The Midwest Monday News 01.16.06
Posted by Steven Bellah on 01.16.2006
Is it Brangelina, or Bradgelina? Plus, my adventures to the bookstore, and those boring Alito hearings......
Man, that Colts-Steelers game was something, wasn't it? The damn Colts blew it again. Now we get a boring Steelers-Broncos AFC Championship, which probably means Denver will get to the Super Bowl. I was a Denver fan back in the Elway days, but I don't think they are very good anymore---just lucky, and smart. The Rich Gannon Raiders were the same way. They always won games by the skin of their teeth, and the Broncos were that way this year. They do the same things (naked bootleg by Plummer) every game! I can't see why no one picks up on it.
Anyhoo, I hope Pittsburgh wins, because THAT's a team that deserves to be in the 40th Super Bowl, along with Jerome Bettis.
So what was the point?
Well, Scalito will be confirmed to the Supreme Court this week, even though he really didn't answer any major questions before the panel asking them. Well, I think Arlen Specter asked him if he liked Chinese food, and he said yes, so I guess he did answer SOME questions. But abortion? War? Is Bush a douche bag? Forget about it.
I didn't watch any of the proceedings, because I knew exactly what would happen, and it did. It was John Roberts, Version 2.0. I don't understand why Scalito, Roberts, or any other nominee can sidestep questions in a situation like that. Isn't that the reason he's there in the first place? Democrats are upset, and rightfully so. Republicans aren't, because well, Bush nominated him, and Scalito doesn't have to admit he's pro-life. They will gleefully cast their vote of approval, but if it were a Clinton/Gore/Kerry nominated justice, then it would be completely reversed. It's all about party politics and who can win.
I've been getting e-mails from every Democratic leader imaginable the last month or so. I subscribe to mailing lists on both sides to keep up in the world of politics, although getting an e-mail from Ken Mehlman doesn't really make my day. Well, everyone from John Kerry to Howard Dean to even Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy have sent me long, rambling e-mails asking me to "force Samuel Alito to answer the tough questions". Um, exactly how am I going to do that? "Um, excuse me Mr. Supreme Court nominee guy, please be honest?"
Was there any doubt that what happened, well, happened? I think it's a great injustice when anyone sidesteps questions, regardless of where they stand. I mean, Ben Roethlisberger was just asked after the Steelers-Colts game if he was injured when he got hit after a pass. His response? "We won the game, that's all that matters."
When you refuse to answer questions, when you decide to sidestep tough topics, then you are hiding something you don't want us to know. How anyone can confirm Sam Alito is beyond me. It doesn't matter what he believes, or what you believe. It's that he refused to tell us. If he's going to be making some of the most important decisions in American history over the next 30-40 years, I would like to know what he thinks.
But he won't tell us, because he wants to win votes. I think it's pretty obvious that both he and John Roberts will vote to overturn Roe V. Wade. Anyone who thinks he will seriously consider both sides is lying. In fact, anyone who thinks ANY justice won't take personal opinion into consideration is lying. Just look at the 2000 Presidential decision. All the "liberal" judges sided with Al Gore, and all the "conservative" judges sided with Bush.
It's all about furthering an agenda, and that's sad.
Brangelina
You know, I think the new baby that will be coming into Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's lives this summer is a wonderful thing. Everyone is blaming Jolie for the breakup of Pitt and Jennifer Aniston, and everyone is talking about poor Jennifer. I disagree. It's pretty obvious that Brad wanted to start a family, and Jennifer just wanted to become a big star. There was no reason those two couldn't have started a family together, but they didn't.
I also don't think Brad cheated on Jennifer with Angelina, either. I think Brad fell in love with her while filming "Mr & Mrs. Smith" because well, she's hot, and she loves being a mother. I always sensed that Jennifer and Brad's marriage was just for show. I think they loved each other, but if it came down to it, Jennifer would have, and still will (look out Vince Vaughn) choose her career over any husband or family.
I also love how the media has tried their darndest to make SOMETHING out of this relationship, but can't because Brad and Angelina aren't saying ANYTHING. I mean, they have never even officially said they were together. Duh, they obviously are, but I think it's great when two celebrities don't say anything as a "fuck you" to the press. I think everyone learned a lesson after "Bennifer". Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez, not Affleck and Jennifer Garner, another couple I love.
On the other side, Hillary Swank and Chad Lowe separated, probably because Hillary has become a 2 time Oscar winning megastar, and Chad is well, still Chad Lowe. It usually happens when one of the two leaves the other in the dust as far as stardom goes. I bet Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Philippe's days are numbered.
