tem uma estagiara

me dano mole ali rs

PS1: Dedicado especialmente à Carolamor :* (oi) e Paola (pq me odeias pequena camponesa?) :(

PS2: Aff essa piadinha do preistation já deu né, graça kd

PS3: Fui 

by Daniel

There is a great little bar in Barcelona where Monica Lewinsky can be found every single night!

Espit Chupitos on Calle Aribau is small but busy, shot bar offering a unique style of drinking. As you enter the pitch black premises you instantly spot the large board on the wall listing the 100s of different types of shots that the bar serves. Many of the shots involve fire, fruit, marshmallows, straws, gas and other novelty items, in one way or another. At 2€ a shot it is a great way to get the night going.

The house special would have to be the Monica Lewinsky shot. I suggest you try the shot without asking any questions. Do it!

More often than not, what viewers (interchangeably, "consumers") tune in to doesn't line up with what is most relevant, or of greatest importance to their individual needs. Rather, people tend to watch what is most viscerally attractive - that is, anything that really gits ya in the gut. Human interest stories are always up there - American human interest stories, that is. Things that people think they can relate to, however irrelevant on the grand scale they may be. Anything that recreates a "Law and Order" episode is generally a good bet. People are a lot more interested in Scott Peterson ("He looks like the guy down the street!") than the tens of thousands killed in American carpet bombing. Don't kid yourself about Abu Ghraib, either. It wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of making a national story without those juicy pictures.

Along those lines, anything that appeals to people's sense of patriotism or nationalism is also a consistent bet. Remember how newspapers forgot to call Bush out on anything (Patriot Act, etc.) he did after September 11th and then, conveniently, acted as if they weren't as complicit as every other lily-livered member of Congress in having such laws pass the test of public confidence? Media agencies will always go with the man on top during national crisis, even if the man on top is in the process of inserting himself into the country's collective rectum. It's not good business sense to risk offending viewers (and losing customers) for something as irrelevant as what's actually happening.

Sex, as always, reigns supreme among news' desirable qualities, so long as a news agency can justify covering it. I am willing to believe a paper would publish "Republican Presidential Committee Aiming For Critical T & A Swing Vote," if it meant they could publish a picture of Sarah Palin in a bikini. Sarah Palin herself is a prominent beneficiary of such additional, unmerited focus. She would definitely be less of a hot news cycle ticket if she looked, for example, like Rosie O'Donnell. Sex sells. I bet you went straight for this paragraph just because it has a sexy picture next to it.

Despite its ultimate goal of accumulating capital, it would be accurate to say our media sometimes runs liberal stories and sometimes runs conservative ones. These days, it has uncovered a fair amount of shit on our current administration (though not nearly enough; that would be unpatriotic). One might even be tempted to say it has a tendency to highlight its shortcomings (unless we have our heads in our asses after something like Sept. 11th, that is). One would be remiss, however, to say such focuses are evidence of liberal bias. News agencies naturally cover (and react to) whoever is in power. Since Bush has been president for the last eight years, and Congress controlled by Republicans for its majority, conservatives can rightly be considered the top dogs at the moment. As such, their fuckups tend to make the front page. This would be the same if a Democrat were in office. Does anyone remember how brutally Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was covered? He didn't have a chance in hell of escaping the public eye. It wouldn't have mattered if he were Jerry Falwell or Karl Marx. People will tolerate a story (and watch TV) way past their normal breaking points when sex and power are involved. Ultimately, it is a victory for a news agency if it gets you to watch. Their advertisers (who provide, in turn, their payrolls) could care less if you're intellectually fulfilled.

Rupert Murdoch encouraged the perception of collective political bias in the media by creating Fox News, which adopted the misnomer, "fair and balanced." This is itself a shrewd venture: by appealing to a conservative point of view, whether or not it is legitimate, Murdoch captured a consumer group that mighth not otherwise have watched the news. Assumedly, "fair and balanced" means objective reporting, devoid of political tilt. Quite the opposite: Fox News goes out of its way to provide some sort of commentary, regardless of whether the point of view being defended or attacked is ludicrous or credible. The idea that both sides of a story should be aired, regardless of how many legitimate points are made, is new. If a story breaks the news that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, that's not liberal, that's simply the truth. That it happens to go against what the current administration's policy dictates should be beside the point.

Don't tell me CNN's looping footage of Sarah Palin "Miss Alaska" photos is evidence of conservative over-coverage, or their in-depth book review of The Audacity of Hope shows them to be hopelessly liberal. In a business sense, a story's primary function is not to enlighten, but to get the consumer to tune in. Media agencies are only following good business strategy and going where the money is. What could be more American than that?

Sally Quinn, Washington Post journalist, author, founder and co-moderator of 'On Faith,' a blog from the Washington Post and Newsweek, as posted in 'On Faith' on June 23, 2008 in 'The Faith and Joy of Russert': 'Last Wednesday at Tim's funeral mass at Trinity Church in Georgetown (Jack Kennedy's church), communion was offered. I had only taken communion once in my life, at an evangelical church. It was soon after I had started 'On Faith' and I wanted to see what it was like. Oddly I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Last Wednesday I was determined to take it for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding. I'm so glad I did. It made me feel closer to him. And it was worth it just to imagine how he would have loved it.'

Ms. Quinn, then age 67, should have known better long before June 23, 2008!

Unfortunately, people who are ineligible to receive Communion in a Catholic Church nevertheless present themselves and receive.

Ms. Quinn is noteworthy for publicly writing about her reception of Communion apparently in ignorance of her ineligibility.

On June 25, 2008, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights charged Ms. Quinn with narcissism for her receipt of Communion in this press release:

'The funeral Mass for Tim Russert was held at Trinity Church in Georgetown a week ago today. Attending was Sally Quinn. She is a Washington Post journalist and founder and co-moderator of On Faith, a Washington Post and Newsweek blog.

