If celebrities die in threes, then I guess the famous are out of the woods for a bit. Any interesting news out there that is now going to be ignored by days of wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
well considering the Sanford story had basically run it’s course, not that I can think of.
I dont think the US media coverage of Iran makes a damn bit of difference.
In fact, this might be good. Take a bit of the heat off of the health care debate.
BTW: I think Sanford was kind of the victim of a slow news cycle. I know its a big deal when the gov cheats and all, but its not really surprising.
Not that I really feel bad for him. He’s a fucking nutjob — refusing money for the schools. What a joke.
My girlfriend is from SC and apparently he spent a LOT of time out on the beach windsurfing and very little time in the governors mansion getting work done.
Agreed. As I’ve stated elsewhere, the adultery part is really not an issue outside of his family, and the leaving the state unattended part is at best overstated. Mostly, it’s just spectacle for the news media and an opening for his rivals, both Democrat and Republican. As you note, the fact that he was a shitty governor before he was outed as an adulterer is the only real news here.
As for celebrity deaths, that’s just more spectacle. It’s a shame people have to die, and I’m sorry for the grief their loved ones must be feeling, but it’s not of any consequence to the public at large, just the paparazzi. (And maybe not even then, if Michael Jackson has as extended of a tabloid afterlife as Elvis and Princess Diana.)
If the U.S. was established with the intention of developing and following a secular rule of law as the core of the nation, how come lawyers aren’t available to all free of any charge? How can there be private legal practices? Aren’t lawyers necessary to enable all people to be able to participate in the process of “rule of law,” being perhaps more important to the security of the nation than militias. We don’t allow private militias (or we didn’t used to)… so why private lawyers?
Why does the citizenry have to pay to participate in the legal process integral to the foundation and continued existence of the nation?
Actually, we do allow private militias. Aside from the armed conspiracy theorists out in flyover country, there are large private armies like Blackwater or whatever it’s called now.
The reason we allow private lawyers is because hardly anyone would or could trust the system if you had to get your legal defense from the same entity that was prosecuting you. And if you are accused of a crime, the state is in fact constitutionally required to provide you with a public defender if you ask for one, though you would be well advised not to use a public defender if you can afford a private one.
Is the system biased towards those with a lot of money to spend? Hell yes. We could probably do something to change that if we were able to get legislatures that weren’t biased the same way. Personally, I think a lot of good could be done by requiring statutory law to be explicitly updated by case law — subject to legislative review — so that the sheer body of knowledge required to understand the law was reduced, at least in some areas, to a level that an ordinary citizen could understand reasonably well, even if retaining an attorney was still a good idea.
Actually, we do allow private militias.
Blackwater came to mind as well as private security firms as I was writing. Then there are the subcontracted prison systems. Government functions being privatized with less oversight and regulation is quite worrisome.
I agree with your points about the system and changes to it. My thoughts were rambling along the lines that if we are to be a secular society with laws and the legal system being the essence for a functioning society then the ability to participate in the legal process should be easy and free (as in tax supported).
I’m doing my first art show on Saturday, news that will no doubt be lost in the Farrah/Michael/Ed onslaught.
B2 – what wonderful news!
Thanks! It’s a small local thing.
As you noted, it’s your first — enjoy the day.
you may have to sever an appendage, ala van gogh, to get noticed.
just don’t go bobbit on us, eh……:{)
Very cool!
Yay Boran2
The art show shall be twittered, televised & blogged about.
And to reflect a little on dada`s comment about Bobbit; when Dahmer was asked what he ate for breakfast, he replied, “nuts & honey”.
So don`t go out to brunch before the show.
Excellent! Can’t wait to hear about the experience.
You know, if Sanford had stayed in Argentina one more day, he might have gotten back home without anybody noticing.
Timing is everything.
Ha!
I still remember when Samuel Beckett and baseball manager Billy Martin, who was famous for a) being ready to pick a fight with anybody anytime, including his own players, b) pushing teams to play way better than anyone thought they could in a short time span, c) seeing those same teams flop out the next year (largely due to overuse of pitchers), and d) getting fired, only to be hired by another team and start the whole cycle over again … died on the same day.
The lead headline on my paper that day proclaimed that the great Billy Martin had died.
Down in the corner: Oh, yeah, so did some Irish guy who won some prizes.
Timing is, indeed, everything.
“That day” s/b “the next day”, obviously.
