"Mr. Richardson was still sporting a beard, which he grew during what he called a period of decompression after abandoning his presidential bid two months ago."
from: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/us/politics/21cnd-endorse.html?hp
what in the world is newsworthy about richardson's beard? is the beard seen as a universal sign of defeat followed by serious introspection, which then culminates in an endorsement? or is it a statement on his judgment- is a man who is still sporting a beard right and balanced in mind as to make the proper campaign endorsement? should we take this bearded fellow's opinions with a grain of salt?
dearest bearders, tell me more about the significance of richardson's bearding, for i cannot see why it was mentioned.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
happy equinox!
i'm going to spend my first spring day cleaning up the disgusting chicken mess that the fowl have left in our "garden". then i'm going to compost said chicken mess for nitrogen-rich fertilizer in the roof-top cold frames. up there i'll use last year's finished compost for planting spinach, lettuce, mache, mustard, and kale. and chard. and chives. salad garden.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
ferraro
here's what geraldine ferraro said last weekend:
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
ok, lady, the only concept i'm personally caught up in is the idea that a politician, or their surrogate, not resort to preying on the undereducated voter by releasing sensationalist remarks about race, sex, NAFTA, health care, saturday night live, "shame", or any other category that sparks sudden interest from TV viewers, without being accountable for their statements.
i'm caught up in the concept that a candidate should be honest and forthright, answerable for their actions and inactions, and inspirational in their candor.
the statement discredits both candidates' qualifications by using the logic that, if obama is benefiting from some racial advantage, clinton is similarly in her position because some people are so caught up in the "justice" of a woman being president that they fail to scrutinize the qualities of their candidate. if you're going to make such a racist remark, at least own up to the sexist assumptions you make by asserting that clinton wouldn't be behind in delegates if she were a black man.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
ok, lady, the only concept i'm personally caught up in is the idea that a politician, or their surrogate, not resort to preying on the undereducated voter by releasing sensationalist remarks about race, sex, NAFTA, health care, saturday night live, "shame", or any other category that sparks sudden interest from TV viewers, without being accountable for their statements.
i'm caught up in the concept that a candidate should be honest and forthright, answerable for their actions and inactions, and inspirational in their candor.
the statement discredits both candidates' qualifications by using the logic that, if obama is benefiting from some racial advantage, clinton is similarly in her position because some people are so caught up in the "justice" of a woman being president that they fail to scrutinize the qualities of their candidate. if you're going to make such a racist remark, at least own up to the sexist assumptions you make by asserting that clinton wouldn't be behind in delegates if she were a black man.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