'Quinn, who was an atheist most of her life, posted on Monday why she decided to go to Communion: 'Last Wednesday I was determined to take it [the Eucharist] for Tim, transubstantiation notwithstanding. I'm so glad I did. It made me feel closer to him. And it was worth it just to imagine how he would have loved it.'

'Quinn also admitted the following: 'I had only taken communion once in my life, at an evangelical church. It was soon after I had started 'On Faith' and I wanted to see what it was like. Oddly I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ.'

'Catholic League president Bill Donohue had this to say:

'Just reading what Sally Quinn said is enough to give any Christian, especially Catholics, more than a 'slightly nauseating sensation.' In her privileged world, life is all about experiences and feelings.

'Moreover, Quinn's statement not only reeks of narcissism, it shows a profound disrespect for Catholics and the beliefs they hold dear. If she really wanted to get close to Tim Russert, she should have found a way to do so without trampling on Catholic sensibilities. Like praying for him that's what Catholics do.''

Was it narcissism, or simple ignorance, or culpable ignorance?

Only God and perhaps Ms. Quinn know for sure.

But with pro-abortion so-called Catholic politicians like Senator and 2004 Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry and Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi sacrilegiously and scandalously receiving Communion, it is conceivable that Ms. Quinn thought that anyone who attends a Mass is eligible to receive Holy Communion.

That's not so.

Commenting to The New Republic on the Catholic League's press release, Ms. Quinn was argumentative, not apologetic, asserting: 'Any religious people who purport to be Christians, or whatever faith you might be, would do everything they could to welcome others--in the case of Catholics, to welcome others the way Christ would welcome others. This is a perfect example of WWJD. Would Jesus have said, 'No you don't, Sally Quinn. You're not going to get away with this one!''

Ms. Quinn may or may not be narcissistic, but that response was nonsensical.

Ms. Quinn was welcomed to attend the funeral mass for her friend Tim Russert.

But attendance at a Mass is not the test for eligibility to receive Communion at that Mass.

National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru was more troubled by Ms. Quinn's response than by her reception of Communion:

"Apparently, Sally Quinn has gotten some nasty voicemails after writing about her decision to receive communion at her friend Tim Russert's funeral Mass. That is too bad. So many people do not understand the Church's teaching that it is best to treat this sort of thing as a well-meaning act based on a misunderstanding. It is hard to believe that Quinn was deliberately trying to register her disagreement with the Church at the Mass. That said, if she does not understand the affront she gave then perhaps regularly blogging about religion for a major news outlet is not the right job for her.

'No doubt she has her back up. But her explanations and self-justifications compound rather than mitigate the problem. She says that Catholics should be inclusive rather than turning people down who present themselves for communion. Perhaps. She talks, quite a bit, about her feelings. But the Church does not view communion as primarily an opportunity to elicit warm feelings of community. The unity of communion is altogether deeper. The Church invites outsiders into that deeper unity by refusing a simulacrum of it.

'Quinn invokes the vulgar phrase, 'What Would Jesus Do?' What Jesus would have us do is a question Christians should always ask. It is within the realm of possibility that the Church, and the current pope, whom she singles out for criticism, have given at least as much thought to the question as she has. While asking, quite rightly, for charity, she should consider extending it.'

Sound advice!

Writing for National Catholic Weekly, Father James S. Martin of the Society of Jesus criticized both Ms. Quinn and the Catholic League, offering this explanation and expectation:

'Catholics believe in the 'real presence,' the actual presence of Christ in the elements of the Eucharist: the bread and the wine. It is a central element of our faith, and reception of Communion is something that a Catholic does not do lightly. Which is something of an understatement. 'First Holy Communion' is an important passage to adulthood; and even afterwards adults are asked to approach Communion reverently and without being conscious of any grave sin. Catholics also know that the very word 'Communion' means that you are in 'communion' with the rest of the Catholic church, and accept its beliefs.

'Therefore, it is probably not too much to expect that the co-founder of a prestigious online blog about religion run by two of the nation's premier journals, would understand something about the most basic practices of the Catholic church. Most intelligent people know a few facts about the Catholic church: this is one of them. And even if one doesn't know this, one would know to act with great care when in the midst of a worshiping community not your own'.'

Remnant columnist Mark Alessio was more exacting and less excusing than Father Martin: 'The great journalist feels the need to tell us, regarding her illicit reception of Holy Communion, 'I had a slightly nauseated sensation after I took it, knowing that in some way it represented the body and blood of Jesus Christ.' Why would someone say that? Better yet, why would someone writing an appreciation of a deceased Catholic colleague say that? Quinn defended her statement by saying that she was 'grieving' and that Russert 'would really enjoy' her reception of Communion. She also invokes 'pluralism', 'inclusiveness' and the popular practice among political groupies of being able to read the mind of Jesus. All to defend the indefensible. Were Quinn unsure as to the guidelines for receiving Communion, she could have inquired about them. But, of course, that sort of diligence is best reserved for political primaries, not something as frivolous as 'religion.' And, even given a situation of grief and uncertainty as to the reception of the Sacrament, was there any cause for an educated individual to speak about it afterwards as something nauseating? Then again, what else can be expected from someone who brags about becoming an atheist at age 13?'

It is Ms. Quinn's right to be an atheist, or not, but Ms. Alessio highlighted the two most important points that Ms. Quinn had continued to ignore: (1) Ms. Quinn's reception of Communion was 'illicit' and (2) there are guidelines that apply to everyone, including Ms. Quinn.

On November 14, 1996, the National Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the following guidelines on the reception of communion. These guidelines are included in missalettes and other participation aids published in the United States to remind all those who may attend Catholic liturgies of the present discipline of the Church with regard to the sharing of eucharistic communion.

