After an early Easter and only our second year of a bumped-up daylight savings time tricked the Midwest into thinking spring was right around the corner, the extended winter felt especially cruel. But Chicago hit the 70-degree mark for the first time since October 21, 2007 yesterday, and you know what that means...
Yes, folks, it's officially that time of year when you don't have to listen to me bitching about the weather.
Some of you might be saying, "C'mon, now. As soon as it hits 95 degrees in the big city you'll be complaining along with the rest of us."
You must not be aware of the public service pact into which I entered two years ago. I came to a collective agreement with everyone I might come into contact with never to complain about the heat, no matter how much the outdoors might resemble the depths of Hades.
Some were skeptical. And I'll admit that it does get tough, especially when you hail from Minnesota. That's not just because we're hard-wired to yap endlessly about the weather, either. Say I'm in an elevator with some sassy old woman who's telling off the weather gods. It's all I can do to keep from adding a "Yeah, and how 'bout that humidity, eh?" As if elevators weren't uncomfortable enough.
But I've managed to stick to my pledge for two years running now. And really, it's the least I can do: you all have been so patient.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
For the Nina Totenberg in you
There's a whole slew of code phrases put out by presidential candidates to hint at their potential impact on the long form institution of the Supreme Court: litmus tests, constructionist judges, legislating from the bench, etc. McCain, in his search for a base, however, doesn't mince words.
He's said he believes in "judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are our true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and the unborn."
Also, the "Maverick" seems content to tow the party line when it comes to approving whomever Republican presidents nominate for the court. He even went so far as to vote in favor of the doomed nominee Robert Bork.
However, McCain made somewhat of a surprising announcement about his judicial views on Monday. Maybe it was just because he was addressing journalists at the annual Associated Press luncheon, but he offered tentative support for a federal shield law protecting journalists and the right to maintain confidential sources. He said that, though he's had a "hard time deciding," he "would vote yes" if the proposal reaches a vote in the Senate because it has a provision for national security.
"This is why judicial appointments are so important," McCain said.
Well, that's why journalists think judicial appointments are important. I'd bet Gloria Steinem and Pat Robertson would say there's a more important judicial issue...
Anyway, McCain didn't seem to feel like he was overstepping his bounds in legislating to judges, saying he thought the bill "gives them the guidance most judges would like to have."
His support puts him at odds with the President, who threatened to veto the bi-partisan legislation. I guess that's what distinguishes a senatorial candidate for president from a gubernatorial one. McCain seems happier to hand down legislation to "guide" judges that he is to pick out the actual judges himself.
Speaking of senatorial candidates for president, Obama and Clinton are already sponsoring the bill. So, no matter who makes it to the White House next January, us journalists at least have some lip service coming our way. I wonder if that's contingent on us behaving ourselves during the rest of the election cycle?
He's said he believes in "judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are our true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and the unborn."
Also, the "Maverick" seems content to tow the party line when it comes to approving whomever Republican presidents nominate for the court. He even went so far as to vote in favor of the doomed nominee Robert Bork.
However, McCain made somewhat of a surprising announcement about his judicial views on Monday. Maybe it was just because he was addressing journalists at the annual Associated Press luncheon, but he offered tentative support for a federal shield law protecting journalists and the right to maintain confidential sources. He said that, though he's had a "hard time deciding," he "would vote yes" if the proposal reaches a vote in the Senate because it has a provision for national security.
"This is why judicial appointments are so important," McCain said.
Well, that's why journalists think judicial appointments are important. I'd bet Gloria Steinem and Pat Robertson would say there's a more important judicial issue...
Anyway, McCain didn't seem to feel like he was overstepping his bounds in legislating to judges, saying he thought the bill "gives them the guidance most judges would like to have."
His support puts him at odds with the President, who threatened to veto the bi-partisan legislation. I guess that's what distinguishes a senatorial candidate for president from a gubernatorial one. McCain seems happier to hand down legislation to "guide" judges that he is to pick out the actual judges himself.
Speaking of senatorial candidates for president, Obama and Clinton are already sponsoring the bill. So, no matter who makes it to the White House next January, us journalists at least have some lip service coming our way. I wonder if that's contingent on us behaving ourselves during the rest of the election cycle?
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Flogette
What if I were a Meghan whose dad was running for president? What would my blog look like if I had a professional photographer and producer working on it? What if, instead of a career in journalism, I was hoping to create my own line of couture fashion?
Me, my blog and I might look a little more like John McCain's daughter, Meghan and her online venture.
Even though we have the same first name (hey, most people spell it Megan!) she and her blogettes declined to answer my request for an interview. Or even an email. Here are my impressions anyway:
I could live without her music recommendations. There are too many photos and her captions leave much to be desired ("Zack Pack has the best name ever" or "We ate Chick-fil-A for lunch (My fav!)" or "I've always loved swings at a playground").
On March 10th, Meghan's post started like this:
"As you may have noticed, I seldom use the Blogette as a medium to discuss social or political issues unless I feel particularly compelled to do so. This is one of those times."
OMG!! What is she going to talk about? Maybe she's going to talk about an actual issue like abortion or the war or immigration or something besides fashion and make-up tips? Is she finally gonna call out the New York Times for what they said about her dad?
[the night the NYT story broke she wrote, "Having grown up in politics, I know it's an industry that, for all intents and purposes, is known for being dirty and cruel," and did not mention the story specifically...unlike me]
No. She was upset about people on the campaign trail criticizing her weight. The last straw was someone handing her a business card for a liposuction professional. Honestly, I agree that such behavior is disturbing. Kudos to her pride in her curves. I just wish she hadn’t announced it with such gravity. Her self image is not a “social or political issue;” it’s a personal one.
Politics is a cruel "industry." And if you don't give people something substantive to criticize, like your policy views, people start making fun of your pantsuits.
