Midwest Monday News 10.03.05
Posted by Steven Bellah on 10.03.2005
Football, women, Tom DeLay, and more!
Well, first of all, let’s do some Monday morning quarterbacking:
Remember what I said last week about the New England Patriots? Well, expect every ESPN columnist to be writing about the death of the dynasty today after the 41-17 beating San Diego gave them on Sunday. But, mark my words, whenever they win again, whether it be by 3 points or 30, expect Ron Jaworski, Chris Mortensen, and all those other fair weather “experts” to be talking about how Bill Belichick is a coaching genius and that the Patriots are going back to the Super Bowl.
On the same vein, my beloved Chiefs stunk up the joint by letting the Eagles score 31 straight points, losing 37-31. Dick Vermeil spent the entire post game press conference talking about how fantastic the Eagles were, and how any Chiefs mistakes were because the Eagles were such a great team. Wow, which team does he coach again? It’s pretty obvious that the Chiefs are nowhere in the league of the Eagles, or any other playoff team for that matter. I think the problem lies with Vermeil, who has taken on Bush-like qualities by being too faithful to certain players for too long, thus their shitty play continues and the team suffers. No wonder it has been 35 years since we went to the Super Bowl.
But what will really be bad is how the fair-weather fans here in KC react the rest of the season. It’s amazing that when they play good, everyone is talking Super Bowl, even when we haven’t been there since 1969. Then, whenever they lose, everyone wants either the quarterback or coach fired. I swear, the fans here are so bi-polar it’s amazing. Yesterday’s loss to a Super Bowl team shows that the Chiefs will be nowhere near Super Bowl caliber this season, or for many to come. They might squeak into the playoffs, but they won’t stand a chance against teams like Indianapolis or San Diego.
It’s been that way for 35 years, and it’s not letting up anytime soon. Now, on to the news……
All women belong in the kitchen……..if they want to. Now, don’t take that out of context!!!
So Bill Bennett says on his radio show that the crime rate can be lowered if all black babies were aborted. However, he didn’t really say that apparently, and his comments were “taken out of context”. Man, you can really tell when something is a Republican talking point when you hear it 45 times from 45 different people. Like “the blame game”, “ongoing investigation”, and “partisan hack”—which will be covered later.
Well, let me post Mr. Bennett’s EXACT comments for you to consider:
”I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.”
Now, what is being taken out of context? How is calling him a racist wrong? Yes, he said it was “ridiculous”, but he stood by his statement. It’s a terrible thing, but the crime rate would still go down if we aborted black babies. Thus, those black babies would grow up to be criminals, and the crime rate would go up. Isn’t that what he said?
Now, if Bennett was taken out of context, then what exactly was he trying to say? What is everyone actually taking out of context? That’s what no one is clarifying, because they can’t.
It’s a travesty that not only is Bennett still on the air, but the guy who runs the station he is on is backing him up. Translation: He’s pulling in big ratings and we don’t want to can him. I’m reminded of Trent Lott’s comments about how if Strom Thurmond, a segrationist, was elected president, we “wouldn’t have the problems we have now”, and how the Right ran damage control on that as well. Democrat, Republican, white, black, whatever—if you make a comment like Bill Bennett made, you don’t belong on the air. It’s not that he’s a Right wing guy, it’s that he’s a racist—plain and simple. Next.
Well, it’s good to see him in hot water, at least
So Tom DeLay was indicted this week by a Left wing partisan hack, or so the Republicans want you to believe. This is so paint by numbers on so many levels it’s amazing. The Democrats have been trying for years to bring down DeLay, the top guy in the Senate. I hate to agree with Rush, but he seems to have a point. The Democrats can’t win at the ballot box, so they try other means of taking down the opposite side. Now, I don’t care what side the prosecutor is on, because this indictment was fueled by the Democratic Party planting seeds over the last year or so. There would be no talk about Tom DeLay the crook if the seeds weren't planted earlier.
On the same page, I think it’s amazing that the Republicans have turned into the Hillary Clinton of 1998, and I’m just waiting for one of them to call all of this a “Vast Left Wing Conspiracy”, but they probably won’t because it would be too obvious. They tried their darnest to bring down Bill Clinton and couldn’t, but all of that was justified and all of that taxpayer money was well spent, so they say. Now it’s happening again, and it’s suddenly a terrible, horrible, slanted thing to do. Doesn’t feel so good when the shoe is on the other foot, eh guys?