'For Catholics

'As Catholics, we fully participate in the celebration of the Eucharist when we receive Holy Communion. We are encouraged to receive Communion devoutly and frequently. In order to be properly disposed to receive Communion, participants should not be conscious of grave sin and normally should have fasted for one hour. A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord without prior sacramental confession except for a grave reason where there is no opportunity for confession. In this case, the person is to be mindful of the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, including the intention of confessing as soon as possible (canon 916). A frequent reception of the Sacrament of Penance is encouraged for all.

'For our fellow Christians

'We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ's prayer for us 'that they may all be one' (Jn 17:21).

'Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion. Eucharistic sharing in exceptional circumstances by other Christians requires permission according to the directives of the diocesan bishop and the provisions of canon law (canon 844 § 4). Members of the Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and the Polish National Catholic Church are urged to respect the discipline of their own Churches. According to Roman Catholic discipline, the Code of Canon Law does not object to the reception of communion by Christians of these Churches (canon 844 § 3).

'For those not receiving Holy Communion

'All who are not receiving Holy Communion are encouraged to express in their hearts a prayerful desire for unity with the Lord Jesus and with one another.

'For non-Christians

'We also welcome to this celebration those who do not share our faith in Jesus Christ. While we cannot admit them to Holy Communion, we ask them to offer their prayers for the peace and the unity of the human family.'

Perhaps Ms. Quinn forgot the outrage when President Clinton, a non-Catholic, presented himself for Communion in a Catholic Church in Africa while he was lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.

I remember it.

This letter of mine appeared in The New York Daily News on April 2, 1996.:

'President Clinton insulted Catholics throughout the world by receiving Communion during a Catholic Mass in South Africa. It was appropriate for him to attend the service (and perhaps he was moved by the sermon on adultery), but it was wrong for him as a non-Catholic to receive Communion, even if he was in a state of grace at that time.

'Clinton may have been forgiven by the people of Arkansas for breaking his promise not to run for President in 1992, he may have been forgiven by Hillary for his dalliance with Gennifer Flowers, and he may have been forgiven by the American people for breaking his promise to provide the most ethical administration in American history. But he truly will have to repent in order to receive the forgiveness he needs for treating a Mass as a photo op.'

It does not appear that Ms. Quinn treated the Russert funeral Mass as a photo op, but it does appear that she should have known that her reception of Communion at the Mass would be illicit and she should have refrained from receiving. Then she would not have embarrassed herself by her tasteless story about receiving and her subsequent silly self-justification trying to make a virtue of her disregard of the guidelines for the reception of Holy Communion by doing as she pleased.

I'm all for Republicans backing Sarah Palin. She's their nominee for VP and McCain's pick. Sure, there are some questionable things going on in her life, both personally and professionally, that bring up certain unavoidable questions, but we all must stand behind the party we believe to be the best suited to run this country. 

However, what I find to be astoundingly hypocritical are the folks calling any criticisms of Palin "sexist" and unfair.

A coterie of Republican women sought to curtail what they said was inappropriate criticism of Sarah Palin's record as governor, her past political affiliations, and her family life, lambasting the news media for what they said were sexist attacks on the vice-presidential nominee. --reported by Guardian.co.uk

Now that's different in my mind from Obama asking the press to "back off" on public probes into Palin's family life. Assume for a moment that it was Joe Biden's daughter who was 17, unmarried and pregnant. Now you tell me what the response would be from the GOP and the religious right. Do you think it would be live and let live? Or what if it was Obama's daughter? Would the GOP refrain from making comments and judgments? Of course not. They would be ravenous. Bloodthirsty. They would be screaming at the top of their lungs that if either of these men couldn't control their own families, how could they then be trusted to run a country. And the religious right would be denouncing both of these men and their families as representing all that is wrong with "liberal" thinking and an example of failed morals. Add to the equation that Sarah Palin is vehemently anti-sex-ed and an active supporter of abstinence-only programs, and we have more than enough legitimate reasons to ask some questions that may be of concern to some of us. It's not a judgement of Palin's daughter, or even of Palin's family, but of Palin's ability to make choices and support programs that work. It's a question of Palin's ability to comprehend the realities of the world around her. Especially if she's going to be making decisions that effect each and every American life. 

And let's not forget how quickly Republicans rushed to impeach Bill Clinton on his infidelity and then his perjury, while more recently denouncing Democrats for talking about doing the same to a President and Vice President who have ignored the constitution, broken dozens of laws--many resulting in the loss and endangerment of American lives--been accused of war crimes, have lied to Congress and are guilty of gross--and many would say criminal--neglect while New Orleans drowned. This is the height of hypocrisy. The only difference I see is that Democrats haven't the balls (with the exception of Kucinich) to actually go through with impeachment proceedings.

The Guardian article continues by quoting Carly Fiorina, a former technology company executive and top advisor to the McCain campaign:

"I find all of this conversation about whether or not she is qualified, which I think initially emanated from the Obama campaign, quite stunning," Fiorina said. "People are trying to portray her as a show horse, not a work horse."

Am I really reading this correctly? Should we call the GOP's questioning of Obama's experience racist? And wasn't it McCain who just weeks ago took out ads suggesting that Obama was nothing more than a big celebrity and compared him to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears? Talk about portraying someone as a show horse, not a work horse! Experience or inexperience is something that needs to be questioned. Of ANY candidate. And Palin's limited experience is certainly a real-world concern, as is Obama's. But trying to get people to refrain from asking the questions by yelling "Sexist!" is nothing more than ugly politics and the pinnacle of hypocrisy. 

It's a shame to me that at the Olympic games, we expect the competitors to play fairly and honestly, while during the race for the Presidency of the United States Of America, all bets are off. Integrity, honesty, decency are all thrown aside. And I think both sides are guilty. However I will say that it seems to me that Republicans are a bit more bloodthirsty with a take-no-prisoners attitude and will cross lines many Democrats won't (or simply don't seem to be able to) cross. 

