Dann Todd's 'Dain Bramage'^**

Slagging Scott Brown's Wife

Shhhh......don't tell anyone. Massachusetts new junior Senator, Scott Brown, not only posed nude for Cosmopolitan, his wife, Gail Huff, used to strut around in a bikini. The news of Ms. Huff's former escapades is apparently supposed to cause people to think less of her and her husband according to the good people over at Huffington Post. You can also see the video....along with more rational commentary....here.

Although the music in the music video.....sucks....sorry to be so judgmental....Mrs. Brown's performance is pretty good. For an early 1980s video. Which were pretty bad unless you were Madonna, White Snake, or Barnes and Barnes.

I'm also tickled to no end that I wasn't the first person to notice that Gail did a bare breasted dive into the water at the 1:16 mark of the video.

by Dann 

|

Huh....Did Hell Freeze Over??

I slag on the New York Times and their inane columnists frequently enough that I believe I have a special obligation to point out when one of them writes something I agree with. This week's surprise comes from MoDo herself. Maureen Dowd has written a column acknowledging the efforts of Republican Ted Olson and Democrat David Boies to overturn California's Proposal 8 that bans marriage between homosexuals.

Mr. Olson should also be remembered for his work for the US Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore in defense of equal protection principles for voters. Of course some folks wouldn't phrase it quite that way regardless of their inaccuracy.

Ms. Dowd reveals a new side to Mr. Olson. He is not only a successful lawyer, but he is also a lesbian! Who knew?

“Maureen,”[Ted Olson] told me in his gravelly voice, “one of the biggest lesbian groups in this country told me I’m already an honorary lesbian.”

Did it make you feel different, I wondered.

“I still like women very much,” he wryly replied, as his biking pal, liberal adversary and now co-counsel David Boies laughed, snacking on a crust of sourdough bread in their temporary office on Mission Street.

MoDo plows through most of the inane arguments against marriage between homosexuals. My personal favorite is the number of married heterosexuals that have abused, debased, and otherwise been unfaithful to their spouses. Having personally seen some of the dregs of humanity that have the right to marry, I can't imagine denying the same right to the much nicer homosexuals that I've known just because their jib runs in a different direction than mine.

Unfortunately, she blows the ending by covering for President Obama.

Obama sees himself as such a huge change that he can be cautious about other societal changes. But what he doesn’t realize is that legalizing gay marriage is like electing a black president. Before you do it, it seems inconceivable. Once it’s done, you can’t remember what all the fuss was about.

What MoDo misses is the fact that Mr. Obama is a devout Christian; man of whom that hold that homosexuals are not individuals fully worthy of the rights that the rest of us enjoy. This fact shouldn't be very surprising. Black Americans as a group hold some of the strongest opinions against gay marriage. Devout Christians share that point of view in significant numbers.

What Ms. Dowd misses...and other commentators get....is that support for and opposition towards equal rights for homosexuals cannot be neatly identified by political party. There is a strong contingent of Libertarians and libertarian Republicans that view equal rights for homosexuals as non-negotiable and inseparable parts of their overall support for individual liberty.

While it is certainly easy to understand why homosexuals would vote for Democrats that support equal rights for homosexuals, it is utterly mystifying to me as to why they would not support a pro-equal rights Republican or independent over a Democrat that is opposed to equal rights. They, like many other groups, have sacrificed their influence by opting to provide unquestioning, lock-step support for Democratic candidates based on party affiliation rather than on actual candidate's positions on the issues that matter most to them.

MoDo has come so far....and so far yet to go.

by Dann 

|

Early Elections 2010

Ahem.........yes!

by Dann 

|

On Double Standards......

If you live under a rock, then you probably haven't heard about US Senator Harry Reid's [D-NV] comment about then candidate Barack Obama's marketability to the average American. The comment was made back in 2008 long before Mr. Obama was elected President. Mr. Reid's comment included some....vernacular that isn't considered socially acceptable today when one speaks about an American of the black persuasion.

If you haven't heard about this, then Google is your friend.

The usual suspects were out to defend....or fricassee....Mr. Reid. Politics has long been a blood sport, so why expect anything unusual now.

One event that I happened to catch did happen to burn me up. I was watching Keith Olbermann's show last week. Keith apparently had the night off. Mr. Reid's lack of decorum was the subject of discussion.

At one point the host suggested that Mr. Reid's comments were of a complete different character than were Rush Limbaugh's calling Barack Obama "Barack the Magic Negro". The guest agreed and they moved on to other facets of this scintillating chapter in American political history.

I'm sure some will ask where, precisely, is the problem in the above. Mr. Reid's observations, while using inappropriate language, was in fact an accurate observation on the American electorate. Mr. Limbaugh's supposed commentary as indicated above, was something else.

The problem is....just as it always happens....the major media gets the story wrong and they don't even bother to hide their ignorance. There is a presumption of guilt for non-Democrats that glosses over any inconvenient factual inaccuracies.

In fact, the reason that Mr. Limbaugh aired a parody song titled "Barack the Magic Negro" was to highlight the use of that phrase by a Los Angeles Times writer early during the 2008 campaign season. I happened to catch this particular event during a drive back to work from lunch one day.

Mr. Limbaugh pointed out that the author of the piece was generally supportive of left-of-center political positions and seemed otherwise disposed to support Mr. Obama. Mr. Limbaugh suggested that this columnist would not be subjected to the same sort of ridicule if he had instead been a regular supporter of right-of-center political positions. Thus the parody song was intended to be satire directed against those who exhibit hypersensitivity towards any off color comment coming from a non-Democrat.

And here we find ourselves two years later with that parody being mis-cited as example of Mr. Limbaugh's theoretic racism. Instead it serves as an ironic reminder that there are two standards in play.

For a Democrat, there is a certain amount of leeway allowed. Excuses can be made for most mild off-color comments that one might make. Most importantly, there will not be a presumption of racism on the Democrat's part. Just don't let it happen again.

For a non-Democrat, there is no margin of error. The use of inappropriate language is proof positive that the heart of a Klansman beats deep within that non-Democrat's chest. Apologies must be made! Sack cloth and ashes must be worn! And most importantly, voting patterns must change!!!

A less polarized view of such things might be valuable even if it isn't likely to happen anytime soon. We are an imperfect nation. Attitudes take time to change. Regardless of the miles behind us, we still have miles to go.

A little bit of concern from the media with respect to accurate reporting would be helpful as well.

by Dann 

|