But like with Karl Rove, the highly paid regime of lawyers and congressmen will make sure DeLay gets off of the hook, and the Republicans will claim “victory” in all of this, which will make the Democrats look weaker. Which leads me to a new segment of this news report……
Question of the week
What I would like from you, my loyal readers, is feedback. I will ask a simple political question, and you send me your opinions. I hope to hear many, many responses, because I think this week’s question is a good one:
What can the Democrats do to win control of Washington by 2008?
Now, if you hate the Democratic Party, or if you think there is no hope, don’t answer. Only if you have a well thought out solution. Now, a well thought out solution is not “Kill BuSH! Then beat up Chainy! FUCK REPUBlicanS!@!”, alright? I know you won’t let me down. Send your responses to ILuvTara16@yahoo.com. Thank you.
Speaking of feedback……
Feedback
First of all, I received another angry e-mail from the guy who wrote me last week about how I suck and how Bush is doing a fantastic job. He was angry because I featured his comments in my column, and he had never “given his permission” for me to use them. Um, you sent me an e-mail, and wanted my response. I said in my very first column that I would try to answer any and all feedback right here in the column, and I have done that.
Now, if you didn’t want your comments addressed, why did you contact me in the first place? It’s not like I gave away your e-mail address, name, or anything about you, other than that you were a guy, which REALLY narrows it down, doesn’t it? I address feedback here in the column because for one, I don’t have time to answer it during the week. I work 50+ hours full time, and it’s tough enough to get this column in on time (am I right, Dave?). Second, nothing pisses me off more than juvenile e-mail wars, which I got tired of when I was 16. I don’t want to keep addressing the same subject 5 times a day. You contact me disagreeing, I reply, and that’s that.
So, because of this, if you send me feedback and DO NOT want me to use your comments in the column, let me know. But don’t expect me to reply to you very quickly, as I have better things to do. Now, on to the one piece of mail I got this week:
Fox news isn't faking polls showing Bush gaining some phantom support - even Fox news-hating liberals should acknowledge that much. ;)
As far as the Christian school thing goes, I'm not quite sure how you think the school's ruling can be fought. I highly doubt the policy on this matter was hidden, and as a private school, they have the right to such a policy.
To be honest, I'm curious as to why these parents felt the need to enroll this girl at the school, knowing that their relationship was in clear conflict with the school's beliefs. Why would you send your daughter to a place that believes your lifestyle is sinful?
The person I feel sorry for in all of this is Shay. She was subject to the cold rejection of a school where she probably had friends and knew a lot of people, all for something that wasn't even about her. And she was also seemingly used by her parents to make some sort of point, or statement. (What other reason could there have been?)
Oh, and while I totally agree that Bush could have done more in the aftermath of Katrina, (keeping his schedule, and making some speech in California is something that really got me) there is more than enough blame to go around. Federal, state, and local. All share some responsibility for what happened. Castigate them all, and I'm right there with you. Heap it all on Bush alone, and you're just another anti-Bush drone.
And finally, Al Gore rules.
----You make three very good points:
The parents of Shay, both lesbians, should have known better before enrolling their daughter into a strict religious school. I’m sure they were provided with some sort of handbook outlining the school’s policy, and knew what would happen if the school found out. As much as it pisses me off that so called loving “Christians” could act that way, but Shay’s parents set themselves up for that. That is, if they didn’t plan this all along.
You made me think that perhaps her parents did all of this on purpose, to get her thrown out of school, to play the homosexual card. However, if that is true, why aren’t they fighting? It makes no sense to go through all of that, then wimp out and decide not to fight back.
When it comes to Bush and his handling of Katrina, I do admit that Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco both did horrible jobs handling the mess as well. Blanco especially pissed me off, acting like a deer in headlights the whole time. It was like a substitute teacher without a lesson plan.
However, I pick on Bush because he is the leader of the COUNTRY, and should set an example. Staying on vacation doesn’t do that. Yes, he is not the only guilty party in all of this, and perhaps we should blame others along with him. But that shouldn’t lessen any shit that is flung his way. Republicans are saying the same thing: Hey, don’t blame Bush and Brownie, blame Nagin and Blanco too!
Ok, we’ll blame Nagin and Blanco, but don’t think that let’s you off the hook.
Oh, and yes, Al Gore DOES rule, and I wish he would become more involved in the Democratic Party other than just appearing at the convention every four years. Yes, he’s robotic, but he’s smarter than any member of Bush’s cabinet, and he needs to put that to good use.
STAY CURRENT