asshat. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Protecting fragile, delicate Hillary

Posted by Richard on November 14, 2007

Hillary "I am woman, hear me roar" Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman in the world, the idol of feminists, the tough-as-nails broad who makes Republican fat cats quake in their Armanis, sure does seem to rely a lot on planted softball questions, friendly reporters' softball questions, and — on the rare occasion when she's asked a substantive question — scores of outraged supporters rallying to her defense and savaging the ogre who dared to confront her.

Jonah Goldberg:

First the Clinton campaign whines that the other candidates were picking on the girl. Then, standing up to Russert is like standing up to Hitler. Then Bill Clinton compared Russert to the Swift Boat Vets. Now the Clinton campaign is warning Wolf Blizter that he better not "pull a Russert." From Drudge:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer has been warned not to focus Thursday's Dem debate on Hillary. 'This campaign is about issues, not on who we can bring down and destroy,' top Clinton insider explains. 'Blitzer should not go down to the levels of character attack and pull 'a Russert.'' Blitzer is set to moderate debate from Vegas, with questions also being posed by Suzanne Malveaux… Developing… 

Again, can someone please explain to me, how asking the junior Senator from New York state whether she agrees with the governor of the state (and a close political ally) on the question of drivers licenses for illegals is even remotely wrong, never mind some sort of vicious, Nazi-like, personal assault on truth, decency, and Hillary Clinton's integrity? I really, really, don't get it

I don't get it either. Characterizing a simple, straightforward "Do you agree with Governor Spitzer?" question about an issue in the news as a "character attack" is straight out of Bizarro World.

But I've got some advice for Wolf Blitzer, especially if he chooses to ignore the warning and treat Sen. Clinton just like any other candidate: Wolf, if an anonymous source wants to meet with you in Fort Marcy Park, don't go! 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The real goal of SCHIP

Posted by Richard on October 5, 2007

About six years late, President Bush finally vetoed a bloated spending bill — the massive 140% expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) passed by the Democrats (Bush had proposed "only" a 20% expansion). As you might expect, there were plenty of Republican senators who voted with the Dems — enough to override the veto. But on the House side, it fell a couple of dozen votes short of a veto-proof majority, so Dems are mounting a major effort to swing more squishy Republicans, with my congresscritter, Dianne DeGette, leading the way

It's a particularly egregious fraud of a program, promoted as helping poor sick children (who doesn't want to help poor sick children?). But the "children" are up to 25 years old and not very poor — and the majority were already insured (emphasis added):

Under SCHIP, the taxpayers fund health coverage for children in families of four earning as much as $72,000 per year, though not all eligible families enroll. Democrats in Congress want to open the program to families of four earning $83,000 per year or more. President Bush is OK with expanding SCHIP to cover well-off families – but only if the states enroll 95 percent of those lower-income children first.

Yet SCHIP is senseless. Like its much larger sibling, Medicaid, the program forces taxpayers to send their money to Washington so that Congress can send it back to state governments with strings attached. Both programs force taxpayers to subsidize people who don't need help, discourage low-income families from climbing the economic ladder – and make private insurance more expensive for everyone else.

SCHIP casts a much wider net than suggested by its stated purpose – namely, providing coverage to children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid (which ostensibly serves only the poor) but still can't afford private insurance. According to a study in the journal Inquiry, 60 percent of children eligible for SCHIP already had private coverage when the program was created.

Inevitably, many families simply substitute SCHIP for private coverage. Economists Jonathan Gruber of MIT and Kosali Simon of Cornell University find that, in effect, when government expands eligibility for SCHIP and Medicaid, six out of every 10 people added to the rolls already have private coverage. Only four in 10 were previously uninsured.

The financing of this massive 140% expansion is also egregious. First, the proponents are, in the time-honored tradition of all entitlement expansions, grossly underestimating the long-term costs. Second, they claim that they're "paying for it" with a 156% increase in the cigarette tax, but:

… according to the free-market Cato Institute, even that won't be enough. Americans have been slowly kicking the cigarette habit in recent decades. But to fund SCHIP at its expected expenditure levels in 2020 would require some 22 million new smokers.

Of course, there won't be 22 million new smokers. That means a rise in general taxes — not on smokers, but on you.

This is what the Democrats have mastered: creating a phony need, then proposing a tax on someone unpopular to fix it. When taxes don't come in as expected, they raise taxes on everyone.

