Friday, March 21, 2008
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Do you know who I am? No? Good--send over a hooker.
The Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, has been caught with his pants down, and pointy-headed Democrats have declared the whole thing boring beyond belief, asking why anyone should care about or even notice such a mundane turn of events.
We hear a clip of James Carville mocking shock, affecting his best blasé tone, feigning wonder at how, in this day and age, we neandertals who lack his penetrating sophistication could possibly hold adultery against anyone. What are we, Puritans? A guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.
Similarly, Alan Dershowitz pooh-poohs the hoopla. The Europeans wouldn't even run a story on it, he says. They're laughing at us! What's the big deal about a man having sex with someone who isn't his wife?
The answer is that he is not just a man, and it's not just adultery. He's a public official, the Governor of New York, and his antics are a crime--one he has sent others to prison for. He could have been anything he wanted to be, and if he had chosen to be a pig farmer, or the owner of a chain of laundromats, or an editor at a newspaper, his crime might have been met with the shrugs of indifference Carville and his ilk suggest we adopt.
But when you become a governor, there's a certain understanding. No longer can you wag your baboon ass in public, drink yourself silly with your old high school buddies down at the Bowl-o-Rama--or pick up floozies on the streetcorner. There's a decorum to be followed, particularly when it comes to illegal activities, and if you don't want to follow it, stay out of politics. It's one thing to have an affair. It's quite another to pay for sex with a top dollar whore, which is still illegal in his jurisdiction. The role of a leader is leastways to remain law-abiding.
Had the secret held awhile, he could have been blackmailed. Not necessarily slinking around leaving bags of gold coins under sewer grates, but possibly finding himself beholden to unprincipled lawmakers, forced to pursue ventures contrary to the public interest. What top executive has the right to put himself in that position without expecting censure from the community when they learn the truth?
There's nothing surprising about Democrats taking the side of criminals, especially when those criminals are Democrats. It's amusing to imagine how they would have reacted if the governor had been a Republican. Dershowitz probably wouldn't have been heard from; Carville would have squealed like a hog about Republican hypocrisy; CNN, whose initial story didn't identify the governor's political affiliation until the 32nd paragraph, would have made sure that detail made the first six paragraphs and the headline.
Our society retains some covenance, so it looks like Spitzer will have step down. If it was 'just a mistake', it's one a politician at that level shouldn't be making.
We hear a clip of James Carville mocking shock, affecting his best blasé tone, feigning wonder at how, in this day and age, we neandertals who lack his penetrating sophistication could possibly hold adultery against anyone. What are we, Puritans? A guy's gotta do what a guy's gotta do.
Similarly, Alan Dershowitz pooh-poohs the hoopla. The Europeans wouldn't even run a story on it, he says. They're laughing at us! What's the big deal about a man having sex with someone who isn't his wife?
The answer is that he is not just a man, and it's not just adultery. He's a public official, the Governor of New York, and his antics are a crime--one he has sent others to prison for. He could have been anything he wanted to be, and if he had chosen to be a pig farmer, or the owner of a chain of laundromats, or an editor at a newspaper, his crime might have been met with the shrugs of indifference Carville and his ilk suggest we adopt.
But when you become a governor, there's a certain understanding. No longer can you wag your baboon ass in public, drink yourself silly with your old high school buddies down at the Bowl-o-Rama--or pick up floozies on the streetcorner. There's a decorum to be followed, particularly when it comes to illegal activities, and if you don't want to follow it, stay out of politics. It's one thing to have an affair. It's quite another to pay for sex with a top dollar whore, which is still illegal in his jurisdiction. The role of a leader is leastways to remain law-abiding.
Had the secret held awhile, he could have been blackmailed. Not necessarily slinking around leaving bags of gold coins under sewer grates, but possibly finding himself beholden to unprincipled lawmakers, forced to pursue ventures contrary to the public interest. What top executive has the right to put himself in that position without expecting censure from the community when they learn the truth?
There's nothing surprising about Democrats taking the side of criminals, especially when those criminals are Democrats. It's amusing to imagine how they would have reacted if the governor had been a Republican. Dershowitz probably wouldn't have been heard from; Carville would have squealed like a hog about Republican hypocrisy; CNN, whose initial story didn't identify the governor's political affiliation until the 32nd paragraph, would have made sure that detail made the first six paragraphs and the headline.
Our society retains some covenance, so it looks like Spitzer will have step down. If it was 'just a mistake', it's one a politician at that level shouldn't be making.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Just a couple of price markers
-Today, I paid $3.97 for Premium. Diesel was $4.09/ gallon.
-In late December of 2001, I paid 96 cents per gallon.
-In the Summer of 2005, oil hit a "record high of $50" per barrel. Today it is more than double at $104.
-The last refinery built in California?...1977.
-In late December of 2001, I paid 96 cents per gallon.
-In the Summer of 2005, oil hit a "record high of $50" per barrel. Today it is more than double at $104.
-The last refinery built in California?...1977.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Wendy's in West Palm Beach
Well, here we are again. Another shooting, seemingly random, in another random town in America. The press tells us a 'gunman' shot several people at a Wendy's, then turned the gun on himself. They use that term, gunman, to make sure we know a gun was used. When a murderer uses other means, they don't bother to integrate the method into the ID of the culprit. So we never hear about a 'macheteman', or a 'handman', say, if someone gets strangled. 'Killer' or 'murderer' is never used; that would be judgmental. No, they will judge only what has been done to him, not what he has done to others.
Many days will be spent wringing hands and talking to former acquaintances, while reporters try to get a feel of what he wanted, what his hopes and dreams were, and how society let him down. Did he have words with his mom? Did his wife leave him? Was he disenfranchised? What could have been done to save this poor man, they will ask.
They will show us his picture, one from better days. They will give us his full name, and repeat it often. They will present him as a victim of the availability of firearms.
Then, as the news cycle runs down and other events take the spotlight, they will forget him altogether.
As for the victims--you can be forgiven for forgetting there were others besides him, the ones he assaulted and murdered--they too will fade in our memories, becoming just a number next to his name in a footnote, referenced for statistical purposes only. The date, the killer's name, number of casualties, next entry.
The common thread in these public slayings is that the murderer almost invariably kills himself after slaughtering others. If these twisted souls would only reverse the order of events and kill themselves first, I think we can all agree they'd leave the world a better place.
Many days will be spent wringing hands and talking to former acquaintances, while reporters try to get a feel of what he wanted, what his hopes and dreams were, and how society let him down. Did he have words with his mom? Did his wife leave him? Was he disenfranchised? What could have been done to save this poor man, they will ask.
They will show us his picture, one from better days. They will give us his full name, and repeat it often. They will present him as a victim of the availability of firearms.
Then, as the news cycle runs down and other events take the spotlight, they will forget him altogether.
As for the victims--you can be forgiven for forgetting there were others besides him, the ones he assaulted and murdered--they too will fade in our memories, becoming just a number next to his name in a footnote, referenced for statistical purposes only. The date, the killer's name, number of casualties, next entry.
The common thread in these public slayings is that the murderer almost invariably kills himself after slaughtering others. If these twisted souls would only reverse the order of events and kill themselves first, I think we can all agree they'd leave the world a better place.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Mission Statement
We at Grain Alcohol and Rainwater would like to offer our customers a new and better type of product. Acerbic political commentary, needling satire and occasional shotgun-blasts of outright contempt for the liberal left are our stock in trade in this world of 'feelings', 'compassion', and the farce of glow-ball warming. Our Carbon Footprint is huge, and we're proud of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
