“fajita said: "i would accept this Mosque if to the right (or left) they build a Church and to the left (or right) a Synagogue"
fajita, there are TWO Christian churches practically on top of Ground Zero (which the mosque certainly is NOT): St. Peter's Catholic Church and St. Paul's Episcopal Chapel. Within a few blocks, we have Trinity Episcopal Church, the Battery Park Synagogue, St. Joseph's (Catholic) Chapel, and John Street Methodist Church. Beyond THAT, we have the Wall Street Synagogue and two more Catholic churches. It's one of the most "churched"-up spaces in Manhattan.”
hp blogger Muhammad Ali Hasan on Aug 20, 2010 at 11:11:10
May 25, 2009 at 15:26:45
“Unfortunately, the drug problem that she happens to have also is eradicating her career ... and, for all we know, her talent (since, sadly, she seems unable to function, and either won't, or can't, express that talent).
It's also a pretty extreme problem that looks (horrifically) almost like public suicide. She clearly must hit her own bottom (and I hope that she survives it).
However - I don't know why in the world her music should exempt her from criticism, or how you can minimize the dire nature of her addiction(s) ... or how you know that others "contribute NOTHING to society."
Seriously: Winehouse is a well-rewarded, for-profit ENTERTAINER, not an altruistic , improve-the-world charity. I like her music -- but I sure wouldn't regard it as some kind of "contribution to society" - though her addiction problems might serve as a public-service warning. (Anyway - after her initial success, her "contribution" has consisted mostly of dissing fans, ticket-sellers, concert organizers, and other folks who've counted on her, and making life difficult for anyone in her path.) Just possibly, the "anonymouses" are doing a whole lot for "society" -- more than putting out a coupla CDs, and despite lack of Winehouse-level reward.”
May 25, 2009 at 12:56:35
“Oh, PLEASE. She is (or was) an entertainer, succeeded in a hugely public business, and was a trainwreck BEFORE any negative vibes began. And even when she was knee-deep in problems, she had people rooting for her and was being given big offers and chances - the "Bond" theme, offers of collaboration from other music celebs, a recording offer from Quincy Jones, and bookings for Coachella, St. Lucia, and the UK.
She blew it all and put her personal problems in the spotlight far more than necessary -- via ill-considered mouthing-off, acting-out, and lousy impulse control. Her own family wouldn't put a lid on their "private" thoughts about her ... and they've assisted w/ a documentary that further publicizes her problems, in unflattering detail.
Since we're not members of her therapy group -- what, exactly, do you mean by "support"? Buy records that she doesn't make? Go to her canceled concerts? Think nice thoughts? You have to be pretty grandiose to think that "our" feelings will control her behavior -- especially since she's courted negative attention, blown off real and VIP-type help, and her own family can't do a thing. She needs serious help, not amorphous "support" vibes.”
“I agree. I was rooting for her at the start, wanted her to make good, and really looked forward to "hearing from" her. But she was so amateurish that I was stupefied. I could NOT believe that someone with her education, background and advantages could sound so inarticulate and flaky. To me, it meant that she didn't know how to prepare, didn't think any prep was necessary (i.e., thought she'd be a shoo-in), was just clueless, or folded under stress. Those were all huge liabilities -- and, again, were totally unexpected.”
Age brings experience, but most adults know that it also carries some risky negatives -- which is why age and health issues are VERY real concerns with regard to high public office.
Those issues aren't in the same ballpark as "we'll never elect a black man/East Asian (because we haven't done so yet)," or "Hillary can't win (because she's not a real NYer yet)."
Also - CK hasn't practiced law; co-wrote her books; and has spent her entire lifetime in volunteer jobs that were convenient for her, involved minimal exposure, didn't require real vetting, public accountability, self-explanation or rough-and-tumbleness, and were entirely optional - since she's (a) profoundly introverted, and (b) never needed a paycheck.
The real mystery is: "With all of her solid-gold advantages - name, fame, money, connections, time, VIP advisors and p.r. people - why didn't she get involved in politics before age 51?"”
“Well, good for her! She finally got "engaged in the political process" -- last year, at age 51, after an entire adult lifetime of SUCH political avoidance that, too often, she didn't even bother to vote.
And she "has been a resident of NY for longer than the Clintons have"? Well, so have most NYers ... including many of us who've "engaged in the political process" for decades, but KNOW that we're not qualified to be in the U.S. Senate.
Politics is t-o-u-g-h. Voters expect transparency -- especially if the candidate is famously introverted, is a total cipher (except to her friends) ... and showed no interest in politics until she could land an elective post by avoiding Us, the Pesky Electorate.