It should be noted that SCHIP was initially enacted in 1997 with lots of Republican support (there are always plenty of Republicans eager to demonstrate how compassionate they are in the vain hope that liberals will like them more). And you have to marvel at the folks in Washington of both parties, who see no problem with enacting a State Children's Health Insurance Program at the federal level. 

But the SCHIP program was a Democratic idea, and according to a recent Politico article, specifically a Clinton staff idea with a hidden long-term goal (emphasis added):

Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's staff saw federal coverage of children as a "precursor" to universal coverage.

In a section of the memo titled "Kids First," Clinton's staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.

And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn't qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.

That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.

"Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children," the memo says. "Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures."

The Clintonistas, already salivating at the prospect of returning to the White House in January 2009, are no doubt also already planning those "future program structures" for health care. A big expansion of SCHIP now would be helpful when it's time for the next phase. Plus, it would further weaken the Republican Party's tattered remnants of a principled opposition to complete government control of health care.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »

HillaryCare v2.0

Posted by Richard on September 19, 2007

I haven't read much about Sen. Clinton's grand new health care plan, but lots of people — including Sen. Edwards — seem to think it borrows a lot from HillaryCare '93 and from Sen. Edwards' plan. I wonder if Clinton is on board with Edwards' compulsory doctor visits. Can't you just see the National Health Care Police dragging you off to the clinic and strapping you down on the examining table?

Dan Taylor doesn't think much of HillaryCare:

Here's what this plan is:

  1. It is an alligator that is 6 inches long now that turns into a 24 foot monster that eats you in 15 years because you're late with its dinner.

  2. It is a tax and spend social program that is guaranteed to provide nothing but the continued opportunity to tax and spend. It is Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty with the same chance of victory.

  3. It is an early retirement incentive for 50% of the nation's physicians.

  4. It is a guarantee of health care delivered with the cheerfulness of the Post Office, the regulatory enforcement of the SEC and the sensitivity of The Bureau of Prisons.

  5. It is the last attempt to make into reality a very bad idea in theory. The difference between the idea in theory and the idea in reality is that in reality someone is always accountable.

But Taylor does think the plan has one big benefit:

The bad news is that Hillary announced her HealthCare Initiative. The good news is that it doomed her election chances.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bail for a repeat bailjumper??

Posted by Richard on September 14, 2007

Norman Hsu jumped bail in 1992 and was on the lam for fifteen years. He jumped bail again just last week. I'm amazed that the D.A. didn't ask that he be denied bail and held on remand. That seems like a no-brainer to me. Instead, the D.A. asked for $50 million and got $5 million:

GRAND JUNCTION – Fugitive investor and Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu, whose flight from a 1992 grand theft conviction and subsequent campaign donations roiled the presidential race, was ordered held on a record $5 million cash-only bail by a Mesa County judge at a hearing Thursday.

Not only is Hsu an obvious flight risk — plenty of reason to deny bail — but he's purported to be a danger to himself as well:

Mesa County District Attorney Pete Hautzinger disclosed in court that Hsu had mailed a letter to a New York legal organization, the Innocence Project, indicating "he was thinking of harming himself."

A person who saw the letter told The Associated Press on Thursday that the note explicitly stated that Hsu "intended to commit suicide." …

In arguing for higher bail, Hautzinger mentioned the letter Hsu sent to the Innocence Project and others, saying it showed Hsu was "despondent and may hurt himself."

I say "purported" because — given that this case involves the Clintons and allegations of wrongdoing, and that Hsu became mysteriously ill on the train — I can't help but wonder who wrote this alleged suicide note.

The Hsu story got even more interesting the other day when it turned out that one of Hsu's bogus companies recently got $40 million from Source Financing, an investment firm run by Woodstock producer Joel Rosenman, and that Rosenman, members of his family, and others at Source Financing had also recently made significant contributions to the Clinton campaign.

A commenter, Michael, at Inoperable Terran listed some "strange facts" related to the case:

1. Hsu told Source Financial the money was to manufacture clothes for Gucci & Prada in China. Neither company manufactures any items in China, ever.

2. Source Financial never noticed that Hsu’s businesses didn’t exist before loaning him money. They also failed to check his background, or look for a factory in China connected to Hsu.

3. Source Financial was accepting checks post dated by 135 days as payment on their huge loans to Hsu.

4. Source Financial employees are also big Hillary donors.

5. Hillary set aside 1 million dollars of taxpayer money for a “Woodstock” museum. The head of Source Financial was a major Woodstock promoter and also a long time Clinton friend.