As for the comments being asked about Sarah Palin's experience... Back in 2004, in an interview with the Washington Times (July 15), Mitt Romney said this about Sen. John Edwards, John Kerry's pick as running mate: The North Carolina freshman senator is too inexperienced to be vice president - let alone only an incident away from the presidency.

The Washington Times (July 8, 2004) reported this on President Bush's stand on Edwards: 

President Bush yesterday criticized Sen. John Edwards for blocking his judicial nominations and bluntly dismissed the one-term North Carolina Democrat as too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Asked by a reporter how the 51-year-old senator would "stack up" against Vice President Dick Cheney - a five-term congressman who served under three presidents and was secretary of defense during the 1991 Persian Gulf War - Mr. Bush replied: "Dick Cheney can be president. Next."

That same year, the AP (July 7, 2004) wrote this about the RNC:

The Republican National Committee (RNC) dispensed with niceties and unveiled a lengthy report on Senator Edwards highlighting his lack of political and national security experience.

Contrast that with...

In today's Boston Herald, Mitt Romney was quoted as saying about Sarah Palin:

“She’s a Washington outsider with a commitment to the conservative principles that will make our nation stronger. I look forward to campaigning for Senator McCain, Governor Palin and Republicans all across the country.”

President Bush had this to say about Palin:

"Gov. Palin is a proven reformer who is a wise steward of taxpayer dollars and champion for accountability in government. Gov. Palin's success is due to her dedication to principle and her roll-up-your-sleeves work ethic and serves as a wonderful example of the spirit of America. By selecting a working mother with a track record of getting things done, Sen. McCain has once again demonstrated his commitment to reforming Washington."

RNC Chairman Robert M. “Mike” Duncan is quoted as saying: 

“I applaud John McCain’s selection of Governor Sarah Palin, whose commitment to reform and record of bipartisanship is exactly what our country needs. I am confident that this team will continue to keep America safe and make our nation more prosperous.”

Now, anyone doing their homework would discover that Mr. Edwards had far more experience back in 2004 (six years in the United States Senate) than Mrs. Palin does now. And John Kerry, the presidential nominee, was young and healthy, not the oldest man who would ever be elected President and a three time cancer survivor like McCain. So, when Democrats and the media question Palin's experience and her preparedness to be Vice President and, quite possibly President, is that really sexism? Does anyone believe that the same questions would not be asked of a white man (yes, I'm looking at you GOP)?

Now understand, in the culture we live in, issues of sexism and race are realities. We're not fully grown, as a people or as a nation. The good news is, we're at a place where there are many people in America who recognize sexism and bigotry as dangerous and offensive and aren't afraid to speak out. But using these weaknesses in the American psyche as fighting tools is almost equally as offensive. And certainly just as dangerous.

Pile on top of all this, McCain's announcement yesterday that he's hired South Carolina political consultant Tucker Eskew. According to Pensito Review:

Eskew, along with Warren Tompkins and Neal Rhodes, were key members of then-Gov. George W. Bush’s South Carolina team during the 2000 primaries. McCain and his team long held Bush, Tompkins, Rhodes and Eskew responsible for the various smears against McCain and his family in the Palmetto state during that contentious contest.

Eskew will help Palin prepare for her Wednesday night acceptance speech at the GOP convention and for her stump speech as she hits the road, brief her on policy matters, and help her handle the media scrutiny a lifetime in Alaska does not necessarily prepare one for.

The tactics used against McCain by Bush and his allies in South Carolina left a deep scar on both McCain and his wife Cindy.

When then-Gov. Bush called upon Eskew, Tompkins and Rhodes to help him during the Florida recount, a senior McCain adviser told me that “when the going gets tough for Governor Bush, he turns to the darker side of our party. We saw that in South Carolina, and we see that today.”

And of course, just for fun, I'll point out that McCain has voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time. He is, quite literally, intending to continue the policies of the Bush Administration if elected President. Even if it means turning to the "darker side" of his party.

Like everything I've mentioned above suggests, the GOP vehemently condemn and call "foul" on others for doing exactly the same things they do. And not just on smaller scales as when House Speaker-Elect Bob Livingston, a man at the forefront of the attempted impeachment of Bill Clinton due to issues surrounding marital infidelity, resigned from the House due to the "outing" of his own marital infidelities. Or House Speaker Newt Gingrich's later confession that he was having an extramarital affair while he was leading the charge against Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. No, the hypocrisy reaches even larger, more global scales. Take United States Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Mamozy Khalilzad's comments at a recent news conference:

“We want to make sure our Russian colleagues understand, that the days of overthrowing leaders by military means in Europe — those days are gone.” 

As political comedian John Stewart puts it:

“It’s amazing how adding the phrase ‘in Europe’ makes our actions [in Iraq] more palatable.”

Hypocrisy continues. And at the moment, it seems to be an American way of life. And along with sexism and bigotry, I hope we one day grow out of it and allow ourselves to become a nation that leads by example.

Maybe then we will truly be The Home of the Brave.

i kind of don't blame monica lewinsky for..uhmm..doing what she did to..uhmm..bill clinton. you have to admit, he is kind of sexy. ok fine, he is sexy. he's super smart, tall, charming and well, powerful. well, used to be poweful. but still. i remember this story from my ex boss in new york. when bill was his client and they rode a town car to go crosstown from 1st avenue to west end or something like that and he gave bill a 5-inch stack of stuff to read. by the end of the trip, bill absorbed the material like a sponge! he knew everything from cover to cover. you ask him a question about the stuff in that stack, he would shoot out answers in amazing detail. truly one of the most brilliant political minds of the 20th century.

anyway, ricky(yah, we're sort of die-hard democrats displaced in the third world country) called me up yesterday morning just to tell me to stop whatever i was doing and look for bill clinton's speech in yesterday's DNC. and i found it on youtube -

"Most important, Barack Obama knows that America cannot be strong abroad unless we are strong at home. People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power."