I wish people would give Farah Fawcett more honor, myself. As nice as I’m sure he was, I never liked M J’s music and he was a little far out there. Farah was genuinely and obviously a good person who I admired.
Fame factor, I guess. MJ has 5 stars to her 4
Dave, thanks for your response yesterday. I really do appreciate your taking the time and effort. And now, of course, I am going to argue with it. :o}
The items you listed do not involve “western ways” as I understand the meaning of that phrase, they involve criticism (okay, “slamming” works too) of politics, and one individual political figure.
I gladly acknowledge that I am extremely critical of the international policies and actions of the U.S. and some other western countries. With good historical justification I absolutely do not trust their motives, and you say you do not either. To me that is not “slamming western ways” at all, I think it is slamming international policies and behaviour. And I don’t think calling an individual politician a moron constitutes anything but a slam at that particular politician.
You have accused me very clearly, and more than once, of applying a double standard, which I DO consider a serious allegation. When have I ever had anything nice to say about any Middle Eastern or Muslim government, dictator, or politician (OK, I HAVE said that Bashshar Al Asad is an improvement over his father, but that is hardly a ringing endorsement)?
You wrote regarding the France banning of the burqa:
“Their government thinks it’s disruptive and divisive to their society but apparently have no right to have an opinion.“
This is not an accurate or fair description of my position. I was not even discussing their opinion. Everyone has a right to have an opinion, no matter how wrong-headed it might be. What they do not have a right to do is deny to anyone the fundamental human right of freedom of religious practice.
As for the notion that the burqa is divisive, let them deal with their own racism and bigotry first. There is widespread and often vicious racism on the part of a large portion of the French population toward any citizen or resident of Arab or Muslim background, including the most secular and assimilated among them. This racism is so bad that a number of secular, highly educated professionals and intellectuals are choosing to emigrate as a few of my friends have done. Denying Muslim women the right to dress as they choose will not alter that one bit.
“…your insistence that Muslims, because they are Muslims, should be absolutely free to do anything as long as it can be passed off as religious“
Dave, when, in order to make their argument, a person attributes to me something outlandish or outrageous that I have never and would never in any way believe or suggest it brings any kind of meaningful communication to a screeching halt. It is terribly disrespectful, and creates no light and a very great deal of heat. I find value in our arguments and conversations, and will do my best to respond to your comments as best I can understand and interpret them. Please give me the same consideration.
“except that wearing a burqa has nothing to do with religion.“
What is your factual/evidentiary basis for this assertion?
“The argument is not about styles of dress, it’s about symbols, as you know.“
You don’t tell me what I know, I tell YOU what I know. :o} And no, I don’t know that at all. It is in fact about neither. It is about denial of the fundamental, universally recognized human right of freedom of religious practice – a right formally recognized by France.
“You were not defending a style, you were denying that France had any right to ever regulate behavior of any resident except those of their own majority culture.“
Style?! My dear, I know style, and I would never defend the burqa as style. :o}
I wasn’t defending anything except universally recognized human rights, something no state has a right to deny to any individual or any group. Let me put it another way. Just as I do not accept the right of any state to force women against their will to wear clothing that conceals the body, or covers the face, or even the hair, I do not accept the right of any state to deny women the right to cover themselves to whatever extent and in whatever manner they freely choose for any reason. If you have a problem with that, then bring it on. :o}
I was also trying to bring a bit of reality to a discussion that was based mainly on extreme-case-based prejudice and stereotypes. Interesting how unwilling some people were to even consider what I was telling them. Indeed, some even seemed desperate to cling to their negative preconceptions.
“And yet you don’t apply that standard to the countries of the ME, where simply writing a book is sufficient to bring a murder contract from the highest authority in the land.“
What is your basis for this accusation?
Dave this:
“you were denying that France had any right to ever regulate behavior of any resident except those of their own majority culture.“
is another example of your falsely attributing to me an extreme and outrageous view that I would never for a moment entertain, let alone express. Please don’t do it.
I agree strongly with your comment in yesterday’s open thread, including your differentiating women who freely choose to cover and those who are doing so under coercion.
I am on the Board of Directors of an Arab-American non-profit that provides a variety of social services. Among our services are cultural training and advice for government employees who work with our community as well as interpretation services. Another is domestic-violence-related services, including educational programs, and assistance to victims of domestic violence, helping them move through the system, accompanying them if needed, and so on. I am not aware of any cases involving women forced to cover – it is extremely rare here to see a woman covering her face – but I can see us taking such a case if it came along.