(Article Source: http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/as-furor-over-palin-joke-rages-letterman-rises-in-the-ratings/?ref=television)
The joke that Letterman told about Palin's daughter was appalling, tasteless even by Letterman's own standards. And, I am certainly not a Sarah Palin fan but I do think some things are 'off limits'.
David Letterman's explanation was that the joke was misconstrued because he told it badly. To say the least!
However, what compels us to pay so much attention to the gaffes of politicians and celebrities? What does that say about us as a society?
I would be willing to bet that more people are following the Letterman Palin fiasco than they are following what scientists are telling us about what we are doing to the environment and that we are putting ourselves and millions of other living creatures in mortal danger because of our own irresponsible behavior.
Then there are the 'Global Climate Change' deniers. How does that work? I suppose those who deny Global Climate Change also reject modern science.
At any rate, I digress.
The bottom line is this, David Letterman apologized, Sarah Palin accepted the apology, end of story.
Now, how can we make certain that the polar bears stop drowning?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Iran's Presidential Election
(Article source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104466.stm)
Speaking of larger concerns for the United States. What, if any, should be the response by the U.S., namely the president, and the Secretary of State, to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in regard to his security forces reaction to widespread protests?
In my opinion, the president will need to be firm in regard to human rights, including freedom of speech, but not alienate the wider Muslim population in the Middle East. It seems to me that the president's speech made in roads to new positive relationships with Muslim majority countries. And any progress could be lost with the slightest misstep. Although I have no credentials in foreign policy, but then again isn't that most of us?
What do you think the president should do, if anything?
Speaking of larger concerns for the United States. What, if any, should be the response by the U.S., namely the president, and the Secretary of State, to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in regard to his security forces reaction to widespread protests?
In my opinion, the president will need to be firm in regard to human rights, including freedom of speech, but not alienate the wider Muslim population in the Middle East. It seems to me that the president's speech made in roads to new positive relationships with Muslim majority countries. And any progress could be lost with the slightest misstep. Although I have no credentials in foreign policy, but then again isn't that most of us?
What do you think the president should do, if anything?
Obama's missed promises to the LGBT community, thus far.
(News Article Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamagays17-2009jun17,0,2575638.story)
President Obama made several promises along the campaign trail to the GLBT community. So far, his record has left much to be desired.
In fact, as the article cited above states, his lack of follow-through in the commitments he made has brought about protests. Especially in light of the administrations recent legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
My questions is this, did President Obama extend benefits to the partners of gay federal employees in an effort quell and appease unhappy supporters and members of the GLBT community?
It certainly is very early in his tenure as Commander in Chief. There are more immediate global concerns that are occupying the President, such as the ailing economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and the results of its Presidential election, North Korea, etc.
However, how difficult would it be to lift the ban on gays in the military, therby nullifying the Clinton era relic of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy? Wouldn't it take a well written document, written by staffers, and switch flick of the pen to sign his name?
And, why would this administration, waste the effort to file a legal brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Wouldn't doing nothing have been better? What kind of statement is he trying to make? What purpose did this serve?
All questions for which I have no answers and comments, analysis, and conjecture are welcome.
President Obama made several promises along the campaign trail to the GLBT community. So far, his record has left much to be desired.
In fact, as the article cited above states, his lack of follow-through in the commitments he made has brought about protests. Especially in light of the administrations recent legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.
My questions is this, did President Obama extend benefits to the partners of gay federal employees in an effort quell and appease unhappy supporters and members of the GLBT community?
It certainly is very early in his tenure as Commander in Chief. There are more immediate global concerns that are occupying the President, such as the ailing economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and the results of its Presidential election, North Korea, etc.
However, how difficult would it be to lift the ban on gays in the military, therby nullifying the Clinton era relic of the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy? Wouldn't it take a well written document, written by staffers, and switch flick of the pen to sign his name?
And, why would this administration, waste the effort to file a legal brief in support of the Defense of Marriage Act. Wouldn't doing nothing have been better? What kind of statement is he trying to make? What purpose did this serve?
All questions for which I have no answers and comments, analysis, and conjecture are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)