6. It took 2 weeks for the head of Source Financial to realize there might be some kind of connection between his company, Clinton, and Hsu.

7. One of the recipients of Hsu’s suicide note googled the term “Hsu Suicide” BEFORE anyone knew where he was or what he was doing – according to Michelle Malkin.

I don't have time to check all of those, but Sen. Clinton apparently did include an earmark for a Woodstock museum in the 2008 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill (emphasis from Flopping Aces):

$1 million for the Museum at Bethel Woods, which is dedicated to recreating the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival experience and will feature “An interpretation of the 1969 Woodstock Music & Arts Fair” exhibit in 2008, according to the museum’s website. The earmark is at the request of New York Senators Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer.

Limbaugh discussed this yesterday (link will probably stop working in a few days), and repeated something he's said many times: "Nothing that happens with the Clintons is a coincidence."

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hsu cools heels in Colorado

Posted by Richard on September 8, 2007

From the Rocky Mountain News:

Norman Hsu, the fugitive Democratic fundraiser who jumped a $2 million bail and skipped a California hearing on a felony theft conviction, is under armed guard at a Grand Junction hospital today.

Depending on his health, Hsu, 56, was to appear before a federal magistrate in Grand Junction this afternoon on unlawful flight charges.

Then he would face extradition to California where state authorities say Hsu is facing a three-year prison term under a 1992 plea agreement.

From Grand Junction's KJCT8 News

A 911 call went over the scanner around 11 am MST Thursday, reporting a man who could not feel his legs, and the need for extraction from the train.

When our reporter arrived on scene the conductor said that it appeared to simply be an elderly man with dementia. That man turned out to be Hsu, who did walk off the train under his own power.

In case you missed it, Hsu (pronounced "shoe") is one of the top Democratic fundraisers (albeit a very low-profile one until now), contributing millions to the coffers of candidates and committees across the country. He's raised more than a million dollars for Hillary Clinton alone. Hsu is a "bundler," combining the checks from many individuals into a "bundled" contribution to a campaign. Bundling is legal, as long as the money is actually coming from the many individuals, and they're not just being used as "straw men" to evade contribution limits or hide illegal sources.

The Wall Street Journal and others have found evidence of coordinated contributions from people associated with Hsu who seem unlikely donors. For instance, the Paw family of San Francisco, living in a modest bungalow near the airport, contributed $200,000 since 2004 to Democrats all over the country ($45,000 to Hillary) — more per year than Mr. Paw's $49,000 mail carrier salary. A New York woman who lists her profession as "self-employed actress" gave $40,000.

Since Hsu's status as a felon and fugitive became known, recipients have been trying to distance themselves without giving up too much of the money. For instance, Clinton is donating Hsu's $22,000 to charity, but she's keeping the $150,000 that came from the Paws and other suspicious associates of Hsu.

Given the Clinton history regarding Chinese-American fundraisers, one can't help but wonder if Hsu is using these unlikely donors to launder money from persons of a foreign persuasion. Don't forget Hillary's other fugitive fundraiser, Abdul Jinnah. And then there was the Peter Paul affair. Now, she seems to have hooked up with yet another fundraiser with a shady past, involving racketeering, extortion, and vote fraud.

The persistent stories about how the Clintons have operated going back to the Arkansas days leave one wondering, too, about Hsu's sudden and curious health problem. He couldn't feel his legs and appeared demented? Hmm… Be careful what you eat or drink, Norm.

UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has a good summary, some original reporting, and a link to an interesting AmSpecBlog post. News stories have described Hsu as a successful businessman in the apparel trade, but Philip Klein was unable to locate any trace of the four Hsu companies listed in campaign finance reports. At least one has a non-existent address. Hsu himself has used at least one suspicious address in filings — he made donations from the Fifth Avenue apartment both before and after it changed hands in 2005.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Hillarycare

Posted by Richard on August 16, 2007

Let me see if I've got this right: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the smartest woman in the world, the architect of a comprehensive plan to federally micromanage the entire health care system of the United States, and the daughter-in-law of a registered nurse, followed a nurse around "to see what a nurse does"? Yep, that's the story (emphasis added):

HENDERSON, Nev. – Except for the presidential candidate, newspaper reporters, TV crew and Secret Service agents tracking her every step, it was just another day on the job Monday for Michelle Estrada at St. Rose Dominican Hospital.