HUBBA BUBBA! man, THAT WAS HOT

douchebagger-y of the past years aside, you have to admit, bill still has IT. he is emphatic and charming and powerful. there's nothing sexier than a man who is passionate and holds onto his convictions.

p.s.
hats off to my girl, hillary clinton. her speech the other night was another milestone for the denver dnc :) what an >amazing speech! i hate to admit this but like chelsea, my hero is my mother(just don't tell that to my mom *wink*).

From the article:

In a scene right out of the great rock star movie, “Spinal Tap,” Clinton found himself in a jam. He’d returned to his luxury box, which was conveniently located next to the FOX broadcast booth. He sat through Joe Biden's speech with Hillary and Chelsea. But when Biden was done, and Obama made his appearance, Clinton left his suite.

***

I composed the bulk of this as a comment to my previous [Tribe blog entry], but it's a good recap that I want to have easy access to. None of these complaints has yet been convincingly argued against with valid logic. 

1. 0bama has never even lived in an executive mansion, let alone been the elected executive leader of a large, diverse body of people. He has a very sparse track record. Not only has he never been at any center of power, but he has never been near one. 

2. 0bama has waffled on the issue of gay rights, apparently playing both ends against the middle by saying he supports gay rights but not distancing himself from the anti-gay messages of gospel artists with whom he tours. I charge that he is an appeaser and will continue to be an appeaser and will not back me if I and my kind are ever backed up against a wall. I think he is willing to exploit the game of "my oppression is more important than your oppression" if it will help his numbers. Show me his convictions otherwise, if you can! 

3. 0bama's campaign has willfully distorted the meaning of his opponent's reasonable words in order to exploit public sentimentality about Martin Luther King, Jr. He is not a fair enough fighter for me to feel good about him as my president. 

4. There is no reason why 0bama can't wait until a future date, when he has had a chance to have a track record, to run for this office. If he serves at this young age, he will not be available to serve when he has had the benefit of experience--or the benefit of serving at a time that is not in the wake of the most disastrous administration in US history. With a change in party and a country split 50-50 down the middle in terms of the two dominant parties, everybody will be out for blood. He doesn't just have to be good—he has to be superior. He is a journeyman, undeniably, but the President should be a master. 

5. The Harvard Law Review, which is his most weighty credential to date, is not a big enough pool in which to have been the Big Fish. 

6. Hillary Clinton is a Lethal Weapon, in the sense in which it was used in the movie: what is there that the Pubs can hold over her? "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." 0bama has far more to lose than Hillary does. 

7. The Dems do in fact owe this to Hillary. The Dems left the Clintons hang out to dry because they were cowed by Newt Gingrich and Jesse Helms. She could not be credibly reproached in the Whitewater affair, and she survived Monicagate with her dignity intact, no thanks to her party. It's her turn, and there's no reason she shouldn't have it. 0bama is not more qualified for it, and any business executive would have to give preference to her resume over his. The public is vulnerable to pandering by a well-spoken, suave man and can be distracted from focusing on the resume, but those who know what a president's job description includes cannot deny that Clinton has a better resume for it. Everything else is style, and she deserves to be judged on something other than style for the depth of her loyalty and experience to the party. 

8. 50 million Elvis fans can be wrong. Popularity does not the best presidential material make. 

9. Hillary's spouse may be a cad (maybe even an unoriginal bore, as David Brinkley indiscreetly said on camera), but he, too, is an experienced resident of executive mansions with considerable political clout on the world stage, notwithstanding his domestic enemies. 0bama's spouse is an idiot. [My defense of that charge remains a friends-only entry in my Tribe blog.] Hillary has a better closest-advisor-and-confidant. 

In other words, one cannot compare 0bama's spouse's support of him to Hillary's spouse's support of her, because 0bama's spouse will never be an emeritus US president while her spouse is in office, and Hillary's spouse will always be. Bill Clinton holds a rare position of expertise in the world, being one of, at most, four living former US presidents. His opinions cannot be written off simply as just so much biased loyalty of an enthusiastic spouse. Bill Clinton is almost uniquely qualified to criticize 0bama's visions as "a fairy tale," and his judgments cannot be discounted out of hand just because you're offended by his language. 

10. "Change" is too vague a rallying cry. All the candidates advocate change. 

11. 0bama's following bears so much resemblance to a cult that they are not, by virtue of sheer numbers, to be trusted without deeper inquiry into their motivations for following him so devotedly based on little more than sophistry and eloquence. They walk like a duck, swim like a duck, and quack like a duck. I want to see for myself that they are not a duck before I can be persuaded to throw in my lot with them. 

If you can't answer all of these items, whatever you say in favor of 0bama will be irrelevant to me. I want documentation, not impassioned testimony.

Something that is significant to me that I think Hillary gets short shrift for is her personal integrity and the character that was formed in her in the fires of Interngate and the impeachment process. 

I've seen it reported by people who have no political axes to grind that Hillary really didn't know that Bill had been carrying on with Monica, and that when he swore to her that he hadn't "had sex" with Monica, that Hillary believed him. When it became unquestionable that he had lied, she was, I am willing to believe, blindsided by the revelation. 

In those last couple horrible years of the Clinton presidency, I was among those who kept repeating, "It was grounds for divorce, not for impeachment—and if Hillary's not dragging him into court, neither should you be, you vengeful bastards." 

The thing is, it was grounds for divorce. And Hillary grew from it. She survived, she kept her dignity, she learned... by many accounts, she forgave. (I expected her to dump him once they were out of the White House, but she really seems to like him, or to find something about him redeeming enough to put up with him.) 

I think Hillary was a lot better role model, in some ways, than Jackie O—JFK's philandering wasn't nearly as scandalous during his presidency as Bill's was during his. It didn't really become common knowledge until Jackie was married to Aristotle Onassis and it was all behind her. 

