Category: Uncategorized

The list of comedians commonly assumed to be the big stars of SNL includes:

• Chevy Chase
• John Belushi
• Bill Murray
• Eddie Murphy
• Martin Short
• Chris Farley
• Tina Fey
• Will Ferrell
• Billy Crystal
• Dan Ackroyd
• Amy Poehler

Quick– name a single important movie that any of these “stars” made?   Name a movie made by an SNL alumnus that mattered.   All right– maybe these:

• Lost in Translation
• Driving Miss Daisy
• Groundhog Day
• Planes, Trains, and Automobiles
• When Harry Met Sally
• Ghostbusters
• Punch-Drunk Love
• Enough Said
• This is Spinal Tap

Okay, some of these were okay as entertainment.  None of them, with the exception of “Groundhog Day”, which was, at moments, transcendent, or “Lost in Translation”, really mattered in any serious way.  “Punch-Drunk Love” was completely out of character for Adam Sandler (so out of character it’s the only Sandler movie I can stand) and doesn’t really qualify as the product of an SNL alumnus.

So, while reading the book “Saturday Night Live”, I kept cringing when someone or another would go on and on about what a great “star” so-and-so was when I couldn’t think of single movie this star was in that was important in any way to me– except, perhaps, Bill Murray.  Here’s another discussion of the issue.  In fact, Tina Fey’s “Date Night” had the singular honor of being one of a very, very tiny number of movies I simply walked out on.  Now, I rarely give up on a move no matter how bad it is because I consider it always educational to see what Hollywood is up to even if the answer is “not very much”.  But it is well known that SNL alumni have starred in some of the worst movies ever made in the past 45 years.   That is amazing, and it’s a testament to the power of celebritydom in modern entertainment.  Hollywood moguls routinely believe that a well known comedian will draw droves of fans to their movies.

 

 

 

A former aide to Joe Biden,Tara Reade, has accused him of assaulting her at a campaign rally in 1993.

A number of feminist “women’s groups” have prepared a nice letter to Joe:

Vice President Biden has the opportunity, right now, to model how to take serious allegations seriously,” the draft letter said. “The weight of our expectations matches the magnitude of the office he seeks.

Reade’s accusation has little bait-and-switch in it: she does have friends who do remember that she alleged an inappropriate act by Biden way back shortly after it happened.  She claims that that is proof that this is not something she thought of later or that may be due to faulty memory.  But none of those friends remembers the same specifics that she now claims.  At least, not before she updated her allegations and clued her friends in on the fact that she was waiting until the time was ripe (once the nomination was secured).

I leave aside for a moment the question of just how long it has to be before dredging up an accusation becomes pure vindictiveness.  Ten years?  Twenty years?  In this case, 27?  If you say, it’s never too late, I say you have no rational basis for making that argument.  There is no rule that says transgressions may be punished no matter how long someone has waited to make them known.  I think there is a very good argument to be made for the idea that anyone who waits that long should just suck it up: you are too late.  You could be taking advantage of the fact that no one can really disprove your allegation, and you are implying that people never change, and you are really, really just playing the victim card long after your victimization is relevant.  And you have this:

Ms. Reade, who worked as a staff assistant helping manage the office interns, said she also filed a complaint with the Senate in 1993 about Mr. Biden; she said she did not have a copy of it, and such paperwork has not been located.  (This Article)

But let’s leave that aside for now.

So, several women activists are demanding that Joe Biden “respond” to the allegations.  They say he “owes” them a response.  They say he “must” address the issue.

Why?

Here’s the million dollar question:  is there anything Joe Biden can say about the allegation that would result in the accusers and activists say, “Oh– okay.  That’s what I wanted to hear.  Thanks Joe.  We’ll drop the issue now.”

Not in your lifetime.  The purpose of badgering Joe Biden into addressing the issue to provide leverage to his accusers for television appearances, interviews, speaking engagements, and the fake virtue of self-righteous indignation.

Think about it– what could Biden say that would actually result in “closure”?  Can you imagine any words he could use, any phrases, that would satisfy his accusers, that would cause them to say, “oh.  Well, that’s okay then.”?

Ms. Reade said she faced a wave of criticism and death threats, as well as accusations that she was a Russian agent because of Medium posts and tweets, several of which are now deleted, she had written praising President Vladimir Putin.  [my emphasis]

How about a full-throated apology, you say?  That is never enough for the harpies who crave this spotlight.  He can’t possibly sound sincere enough to escape the accusation that he is doing it for political gain.  In fact, they are inviting him to do it for political gain by insisting that he cannot be the Democratic nominee unless he addresses this issue.  But then, if he does, you accuse him of insincerity and reject the apology.  Or you shout that he has admitted guilt and must, therefore, resign.

The accusers and sympathizers could only be on the right side of the issue if they genuinely offered to unconditionally accept a clear apology, and to support Biden if he gives it.  They will not.   That is not their real agenda.  The real agenda includes appearing on nationally televised talk shoes to discuss, tearfully, how humiliated they felt.  So humiliated, they had to tell the world.  And write a book.  And openly lobby for Merle Streep to play the role in the inevitable movie.

If he denies that it ever took place– which he does– he must be a liar– because this school of thought believes– contrary to overwhelming evidence– that women never make up these accusations.  Never.  If he makes a full apology– we’ve seen this before– you will label him an “admitted abuser” and continue to demand that he quit.

I will say it: i believe that some of the women who have accused men of inappropriate behavior want people to know or think that they are so desirable  that a powerful, influential man could not resist hitting on them.  That is why they go public with information that they claim is “humiliating” to them.  People never voluntarily disclose information that they genuinely believe to be “humiliating”.  They disclose information that, in their own minds, flatters them, or excuses pathetic behavior.