Anyhoo, back to Brangelina. Or Bradglina, which I like better. Much has been made that Angelina gets her ENTIRE name in the nickname, while Brad gets only a "Bra"--sense the symbolism there? And everyone talks about how Angelina takes Brad to Africa with her like some puppet. Could it be that he WANTS TO? Could it be that he LOVES HER and wants to share in her causes? Of course not, because that would be boring. I do think Angelina is doing many wonderful things to help fight poverty, so if you want to tie this in with politics, there you go. She's come a long way from being the vampire looking, blood wearing crazy girl who makes out with her brother.
Like Bill Maher said about them, "Just let the two hottest people in the world fuck each other."
There was a section in Al Franken's book The Truth (with Jokes), which I have reviewed here in the past, which deals with all the scheming things the Republicans did to win in 2004. From the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to sending Bush supporters disguised as Kerry supporters--promoting gay marriage, it was a good summary of why Kerry lost the election, and it MADE SENSE. And it left me wanting more. Well, I thought I had found it with "Fooled Again", but I was wrong.
I should have known what I was going to be reading when the title of the book talks about how the Right "Stole" the election, but I didn't read too much into it. I'm an impulse buyer who doesn't spend much time looking something over. Most of the time I know exactly what I want. I'm a male. Jeff Foxworthy once did a bit talking about when men go shopping; it's like a scavenger hunt. "Pants? Got the pants. Now I need charcoal, then lunch meat....." and that's exactly right.
That's how I am, even when I'm just looking around. I walked into Barnes & Noble looking for a politics book, and I (pun completely intended) judged a book by its cover.
I was wrong.
I only read about 10 pages, and my worst fears were confirmed. It wasn't a book about how Kerry lost, or how the Right mislead the entire nation----it was a book about how the Right rigged the election so Bush could win. A conspiracy theory book. Of course, Kerry would have easily won if Karl Rove hadn't rigged the voting machines in Ohio, or something.
Listen, the 2000 election was a debacle of mass proportions. Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election. It was only because Dubya had his brother and campaign manager in charge in Florida that he got away with it. Even if you don't believe all of that, the difference was 537 votes. FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN. If it's THAT close, there should have been 537 different RECOUNTS. But there wasn't, because we all knew what was going on. But this isn't about the 2000 election. It's about how the Democrats just can't admit that they lost.
The 2000 election has tainted everyone's minds. Yes, there was some scheming and dealing going on back then. But not in 2004. There wasn't any widespread voter fraud or rigging of the machines. Now yes, there probably WAS something going on, but not enough to change the outcome. Bush won Ohio by 118,599 votes. That's 118,062 more than what he won Florida by in 2000. 537 votes are grounds for protest. Almost 119 THOUSAND is not.
When I cast my vote for Kerry here in Raymore we used big "fill in the bubble" sheets that you fed into a fax machine-like scanner. When I stuck my sheet in, it went in.......and popped back out. I then fed it in again, and it stayed.
OH MY GOD!! DOUBLE VOTE FOR KERRY!!! FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD!!
Not really. Bush won my city, county, and state. But you know what? My little mix-up is the exact thing "Fooled Again" and the Democrats bitch about. In 2000, I would have understood. But not in 2004. Bush won. He won Ohio, and he won the popular vote.
Wait a minute. Aren't I a liberal who hates Bush? Yes. But I can stand up and admit that my guy lost. I'm not going to be Oliver Stone and try and figure out a way to blame the Republicans for this one. To me, the people who try and figure out a way that Bush rigged the 2004 election are like someone who runs over the neighbor's dog and blames the car.
The Democrats are never going anywhere unless they admit their mistakes, and their losses. All I ever hear is about what Bush is doing wrong and how evil he is. I agree, and I don't think he's doing much of anything right. But attacking the opposition will not get you anywhere unless you tell me what YOU would do. I still don't know.
Quit your bitching and blaming and come up with a plan. Until then, have fun being the lapdogs of Washington.
Plugs
I've plugged two books so far. One I like, one I hated. Here's one that I LOVE: The Survivor: Bill Clinton in the White House, by John Harris. It's not a love-fest by any means, and it criticizes him when needed. And it's not written by an aide, like "The Clinton Wars" was. That book was good as well, but Clinton was the greatest human ever in that book. Not in "The Survivor". It's an honest portrayal of a president. You don't get that too often.
Much like my girlfriend. She voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, even though she is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage. But when I asked her why she voted for him? She couldn't really tell me, other than that she didn't like Gore/Kerry. Geez. Anyhoo, go read Shane's opinion.
All right, that's it for this week. Let's see what happens in the next 6 days. Hopefully something interesting. See ya.
STAY CURRENT