Jackie maintained her dignity and her glamour. Her class privilege as well as her Kennedy cachet protected her in ways unavailable to Hillary: Hill's humiliation was much more immediate and much more public. She dealt with the whole thing on a world stage. 

My sister was humiliated by the breakdown of her marriage, and her [reconciled as of this reprinting] ex wasn't even, as far as anyone can document, philandering; he was just a consummate jerk. I'm impressed enough with her private handling of her private crisis; Hillary didn't have the luxury of any privacy at all. 

Women don't get credit for their strength, and Hillary is certainly not getting credit for hers. 

Ironically, Evangelicals are very fond of preaching about how the "Refiner's fire" builds character... and yet they give Hillary no credit for the character that her public, unrelenting, devastating trials wrought in her. 

And Liberals aren't giving her enough credit, when she speaks of her "experience," for the personal experiences through which she has triumphed. 

Evangelicals are also fond of quoting the Gospels in which Jesus said, "The one who is faithful in a little thing is faithful also in much," but they give her no credit for having handled her public crisis with the grace with which she did it. 

I submit that after going through the private and public and emotional and physical and administrative nightmare she went through during the years of the Monica scandal and the brutal impeachment process, she may just consider anything that Iraq or Iran or the Republicans can throw at her to be a walk in the park. 

I dunno—whaddo I know? I'm just sayin'.

Sure, I have my doubts when I look at her personal life.  While I have to admit that I totally admire Bill Clinton (I think to the point of having a crush on him), let's just get it out of the way that he is a cheating womanizer.  I would like to say I would respect Hillary more if she dumped the guy, maybe hired a hot younger campaign assistant who became her boyfriend (sort of like Demi and Ashton), or if she aged gracefully without a partner by her side - but who am I to comment?  I, and many women, have stayed with cheating men, and it is not a clear-cut issue.  I don't advocate adultery, but I also don't advocate sticking your nose into people's personal lives.  When she did feel compelled to explain, Hillary stated that she stayed married because of love: "No one understands me better and no one can make me laugh the way Bill does...even after all these years, he is still the most interesting, energizing and fully alive person I have ever met."  Cliche or not, I don't care who it is - Clinton, Spitzer, Edwards - the women who have married these men can make their own decisions regardless of society's opinions of the wrongdoers.

Not only that, but people have been critical of Hillary and Bill's marriage for long before any cheating came to light.  Opponents claim she is a power-hungry bitch just using marriage to gain a political stronghold.  I am personally impressed by the relationship between these two professional people, especially looking at how their daughter Chelsea turned out (here's Jenna and others of the Bush clan for comparison).  Never mind that they have dated since college, when Bill gave up his plans to join Hillary when she was interning in California, and Hillary stayed at Yale an extra year so she could graduate with Bill.  She did decline his early proposals - explaining that she "harbored doubts about marriage, concerned that her separate identity would be lost and that her accomplishments would be viewed in the light of someone else's - and that seems like a responsible move that many young women could learn from.  I mean let's face it, after the marriage, Hillary ended up supporting her husband through her high-paying job as a lawyer, a job she eventually gave up to work on his political campaigns.  After years of keeping her own last name, which reportedly made her mother cry, she started using the name Clinton in order to appease Arkansas voters (for more about last names in marriage, read this post).

No matter what insults you do have for her, there is no doubt that she is intelligent.  A graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law School, she has twice been named one of the top 100 lawyers in America.  Her work as First Lady was a lot more work than she got credit for; it wasn't all about drinking tea and planning parties.  If anything, I agree with Elizabeth Wurtzel's commentary in her book "Bitch" that the biggest flaw in Hillary's career is that she did all this damn work without demanding a cent.  She worked for her husband's cause - for instance, she developed the idea for a universal health plan that has been both applauded and bashed - and she did it all for free.  Simply because she was the First Lady...his wife.  Even Bill Clinton referred to presidential ticket as a "two for the price of one" deal because of the woman he would be toting with him to the White House.

Because she does have experience.  I think that is what people fear in a woman like Hillary Clinton.  She has been involved in politics since the age of thirteen, when she studied electoral fraud against Richard Nixon in the 1960 presidential election.  When I was thirteen, I was sitting in front of the mirror picking food out of my braces.  She continued to be active in politics, but was also the first First Lady to hold a post-graduate degree and to have her own professional career up to the time of her husband's election.  It was quite obvious that she was involved in public policy, a fact that many people deemed "inappropriate."  She is labeled a ballbuster, a feminazi, and a bitch - but one of my close friends likes to point out that in reality she seems like a "dude in a skirt."  Sure, she criticizes women like Tammy Wynette for staying home and baking cookies.  Because baking cookies isn't going to get you respect.  But guess what?  Apparently neither is having intelligence, independence, or strong opinions.  I don't think Hillary Clinton could be a good president, not because of her ideas, but because she just has too much going against her.  The most popularly sold books about the woman have titles like, "Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House", "Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House", and "Can She Be Stopped? : Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless...".  When she ran for Senate in 2000, organizations with names like "Save Our Senate" and the "Emergency Committee to Stop Hillary Rodham Clinton" were established - does anyone else think these titles and names are akin to something 14-year-old boys would come up with because they are afraid of the girls getting into the clubhouse?  And she got reelected in spite of all this...but then again, so did George Bush (both of them!).

In spite of all her "ball-busting" opinions, Hillary is just a dude with a skirt.  She is trying to conform to the role of a politician so that she can play with the big boys.  I wish it could go another way, but can you picture someone overflowing with Jennifer Lopez-esque femininity running the White House?  Still, as much as she tries, Hillary can't escape her womanhood.  She has been the subject of many misogynistic comments, and the Internet is rampant with sites that sexually degrade her (just try looking up some groups on Facebook).  It's sad, but the way our country is today, I can't see a woman or a black man being elected to office, no matter their qualifications.  As much as I support Joe Biden, sometimes I feel his best asset in this race is his status as a white male.