David Brooks makes an interesting point about why the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic is so forgotten by history.  It is because people were compelled, by the virulent contagion, to shun infected friends, neighbors, and family.  To admit it would be genuinely humiliating.  Nobody writes a book to tell us how they refused to help look after cousin John’s children when he became infected.  Nobody goes on national tv to tell you something that they think reflects badly on them, that humiliates them.

You put yourself in the category of those right-wing blow-hards who treat every piece of evidence that proves them wrong as more evidence that they are right, that the conspiracy is deeper and more widespread than even you imagined.

 

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start writing!

At this point in time, I have a difficult time imagining how any of the prospective Republican candidates defeats Hillary Rodham Clinton in a general election.

Clinton has some strong negatives, and she has a lot of baggage. But baggage doesn’t matter: the news cycle gets hysterical and overwrought about news, not history. So Clinton’s biggest advantage may be the fact that Republicans have been attacking her for so long that they have used up the novelty value of every possible scandal. Whitewater? Travelgate? Vince Foster? Benghazi? All old news. What shocking development can you offer? The answer is, not much. Oh, there are scandalous things about Hillary Clinton but the Republicans are in no position to attack her links to Saudi princes or corporations or giant banks and investment firms. Or the emails. What else have you got?

They will try to make it sound like there are new revelations about the known scandals. It won’t work: the news grinder requires fresh flesh. They should have saved something for the middle of the campaign.

The truth is, Clinton was a middling to good Senator but a mediocre Secretary of State. She had no major accomplishments while serving Obama in that capacity– no peace treaties, no increase in American influence at the United Nations or elsewhere. Her “reset” of the U.S.’s relationship with Moscow is now in tatters. No solutions to the endless cycle of violence in the Middle East. She is more supportive of Israel than Obama ever was, and that will inoculate her against Republican attacks on that issue, but she might be wise to step up her support for a Palestinian homeland: Netanyahu doesn’t not play as well with the majority of Americans as Republicans think he does.

Clinton has several substantial advantages over any Republican opponent. The Democrats will have the Hispanic vote locked up once again as the Republicans take turns vilifying illegal immigrants (which translates into people who look and sound like immigrants, like all Hispanics). The Republicans pretty well have to win Florida, and probably Colorado to take the presidency– not likely if the Hispanic voters in those states turn out again for the Democrats, the party that advocates a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegals still living and working in the country.

Will the change in the relationship to Cuba benefit the Republicans? How? I can’t see it. But I can see a lot of Cuban-Americans in Florida glad to finally be able to travel home to see relatives, and send money to them, and consider the possibility of further positive changes in Cuba’s economic policies as they open up to American contacts. That’s Democrat policy: the Republicans want to…. what? Go back to the embargo?

Do the Republicans want to try to reassert themselves on gay marriage? Good luck. Even younger Republicans now tend to support marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. Even Scott Walker’s own sons argued for it to their dad, who seems to be carefully reassessing his own position on the issue. Not for political reasons, of course, not.

Clinton will probably take a disproportionate share of the women’s vote. I suspect that even a fair number of enlightened Republican women will be more enamored of the idea of the first woman president than they will be averse to her policies.

Clinton has wisely chosen to campaign on Obama’s record, at least to some extent. I have never believed it was ever a good strategy to run against the record of your predecessor even if he is unpopular, if he is from your own party. You end up confirming the opposition’s view, and imply that a change of party might be a good thing. Obamacare is eminently defensible, as are Obama’s policies on the environment, wages, social security, consumer credit, and infrastructure. Clinton can campaign on the idea that Obama’s policies were good but a Republican Congress obstructed them. She could well argue that she is more able to work with her opponents– there’s a case to be made.

The Republicans are trying to sell Americans on the idea that Obama’s economic performance has been dismal. Do any of them really believe it? Do any of them seriously believe that McCain would have a lower unemployment rate than Obama right now? Or higher economic growth? Or a healthier stock market? Just how ridiculous an assertion can you get away with nowadays?

Clinton is not always great on the campaign trail but she will certainly be more tested and experienced than any of her Republican opponents. Would you vote for a Marco Rubio or Scott Walker over Hillary Clinton if you were concerned about experience and prudence and competence? Maybe.

Here’s another concern for the Republicans, which I would worry about a lot if I was one: if Clinton campaigns well and generates enthusiasm for the idea of the first woman president, and she adopts Obama’s organizational smarts about getting out the vote, and the Republican candidate tanks, a lot of these voters, of course, will vote for the rest of the slate too, in an election year in which more Republican seats are up for grabs than Democrat. I doubt there would be enough to turn the House over, but I think it is not at all unlikely that the Senate could switch back to a Democrat majority.

To do that, Clinton has to convey a sense of competence– something she is fairly good at– because the Republican candidate, no matter who he is, will have limited foreign policy credentials. It is clear that, at the moment, Jeb Bush would have the best chance of defeating her in a general election (unless John Kasich gets nominated, which he wont), but his liabilities– being Bush (after the failed presidency of his brother)– are worse than hers (married to Bill Clinton, whom many Americans–76% in the last poll– would vote for again in a flash, if he were running).

It is about coalitions. I don’t see the Republican coalition right now. They have lost the three galvanizing issues they used to exploit fully in this regard: gun control, crime, and gay marriage. Anyone can claim they would have done better in the Middle East than Obama but you are going to have say what it was you would have done and if it includes invading or bombing another Middle Eastern nation, you may not convince most Americans.