If a candidate requires such special handling (even when she acts unsmartly), and deference (based solely on her FATHER's ability), and evokes such "protectionism" from her supporters: She was right to stay out of politics.”
“I'm a longtime feminist female, followed the campaigns and issues closely, originally was very pro-Hillary, and was totally turned off to her by primary day.
This had nothing to do with traditional femininity or gender expression -- about which I don't care a whit. I think it's absurd, and sexist, to rate her for trad "girliness" or Vogue-hood (or to vote for a candidate based on gender only).
Rather: (1) I was repelled by her actics, for reasons others have noted here; and (2) She came across as overly controlled/calculating, phrase-parsing, and robotesque -- indicating insincerity and un-ease, and a Bill-esque "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is" mindset. I really tried, but simply couldn't trust her.
Then came the "misspeaks" and racialism (i.e., not "racism," but making race a chronic divisive undertone). Then she changed her identity and accent(s) to become Gun-Girl and the Great White-People's Hope. I could barely recognize her as the progressive NY senator I'd voted for in '00 and '06.
I was insulted by (a) the ongoing sexism claims, and (b) the implication that pro-Obama women were soft-brained, "charm"-susceptible, self-hating Kool-Aid-drinkers. (Heck, that _accusation_ was sexist!) Hillary was tanked by her own team -- via horrific management, by tone-deaf people who were stuck in some passe'-marketing timewarp. And real feminism includes free choice, and respect for all women -- not insulting the brains/femaleness of women who disagree with you.”
copernikus on Jun 19, 2008 at 14:19:45
“Holy smokes - this is EXACTLY how my wife feels!! I'm glad to hear that there are other women out there that feel this way.”
“"Johnnn" said: "The Democratic Party is about to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and it's because a young unknown junior Senator from Illinois couldn't do the right thing and wait four years."
In four years, a Pres McCain could trigger World Wars 3-4-5, as well as pre-emptive attacks on Monaco, Liechtenstein, and on the few lower/middle-income Americans still alive (since his war, tax and health-care "plans" would tidily eradicate most of them).
Or a Pres Hillary would decide that "four-year term" depends on how we define "four" and "year," and say that she never explicitly agreed to any term limits.
She could claim that a 2012 challenge to her re-election was sexist, if any male ran against her; or ageist, if she faced challengers younger than 65; or that it would disenfranchise the dead, the not-yet-born, those too young too vote, resident non-citizens, and people living abroad who have no _interest_ in being U.S. citizens.
By 2016 (if we were allowed to have an election), the family would push Chelsea into running. Qualifications: She'd breathed White House air for eight years; and helped formulate major global policy, in betweeen high-school homework assignments.
“It goes beyond "vetted." The whole thing has been tone-deaf.
-- It started with the slogans: -- like "America Needs Hillary" and "Help Make History." The implication was "Hey, I don't need a theme: My Self is enough," and that voters were drones whose job was to facilitate HRC. And instead of coming up with a theme, she launched a Scrooge-ish attack on "hope."
-- There was the lame campaign-song competition ... esp when they put "Suddenly I See" on the shortlist. (In a campaign context, its lyrics are just *weird*. Didn't anyone, uh, vet the thing?)
-- They didn't get that in 2008, you can't just make words go away: We can go right to the replay, and also can predict spin (much less ID it).
-- We got a timewarp revival of '70s feminist-speak, and HRC (who used to be sort of post-gender) emphasized gender ad nauseam. The pits: "I'm your girl!" - corny, *not* feminist, and not becoming to a mature high-office seeker.
-- HRCers bombed the Net with clonish/emotive posts, girl-crush stuff ("She is the brightest, smartest ..." ) and Obama-smears, w/scant apparent knowledge of politics, history, or HRC's platform. The tone was snarky-teen, not adult-voter.
Bill was right when he called the campaign political malpractice. From Day 1, it seemed run by clueless old guys, people using it as therapy, paid work-from-home posters, and kids who never voted before.”
“These pro-Hillary posts are sounding more and more like heresy charges from Grand Inquisitors. It's *not* attractive, or Democratic.
#1, being a woman isn't a qualification in itself. At age 60, Hillary has held just one late-life (and custom-made) elective office, and had no accountable office or employment in the preceding 20+ years. She's running on Bill's record, her sole theme is "I'm Gonna Win (and the hell with anything else)," and her own record, poor decisionmaking, misspeaks, and divisiveness aren't exactly "presidential."