Studies show that most people have a very strong opinion of Hillary; relatively few are neutral.  So what's the consensus - love or hate?

The Photo Credits

So Mister Obama (yeah, MISTER Obama! He gets DIPLO-approval from Mister Zach Ward at least) has chosen Senator Joe Biden from Delaware as his VP Running-mate. Some of us found out via email. Some of us found out via text message. Others of us signed up for the Democratic Party cerebral implants.

Biden gon' make me lose my mind 
up in HERE up in here 
Biden gon' make me go all out 
up in here up in here 
Biden gon' make me act a FOOL 
up in HERE up in here 
Biden gon' make me lose my cool 
up in here up in here

I'm RUHL excited for the next few months, and I hope the Democratic National Convention can deliver some Party Unity (up in here).

Both Bill and Hilary Clinton are scheduled to speak at the event in Denver, a move to spread the message of unity against the Republican party and George W PART 2. Rumor has it that Former President Bill Clinton plans to go on record at the Convention, in a much overdue response to the Monica Lewinsky scandal of 1995 (and I quote BOTH the former President and DMX), as saying "everytime you come around, it's like (what) I just gotta get my ____ sucked."

It's unlikely that a 13 year old response by the former President will properly address the message of Party Unity, but in an effort to include the press on his position he encouraged ALL female reporters to quote, "meet him outside meet him outside, meet him outside" and that it would certainly be a Party.

I want to know Your opinion about OBAMA / BIDEN 2008.

You know... WHERE my dogs at?

- Mister Zach Ward

Schadenfreude is your new best friend

You may think you'll take advantage of your "down time" during treatment to catch up on classics you've always wanted to read. 

Au contraire! The brain-fog of chemo will prevent you from understanding anything more complicated than a menu. 

My guilty pleasure of reality TV was just the ticket. For the record, only the first seasons of reality shows are worth watching. That's where the train wrecks are.

If a show becomes a hit, sponsors start meddling with the casting and scripting to make the show palatable to mainstream audiences. 

Gone are the religious nuts! Gone are the stalkers! Madison Avenue and Wall Street sure know how to destroy a perfectly good show.

Fortunately 2003 was a bumper-crop year for bizarre, short-lived reality shows. I was one of the lucky few who caught Mr. Personality, hosted by Monica Lewinsky.

The premise of Mr. Personality was that a woman would date men whose faces were covered in masks. She had to make choices based on charm rather than looks. The men were allowed to remove their masks only for the night-vision make-out sessions. The show ran just four episodes, but who can forget those four! 

 America's Next Top Model premiered in 2003. I saw the first season because I was tipped off by a fellow cancer survivor. Low production values and a sharp, sadistic edge made this series a classic. I remember one scene where the losers of a competition had to clean toilets and mop floors while the winners received massages in the same room. (As usual for the hits, this show was glamorized and ruined in subsequent seasons.)

In the NBC show Average Joe: Hawaii a beautiful woman had to choose between hunks and "average joes." One critic pointed out that these guys were nowhere near average. They were more like not-even-in-the-same-ballpark joes.

David Daskal from season two, can be seen on this short video clip. Viewers would not soon forget Mr. Daskal on headphones rocking out. Boy howdy, that was some good television!

Temptation Island, a Fox show in which couples in long-term relationships were separated to date others and test their commitment, went about as deep into the gutter as reality TV has ever ventured. Lucky for you, the entire first season has been archived here -- all seven episodes, free! Episode four gives you a good handle on this parade of tawdriness.

And then there was the granddaddy of all train wrecks, Married By America. Not only was this series limited to one year, it was limited to one season. As in spring -- that kind of season. Married by America premiered March 2003 and ended forever April 2003.

Contestants who'd never met or laid eyes on each other were introduced separately on the air. Viewers called in and voted on who should marry whom. The couples would then go off to camera-laden hotels and mansions to get to know one another.

A twist: Counselors, not contestants, voted people off in this series. The final two couples walked to the alter and there discovered, on television, whether or not their betrothed wanted to get married.

During one episode of Married by America I was laughed so hard I could not speak. Once I regained my composure, I said, "I don't know how I could stand having cancer if it weren't for shows like this."

From Virginia Heffernan's critique in Slate:

Tony, whom Billie Jeanne decided she loved at a glance, lacked the worldliness necessary to appreciate her tragic Marilyn-like willingness to give him everything. Indeed, such self-abnegation is not for all tastes. Tony wanted something normal.

"I don't," said Tony.

"I have to go," [Billie Jeanne] whispered at the altar, retreating back down the aisle that she had just triumphantly walked...Tony showed pangs of remorse while his tight-lipped father shook his hand in congratulations...The lawn was still decorated by Fox for a bland universal American wedding. The pastor had slunk away.

Inside the Fox mansion, Billie Jeanne sobbed harder and harder, turning away comforters. The breakable girl, her hair loose, seemed now to be wearing no makeup, and she looked like a very little girl. "I'm a joke," she said, on reality television.

It wasn't the Met, but it was a sad and lovely piece of theater.

Of course, I'm not the first person to discover TV snark. Television Without Pity has been doing it masterfully for years. And breast cancer patient Miriam Engelberg explored the topic in her 2006 cartoon book Cancer Made Me a Shallower Person.

The big picture

During my loooooooong period of post-cancer adjustment, I found myself learning about people who'd had it worse than me.

One day I saw a banner ad marking the 60th anniversary of the death of Sophie Scholl. I looked her up.

In 1943 Scholl distributed pamphlets urging Munich college students to resist the Nazis. She was arrested, and five days later executed. She was 21 years old. Even if I died tomorrow, I would have outlived her.

[caption id="attachment_2516" align="aligncenter" width="412" caption="Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005)"][/caption]

Unlike Sophie Scholl, at least I was surrounded by people who wanted me to live.