The nurse's 12-hour shift at the hospital's Siena campus started as usual at 7 a.m. but at mid-afternoon Hillary Rodham Clinton arrived. The New York senator spent more than two hours shadowing Estrada in the fourth-floor medical/surgical ward before heading to Estrada's home for dinner with her and her three children.
"I'm following Michelle around today to see what a nurse does," Clinton explained to the patient in Room 471.

Jeez, we're still a year from the nominating conventions and it's already necessary to recalibrate the irony meter. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

It’s not just a Republican war

Posted by Richard on March 28, 2007

At the Hugh Hewitt blog, Dean Barnett went to great pains to explain that MyDD is a responsible liberal blog, not a bunch of "lunatics and sociopaths," and to point out that MyDD is "influential far beyond its rather limited readership numbers." Barnett did so in order to put Ian Welsh's post into perspective.

Welsh chastised Sen. Hillary Clinton for being "pro-war" and for wanting "permanent bases" in Iraq "just as badly as the NeoCons." Barnett was struck by Welsh's reasoning:

Hillary’s purported policy prescriptions strike him as dangerously misguided, but listen why:

“Hillary's a pro-war candidate. And if Democrats nominate her, they will be nominating a pro-war candidate. And then the war will be a fully American war, not just a Republican one.

The last part of that statement, the part I bolded and italicized, is a rather remarkable admission. It’s even more amazing that Welsh makes that comment so casually, apparently unaware of its larger implications.

Almost certainly unwittingly, Welsh has revealed the moral atrophy that so afflicts the left. If you’ve gotten the sense that parts of the left and the Democratic Party are rooting against the war effort, now you know why. In their eyes, it’s not an American war; it’s a Republican one. And since it’s solely a Republican struggle, why not root against it? After all, if it goes poorly, the Democratic Party will surely prosper as a result.

Once again, the MyDD site is nothing like the Huffington Post. It offers mainstream liberal thought, not the addled barking of alienated misfits. And yet the fact that our men and women fighting in Iraq are Americans first, not Republicans or Democrats, seems to be completely beyond their comprehension.

All I can say is, gosh, Dean, does this really surprise you?? It doesn't surprise me at all. It seems to me that even the semi-rational (as opposed to moonbat) elements of the left have believed for some time that (1) 9/11 was a one-time incident, an aberration, (2) we're at war only because the Bush administration chooses to be at war, not because there is an organized enemy waging war against us, and therefore (3) if we simply withdraw our troops from Iraq, we'll no longer be at war.

In my humble opinion, these people are delusional and this is lunacy. But how do we prove that without doing irreparable harm to the cause of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and to our own security?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Clinton chutzpah

Posted by Richard on March 14, 2007

Shortly after Bill Clinton took office, every single U.S. Attorney was forced to resign. It's not unusual for most of them to be replaced gradually by a new administration (George H.W. Bush replaced most of Reagan's U.S. Attorneys). But the Clinton administration's sudden clean sweep was, I believe, unprecedented (but replicated by Clinton elsewhere; remember the White House Travel Office?).

There was at least some speculation at the time about the reason (from the March 24, 1993 New York Times, emphasis added):

Attorney General Janet Reno today demanded the prompt resignation of all United States Attorneys, leading the Federal prosecutor in the District of Columbia to suggest that the order could be tied to his long-running investigation of Representative Dan Rostenkowski, a crucial ally of President Clinton.

Jay B. Stephens, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, who is a Bush Administration holdover, said he had advised the Justice Department that he was within 30 days of making a "critical decision" in the Rostenkowski case when Ms. Reno directed him and other United States Attorneys to submit their resignations, effective in a matter of days.

While prosecutors are routinely replaced after a change in Administration, Ms. Reno's order accelerated what had been expected to be a leisurely changeover.

Says He Won't Resist

At a news conference today only hours after one by Ms. Reno, Mr. Stephens said he would not resist the Attorney General's move to force him from office, and he held back from directly accusing her of interfering with the Rostenkowski inquiry.

But Mr. Stephens left the strong impression that Ms. Reno's actions might disrupt the investigation as he moved toward a decision on whether to seek charges against the Illinois Democrat, who is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Stephens didn't resist because he no doubt knew that U.S. Attorneys, like all political appointees, serve "at the pleasure of the President." Today, many people in the Democratic Party and its public relations arm, the mainstream media, are either unfamiliar with that phrase or believe it has a different definition when a Republican is President.