'#2, a significant number of her supporters say they'll vote for McCain (and thus against Roe-Wade) if she's not nominated. And her website has neatly buried issues like choice, gay isues, etc. -- anything that might distress the Hard-Working People, White People, she's desperate to snag, and for whom she has remolded her entire persona.
It doesn't look as if she, or her supporters, care a whit about the party or its issues. And we know that she's gotten a surfeit of votes from "Operation Chaos" GOPers, who have no intention of voting Democratic in November.”
anglohistorian on May 14, 2008 at 15:40:10
“Yes alexae, yes, and yes again and again and again.
The Democratic Party is more than a money collecting machine.
It must be more than a convenient place for an elected official to hang their hat.
The Democratic Party must stand for the "Better angels of our nature".
For prosperity, peace and progress.
Let us all go forward for the sake of our own, and our fellow citizens "better angels".
And yes, "our better angels" was lifted from Abraham Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural.
I hereby claim Lincoln for the modern Democratic Party.
Lincoln spins in his grave as today's Republicans hate and divide.”
#1, Nixon and GWB (and Cheney, Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, Mao, and several of my more sadistic grade-school teachers) also presented themselves as "tough."
#2, Survivor?? For Pete's sake, Hillary didn't claw her way up from dire poverty, or tragic life circumstances, or a marginal food-stamps life w/impossible odds: She's a Wellesley/Yale Law grad and multimillionaire who "survived" (and has greatly benefited from) marriage to Governor-and-President Bill, underwent a raft of self-inflicted scandals and screwups, and has been a party heavy-hitter (and senator) via Bill's clout. Do we now call someone a "survivor" just for maintaining a pulse - or for being privileged enough to avoid consequences?
#3, Grownups _want_ someone who'll dilly-dally a bit (we call it "thinking" or "discernment"), instead of just nuking Iran or making wrong decisions, as too many of HRC's have been.
And do you seriously think that HRC can keep Bill's hands off of that 3am phone? It's worth considering - since she leans on him heavily, can't control him even in a campaign, and he's (a) coming unglued, (b) ga-ga over reclaiming "his" White House, and (c) tangled in some sticky policy-related business deals.
#4, Most of us don't vote for gender, or because it would be SO cool to have the First Whatever in the Oval Office. We're talking about running a c-o-u-n-t-r-y here -- not about picking our fave singer/contestant or island-survivor.”
“Neither McCain nor Obama nor Clinton wear flag pins.
I don't regard a piece of tin as a religious relic. If it _is_ one, we'll have to come up with an entire etiquette of pin-disposal and lapel-reverencing.
Amazingly, the U.S. survived for nearly 230 years without mandatory flag pins. (In contrast: In North Korea, the whole brainwashed population must wear lapel pins w/the image of their dear dead Departed Leader, Kim Il Sung.)
And an awful lot of real live patriotic U.S. citizens are damned sick of the pin-clone mindset and the way it has cheapened our beloved flag, turning Made-in-China flag pins into mandatory "loyalty tests." The Founders would regard us as thoroughly lost.
Pin-tossing isn't flag-burning. It's a rejection of the un-American, lemming-loyalty mindset that has politicized patriotism. And I know many truly patriotic people - including Old School GOPers - who've done it for that reason.”
“What a typical response from a Hillbot: Nothing but personal insults and innuendo -- "Kool Aid drinker," "immature, hateful," "Chior (sic) Boy," "sniveling coward," "bottom feeder" ... Hatefully accusing others of being haters, and making the alleged point via slurs, not facts. Also,
-- "politically correct" is a term used by RIGHT-WINGERS to insult Dem/liberal values. Perhaps you're in the wrong party? (Some GOPers think that a vote for a _female_ candidate is stupidly "politically correct," in a feminist way.)
-- I've voted for many, many female candidates and would love to have a female president. But not HRC: She's divisive, mudslinging, All About Me, unqualified, lacks integrity, is running on Bill's "experience," and got her senate post solely due to Bill's clout, keeping other qualified Dems out of the race, and running against GOP nonentities.
A 60-year-old male candidate who never held office, or was effectively unemployed for 25 years (or who worked only for his spouse, w/no real public accountability) would NEVER be able to jump right into a Senate post -- especially in a state he'd just moved to. Nor would he qualify as a pres nominee based on (a) that one late-life elective post, plus (b) his _spouse's_ former job.
You insult women by implying that HRC's experience is somehow "typical"; you insult all voters, by implying that we're morons; and your post exemplifies HRC's divisive, smear-spewing, fact-barren campaign.”