In the early 1970s I studied photojournalism. Walker Evans, who photographed Depression-era poverty in a landmark book titled Let Us Now Praise Famous Men, came to speak to our class.

One student asked, "How could you take people's pictures and then just leave them there to suffer?"

Mr. Evans replied, "But isn't that life? In some cases you get to leave and they have to stay, but next time it might be you that has to stay, and others who get to leave."

I remembered the words of Mr. Evans when I sat trapped in the chemo chair.

No exit

Some patients consciously or subconsciously seek a way out of the nightmare. But with cancer, the only real exit is suicide, a common fantasy for cancer patients. The appeal is control over a frightening and largely uncontrollable disease.

At first I did see my life as a nightmare, but later I tried to think of cancer as a trip to a foreign country. Once I'm there, I'm stuck, even if I'm sick or uncomfortable. On this trip I would meet new people and see new things. And I would come home a different person.

I found myself remembering a friend's description of a night of camping, with ants, heavy rain and other small catastrophes. I asked, "What did you do?" My friend shrugged and said, "I tied up a hammock as best I could and figured I was in for a miserable night."

I'm in for a miserable night. It has a nice ring to it.

Say it loud: Cancer sucks

You don't have to turn cancer into a good experience. You don't have to become a better person after cancer.

They say what doesn't kill you makes you strong. What if the opposite is true? What if crippling experiences make you weaker? At least in the short run. Anyone who knows me could testify I was physically and mentally exhausted a long time after treatment ended.

Sometimes the good that comes from a bad experience does not reveal itself for years. Sometimes no good at all ever comes.

[caption id="attachment_202" align="alignright" width="300" caption="The Sweet Hereafter (1998)"][/caption]

In the first year after my diagnosis, I watched the film The Sweet Hereafter, based on a novel by Russell Banks and directed by Atom Egoyan.

The story involves a school bus accident in which almost all the town's children are killed.

The bus driver survives. So does a 15-year-old girl, but she's now paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair.

By the end of the movie the girl engineers a private victory, and she achieves a kind of peace. It's she who reveals the meaning of the title when she says: 

I wonder if you understand that all of us -- Dolores, me, the children who survived, the children who didn't -- that we're all citizens of a different town now. A place with its own special rules and its own special laws. A town of people living in the sweet hereafter. 

Maybe some things in life are so devastating that it's foolish to expect healing. Maybe you have to accept that the worst has happened and you'll never be whole again, that you're a citizen of a different town now.

But even in a wheelchair you can watch a sunset. You can enjoy the sound of children playing.

No matter what my cancer did, I knew I'd still have my friends. I'd still have books and music. I'd have the night sky and the sun. I'd have my thoughts. 

It became a kind of prayer during treatment, and every day after: I'll still have these, until the end.

We had a ditzy 3rd-year English literature student from Sacramento doing our tour, and though I initially felt inclined to pose a few questions (if only to show off my very English accent, which seems to automatically give man-points to anyone who has it round here), her superficial and fake Valley Girl tone and frankly untrustworthy expression, reminiscent more of Paris Hilton than of a true academic, put me off. Instead, I let the whole 'x was founded then' and 'y was introduced by him' wash over me, and went off under my own steam when the tour was over, maps in hand. I wound my way between the neo-Gothic buildings for several hours, poking my head into every information office and faculty I could find, and ended up having a lengthy series of conversations (resulting in a rucksack full of calling-cards and sundry materials) with what seemed like every relevant administrator on campus, and even managed to get a day pass to the Firestone Library (apparently rare as gold-dust among visitors to the university) courtesy of an accidentally-on-purpose display of my Oxford bod-card. I made a couple of hours' use of this manna-from-heaven-like gift once I'd satisfied myself that I'd seen all the interesting places (i.e. not the sports and science complexes at the southern end of the university's grounds), and pored over some appraisals of communism and fascism from the 1930s and 40s (worth a giggle at the very least), as well as the resident hand-signed copies of the Presidential papers of Kennedy, Nixon, Bush Jr , Ford and Clinton - i.e. 'Ich bin ein Berliner', Watergate, Cuba, Monica Lewinsky and 9/11. At about 16:30, tiredness really began to set in, and I decided to finish off my trip with a quick peek into the Princeton University shop. I located the vital lapel-pin, and ummed and aahed over a fantastically orange t-shirt, eventually persuading myself to get it on the strict promise (to myself) that I won't buy any more luxury goods until I'm back in Oxford. I can see that promise being severely strained and probably broken over the next couple of weeks...

Armed with a Subway's footlong (which has left my rucksack smelling lightly of Italian BMT), I headed circuitously back to Princeton Station, and thence to Princeton Junction and back to Penn Station by 18:30. I got hugely annoyed with how slowly and inconsiderately everyone was walking on 7th Avenue and Broadway, and again in my room when I found that the housekeeping staff here had done what the ones in Toronto did every day for a week and a half, namely to leave me a whole new batch of towels without removing the old ones. In Toronto, I ended up with so many I could probably have started a successful bazaar, but at least I had somewhere to put them (my second table) - here, I don't even have one table, and the room's about a fifth of the size of my Toronto one, so the towels are currently balancing precariously on a grille in the wall, which is simply a guarantee that I will explode again when they all fall down... Anyway, now I have a lot of TV to catch up on from yesterday and today, and will watch Olympics coverage till I'm orange in the face.

The Democrats have suddenly developed a keen sense of morality. John Edwards has been banned from making a speech at the Democratic convention for having an affair and lying about it.

In his place Bill Clinton will be speaking.

[caption id="attachment_472" align="alignleft" width="250" caption="                      A Great Big Mess......                    (National Enquirer Pic)...."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_478" align="alignnone" width="113" caption="... and a Famous Blue Dress"][/caption]