Me, my blog and I might look a little more like John McCain's daughter, Meghan and her online venture.
Even though we have the same first name (hey, most people spell it Megan!) she and her blogettes declined to answer my request for an interview. Or even an email. Here are my impressions anyway:
I could live without her music recommendations. There are too many photos and her captions leave much to be desired ("Zack Pack has the best name ever" or "We ate Chick-fil-A for lunch (My fav!)" or "I've always loved swings at a playground").
On March 10th, Meghan's post started like this:
"As you may have noticed, I seldom use the Blogette as a medium to discuss social or political issues unless I feel particularly compelled to do so. This is one of those times."
OMG!! What is she going to talk about? Maybe she's going to talk about an actual issue like abortion or the war or immigration or something besides fashion and make-up tips? Is she finally gonna call out the New York Times for what they said about her dad?
[the night the NYT story broke she wrote, "Having grown up in politics, I know it's an industry that, for all intents and purposes, is known for being dirty and cruel," and did not mention the story specifically...unlike me]
No. She was upset about people on the campaign trail criticizing her weight. The last straw was someone handing her a business card for a liposuction professional. Honestly, I agree that such behavior is disturbing. Kudos to her pride in her curves. I just wish she hadn’t announced it with such gravity. Her self image is not a “social or political issue;” it’s a personal one.
Politics is a cruel "industry." And if you don't give people something substantive to criticize, like your policy views, people start making fun of your pantsuits.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
McMarketing
This past Sunday, I was listening to the Tavis Smiley Show and his first guest was none other than Sen. John McCain (via telephone).
They talked about the economy, the war, media coverage...then McCain brought up the African American community, asking if Smiley minded if he switched gears.
Well, we all knew Tavis was going there, and the host said as much himself. "But go ahead," he told the Republican candidate.
"I'm a realist. I know I'm not going to get a majority of the African American vote," McCain conceded. "But I'm going to go all around this country...I'm gonna fight for their votes."
Smiley acknowledged that McCain has been on the right side of several issues of concern to the Black community, mentioning his support of the MLK holiday in Arizona and his views on immigration reform. But Smiley made a thinly-veiled reference to McCain's willingness to switch sides.
"I've said before, if this John McCain shows up...he has something to say to Black America," Smiley told McCain.
"There really isn't much that Sen. John McCain can do to convince Black voters to vote for him," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "The Democratic Party has spent the past 40 years convincing them Republicans are the racist party, when really it's the exact opposite."
Though she says her organization doesn't endorse specific candidates, she told me they support all Republicans and that they might even change their stance this year and endorse McCain.
"We may decide that this is a good year," she said.
...if the "right" McCain makes an appearance? I have a feeling her idea of the right McCain and Smiley's might differ. Now, if Bush's McCain shows up...
How about some electoral history?
Bush got 11 percent of the Black vote in 2004 and 9 percent in 2000. And this is the guy who ignored the country's premier civil rights organization until 2006!
Going back to the B.W. ("before Dubya") era, Republicans scored 12 percent in 1996 and 10 percent in 1992. But these numbers are even more shocking when you consider America's "first Black president" only got 83 and 84 percent in those two elections, significantly less than both Gore and Kerry (Perot stole a good share of the African American vote both years-7 and 4 percent, respectively). I am really more surprised by George W.'s success with the Black vote than Clinton's failure, however. Not that I'm an identity voter, but it would piss me off if a male candidate that only goes to church every once in a while was billed as America's first woman or agnostic president...
In all, I think Tavis got it right. Support the right issues and you'll get the votes you deserve. Identity politics is so out of style. Or if it's not yet, it will be by the time we get to November.
They talked about the economy, the war, media coverage...then McCain brought up the African American community, asking if Smiley minded if he switched gears.
Well, we all knew Tavis was going there, and the host said as much himself. "But go ahead," he told the Republican candidate.
"I'm a realist. I know I'm not going to get a majority of the African American vote," McCain conceded. "But I'm going to go all around this country...I'm gonna fight for their votes."
Smiley acknowledged that McCain has been on the right side of several issues of concern to the Black community, mentioning his support of the MLK holiday in Arizona and his views on immigration reform. But Smiley made a thinly-veiled reference to McCain's willingness to switch sides.
"I've said before, if this John McCain shows up...he has something to say to Black America," Smiley told McCain.
"There really isn't much that Sen. John McCain can do to convince Black voters to vote for him," said Frances Rice, chairman of the National Black Republican Association. "The Democratic Party has spent the past 40 years convincing them Republicans are the racist party, when really it's the exact opposite."
Though she says her organization doesn't endorse specific candidates, she told me they support all Republicans and that they might even change their stance this year and endorse McCain.
"We may decide that this is a good year," she said.
...if the "right" McCain makes an appearance? I have a feeling her idea of the right McCain and Smiley's might differ. Now, if Bush's McCain shows up...
How about some electoral history?
Bush got 11 percent of the Black vote in 2004 and 9 percent in 2000. And this is the guy who ignored the country's premier civil rights organization until 2006!
Going back to the B.W. ("before Dubya") era, Republicans scored 12 percent in 1996 and 10 percent in 1992. But these numbers are even more shocking when you consider America's "first Black president" only got 83 and 84 percent in those two elections, significantly less than both Gore and Kerry (Perot stole a good share of the African American vote both years-7 and 4 percent, respectively). I am really more surprised by George W.'s success with the Black vote than Clinton's failure, however. Not that I'm an identity voter, but it would piss me off if a male candidate that only goes to church every once in a while was billed as America's first woman or agnostic president...
In all, I think Tavis got it right. Support the right issues and you'll get the votes you deserve. Identity politics is so out of style. Or if it's not yet, it will be by the time we get to November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