“I agree. Bill and Hill totally lost me with the divisiveness, Rove-ian dirty tricks and rumor-mongering, Bill's thuggishness, the endless Attack of the Day mode, and absurd spins on reality.
We've got Ms. Gun Control touting her shooting experience, Ms. Dem. saying she'd nuke Iran, Ms. Feminist playing cowboy, and Ms. Liberal trying to Horton-ize the campaign, pushing scare tactics and sleazy innuendo (while covering her own iffy associations and religious connections).
Gay friends note that though HRC has heavily lobbied among gays, her website buries anything about gay issues or those of other minority/non-mainstream groups. (Obama's site has a front-page menu for these groups.) It's as if she's hiding this stuff to "look good" for white moderate-GOP Archie Bunker voters. Gays also recall that Bill also lobbied & got huge support from gays, then signed the Defense of Marriage Act and OK'd "Don't ask/tell" ... part of HRC's "co-presidential experience."
And many women are ticked off by HRC's manipulativeness -- posing as a feminist (though her career has been all about, & via, Bill) and as a nonelitist just-like-you gal, poor-mouthing, getting misty on cue, playing victim while attacking, whining that Obama-ites are sexist. I know unexpectedly many soccer-moms and older feminists who switched to Obama because of this.
My view: Hill no longer represents my party, is killing it, and has no principles other than "I Wanna Win." She's a Clintocrat, not a Democrat.”
So if HRC isn't nominated, you'll vote for a guy who's pro-NAFTA, pro-Iraq-war, anti-Roe/Wade, anti-health-care, too bellicose for many GOPers, and is the Dem Party's polar opposite vis-a-vis domestic and foreign policy?
Hmm. I can assume only that
-- you know and care zero about the issues (esp. since your post is entirely "personality" based, like a reality-show recap), and-or
-- you're not any kind of Democrat, and-or
-- you've over-identified with HRC, or have projected your own "stuff " onto her, and don't care beyond that; and-or
-- you're emotionally stuck in middle-school, and think it would be 'WAY cool to have a hissyfit if HRC isn't nominated, by helping the GOP to win in '08 ... just as a "nyah-nyah" gesture. (Hey, who CARES if Iraq slogs on, new wars pop up, the courts get loaded with GOP appointees, the economy/jobs/health situations further nosedive, civil liberties fall further off the cliff, and Roe/Wade gets zapped, affecting countless women? All you care about is Hillary, a/k/a Your Projected Self.)
-- you're naive enough to think that "I'll vote for McCain" is a threat. It's not: It (a) kills your credibility, and (b) implies that you're a personality cultist who views Election '08 as "American Idol," not as serious business.”
HRC's baseline tactics were/are based on spinning her weaknesses into "virtues." So we've had
- a feminist running on her husband's coattails, w/o which she'd never have become a senator.
- a multi-multi millionaire posing as a poor victim of Obama's (small-donor, grassroots) fundraising, and accusing O. of elitism;
- a campaign that pushed "35 years experience" and "vetting," though only the past 8 years of this was in any public office, and any "vetting" resulted from HRC's questionable actions;
- a campaign whose sole initial "vision" was "Vote for Me" (a/k/a "Help Make History" and "America Needs Hillary") -- yet mocked Obama's "hope/change" line, and has switched its own themes repeatedly.
- a campaign that paints Obama supporters as cultists, although HRC-backers look weirdly cultic: They've been packing blogs, boards and sites with too-personal/fan-clubby HRC posts that project their own "stuff" onto her and stress personalities and anti-O snarkiness, rather than issues.
Now HRC has morphed into the Blue Collar (White) Gal, and it's evident that she'd rather crush Obama (and run again in 2012) than support any Dem platform. Many of her supporters seem to have gotten this message. They're more likely than Obama-ites to say "If my candidate isn't nominated, I'm voting for McCain." Which means that if HRC isn't nominated, they'll vote for NAFTA, the Iraq war, more GOP Supreme Court nominees, and a Roe/Wade reversal -- just to "support" Hillary.”
“I don't think that HRC, or her campaign, are diva-esque, camp, OR antinomian.
It's more like a totally stupefying trainwreck - despite all the money, advisers, campaign experience and brand/networking advantage.
For months, I've watched the dumbness of it and yelped (regularly), "Don't these people have a CLUE?" It's as if HRC and her crew never sought reality checks, or spoke to anyone but themselves, or even had an overall plan.
And being "strong" is a virtue only if it serves a real purpose or higher value. It's not a plus to be perceived as gunning for a fight, innately negative, or adversarial for the sheer fun of it.”