Given that bit of history from 1993, it takes some nerve for Sen. Hillary Clinton to posture like this:

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is calling on President Bush to explain the firings of US attorneys, days after the White House admitted that White House adviser Karl Rove acted as a conduit for complaints about federal prosecutors.

"With the White House now acknowledging a direct role in the Justice Department's U.S. Attorney firings, the president must affirmatively step forward to explain what he is doing to address the politicization of our prosecutorial system and what role he and his aides played in this controversy," Clinton said in a statement sent to RAW STORY.

"It is imperative that the president act swiftly to explain what role the White House played in this situation, hold those who acted inappropriately accountable, and take responsibility," Clinton said.

 Since she objects to the White House and Attorney General firing U.S. Attorneys, and she decries "the politicization of our prosecutorial system," I expect Sen. Clinton will pledge not to remove any U.S. Attorneys other than for cause (independently verified) if she's elected President. 

Ha! Right after the airborne ham steaks pass overhead. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A milestone worth reporting

Posted by Richard on February 26, 2007

I’ve been pretty disgusted in the past with the hyping of various casualty "milestones" in Iraq, such as when the number of U.S. military deaths hit 2,000, 3,000, or most contemptibly of all, when the toll in Iraq surpassed the 2,973 killed on 9/11. But on Sunday, Gateway Pundit posted some stunning information about an upcoming milestone that I’d like to see widely reported (emphasis in original):

US losses in Iraq and Afghanistan today (3525) are approaching the half way mark (3750) of the military losses during the Clinton years.

During the Clinton years, the US military lost an average of 939 soldiers each year and a total of 7500 military personnel. During the War in Iraq the US has lost an average of 800 soldiers each year- down each of the last two years and a total of 3525 military personnel in the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This grim milestone is nearly half of the total military losses as during the Clinton years.

I won’t be holding my breath waiting for that comparison to be made on the evening news.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Geffen changes tune

Posted by Richard on February 22, 2007

Several hundred glitterati attended a fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton Tuesday night to meet Sen. Barack Obama and donate $1.3 million to his presidential campaign. Hollywood mogul David Geffen helped organize the event, and the former big-time Clinton supporter had some rather unkind words for Bill and Hillary:

Geffen also alluded to possible campaign distractions caused by Bill Clinton’s personal life should his wife secure the Democratic nomination, saying, "Everybody in politics lies, but [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling."

Now Geffen is troubled by the Clintons’ lying. Funny — it didn’t trouble him when he raised $20 million for Bill and enjoyed sleepovers in the Lincoln bedroom. It didn’t trouble him as long as the lying helped to further his ideological agenda. What a hypocrite! He deserves the infamous Wrath of Hillary, and he’d better hope to God she doesn’t become President. It’s not good to be on her enemies list under any circumstances, but if she had the reins of government in her hands… <shudder>
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

If Clinton did it, it must be good

Posted by Richard on September 29, 2006

Remember when Bill Clinton got caught lying about sex? In the wake of that, a whole bunch of stories appeared in the mainstream media explaining that, according to experts, lying is actually good — especially if it’s about sex.

The folks at the Associated Press apparently remembered how well that spin worked, and decided to try it again. In the wake of Clinton’s incredible display of petulance and temper — a display bordering on physical assault — on Fox News Sunday, the AP’s Jocelyn Noveck sought out an expert to explain that public anger is good, too:

Can public anger — in politics, business and elsewhere — be a good thing? Is a little tantrum now and then just what’s called for?

Under the right circumstances, yes, say some analysts of social behavior.

"It’s more important than ever to cut through the clutter," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, senior associate dean at Yale’s School of Management. "All of us are so overmanaged these days. Public figures have platoons of protectors. It’s more important than ever to show authentic, real emotion."

Showing emotion has never been a problem for Bill Clinton. The man is completely ruled by his emotions. His reality is defined by his feelings.

As for the rest of us, I guess we’re supposed to stop condemning road rage and lack of self-control in general, and accept these things as healthy and positive. So, once again, Bill Clinton helps to define deviancy down.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Watch “The Path to 9/11”

Posted by Richard on September 11, 2006

I hope that, like me, you’re getting ready to watch (or record) ABC’s docudrama, "The Path to 9/11", tonight (8 Eastern, 7 Central/Mtn.) and tomorrow. Judging from what I’ve seen and heard about it, this is a powerful, riveting drama with outstanding production values and acting. In other words, it’s well worth watching regardless of the politics.

Contrary to the Clinton camp and their friends on the left, it doesn’t strike me as unfair or biased against his administration (and they’ve flat-out lied about the 9/11 Commission report contradicting major points of the film; Behind Enemy Lines and Texas Rainmaker have some examples). It’s a fictionalization, after all — not every word spoken by every person is taken from the historical record. But the overall impressions it gives, the broad points, are clearly in line with that record. The 9/11 Commission chair was the technical advisor, after all.

The portrait of the Bush administration (and Condi Rice in particular) is equally unflattering — it’s just that they failed to do enough for 9 [correction] 8 months, while the Clintonistas failed to do enough for 8 years. Let’s face it — no administration did enough until 9/12/01. There’s plenty of blame to go around, at least back to the Reagan administration. But "The Path to 9/11" also makes it clear who the real villains are — the terrorists.

Aside from its intrinsic value as entertainment and the understanding of how 9/11 came about that you’ll get, there’s another compelling reason for watching: to support ABC against the contemptible intimidation attempted by Democratic senators with their barely veiled threats.

TigerHawk has more about the left’s over-the-top efforts against "The Path to 9/11," and he thinks those efforts are backfiring. I hope so.

UPDATE: Wow. The first half was stunning. Simply stunning. Forget all the controversy and the last-minute edits (although if you’re interested, Hot Air has the "before" and "after" video for comparison). Yes, Clinton, Albright, and Berger look bad — but they’re really only bit players. Setting them aside and judging "The Path to 9/11" as a drama, I believe it’s a tremendous achievement.

The acting, writing, cinematography — everything about it is first-class. Some scenes were achingly beautiful, others difficult to watch. Throughout, there was a level of intensity, excitement, and urgency that made watching a somewhat draining experience. For instance, we all know nothing happened on New Year’s Eve 1999 — yet, the scenes leading up to and at the Times Square celebration were absolutely gripping. When the scene switched to a celebration where O’Neil said, "we dodged a bullet," I felt the tension released as if a weight had been removed from my chest.

I can’t say enough good things about this film, and you couldn’t pay me to miss the conclusion Monday night. As soon as it’s available on DVD, I’ll buy it (I hope the original "uncensored" version gets released on DVD, but I’ll buy it either way). If you didn’t watch it, I hope you recorded it (or maybe ABC will offer a download). If not, I’d still strongly recommend watching the second half. Strongly recommend.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

P-Funk lives!

Posted by Richard on November 17, 2005

Wow! I just saw George Clinton and Parliament/Funkadelic on the Tonight Show! I didn't even know he/they/it were still doing their "thang." I didn't know he'd regained the rights to use the names Parliament and Funkadelic (I vaguely remember he lost both, leading him to call his group "The P-Funk Experience" for a time).

I don't think I've seen Clinton since the late 80s or early 90s. He looked pretty good — lots of gray, but still freaky and having fun. Did you know Parliament/Funkadelic were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame this year? Clinton himself was inducted back in 1997.

If you've never seen George Clinton's Mothership Connection show, you've really missed something. Clinton has, since the late 60s, blended R&B, rock 'n roll, psychedelia, and his own unique perspective and sense of humor.

Parliament and Funkadelic, for many years, were separate but complementary and overlapping groups. Parliament was the r&b group with the hit records, while Funkadelic was the more psychedelic and experimental outlet for Clinton's imagination. Both owed a lot to Sly and the Family Stone, which I consider one of the most important — and enjoyable — bands in the history of rock and roll.

And then there were the side projects such as Brides of Funkenstein (pretty sucky) and Bootsy's Rubber Band (pretty awesome, but that's to be expected from Bootsy Collins).

If you're at all interested in R&B and/or psychedelia, and you're not familiar with Clinton, it's time to correct that. Here are a couple of links that can steer you toward the P-Funk experience: One Nation P-Funk and New Funk Times.

Remember, "Soul is a joint rolled in toilet paper." Take a chance on a 70s album or two, like Parliament's Mothership Connection and Funkadelic's One Nation Under a Groove. I bet you'll like them.

UPDATE: As a sorta follow-up, Big & Rich appeared on Conan O'Brien. I'm impressed. Never heard of them, and they're country, but they're somehow appropriate following George Clinton. I'd describe them (based on one song, mind you) as country/rock/psychedelia. I liked it, and I'm going to check out some of their music. As they say, "Somebody's got to be unafraid to lead the freak parade."

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »