Comments Posted By steve sturm
Displaying 51 To 60 Of 65 Comments
ANN COULTER: CONSERVATIVE LOUT
Rick: Not being a widow myself, I can only guess at what goes through the minds of those who are. Having said that, I don't think it's inconceivable that a widow might very well enjoy aspects of her husband having died. She hooks up with someone who's better in bed. She cashes the huge insurance check and 'enjoys' (yes, pun intended) a richer lifestyle than what she had before.
Or, just to hypothesize a bit, she finds herself adopted by those sharing a certain political viewpoint and 'enjoys' being on the Today Show, invited to all sorts of political events and being treated as a celebrity instead of the bland suburban housewife she once was.
This isn't to say that such a person wouldn't give everything back to have her husband alive... it is just that not every widow finds every aspect of the circumstances of her widowhood terribly distressing. And, by my definition, one enjoys what one doesn't dislike.
So is it wrong for Coulter to have said out loud what a lot of people think?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 7.06.2006 @ 11:43
Rick:
OK, you don't like Coulter, but what proof do you have that she is doing what she is because she is "forced to please her rabid base of red meat conservatives"? Perhaps she actually believes what she says?
And what is your basis for claiming that she has to offer up "ever more outrageous and off the wall statements in order to maintain her position as a “controversial†commentator"? I've been (sortof) listening to her since the days of Clinton and I think she's been rather consistent over that time. And since I don't see a lot of challengers to her title as the conservative b***h, she's under no pressure at all to up the ante by becoming even more outrageous.
As for the specifics of what she said, are you upset with Coulter's general implication that some widows 'enjoy' their husband's deaths? Or is it her specific allegation that these particular women are doing so? I wouldn't think it was the former that bothered you, for while we'd all like to believe that no widow would enjoy the death of her husband, we know that isn't the case in real life (case in point: the widow who made herself a widow). As for the latter, since Coulter is the one who did the research on these ladies and what they are doing, why assume she is wrong on this?
Consider this: the widows Coulter takes on sure don't seem to be hating what they're doing. Nobody is having to drag them to the microphone. By (my) definition, something that isn't bothersome has to be either benign or enjoyable... which means that Coulter has a 50-50 chance of being right.
As for the impact on their kids, if the moms are doing something wrong, they need to be called on it. Did you (the royal you) refrain from attacking Clinton during Monica-gate because you didn't want to hurt Chelsea's feelings? Or did you (rightly) put the blame for what happened to Chelsea on the insensitive lout she has for a father?
And, finally, I wouldn't be too sure that some liberal somewhere isn't taking shots at Debra Burlingame...
By the way, if I contribute a few bucks, will you put in a preview button?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 6.06.2006 @ 20:17
TALKING TO IRAN A NECESSARY EVIL
Rick: what is the point of even offering to talk? There's nothing we could/would say to Iran that would make them back down... other than, of course, saying give it up or we start bombing. The 'world community' and liberals here at home are opposed to our using military force, and will be so regardless of whether we've offered to talk with Iran.
Talking is not an end of itself, it is merely a potential means to a desired end. Unfortunately, this is something that is lost on the hacks at Foggy Bottom... and, perhaps, the proprietor of a certain blog?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 31.05.2006 @ 17:21
Were the GOP to lose control of the House, the only downside I see is that Bush would get his immigration bill. I don't see Bush agreeing to a tax hike, nor do I see him agreeing to anything that smacks of 'abandoning' the troops. Sure, domestic and entitlement spending might increase, but with the budget so far in deficit, what's a few hundred billion more in spending? And, while nothing would be done with Iran, Bush ain't doing anything about Iran now with a GOP Congress, is he?
Although it doesn't matter as much, since the Dems and RINOs give the liberals a working majority already, I see less of a downside were the GOP to lose 'official' control of the Senate. Bush wouldn't get any conservative judges nominated, but, then again, he's not exactly pushing them now, is he?
And who cares if the Dems want to spend time holding hearings on this or that? Bush isn't running again and, given his anemic ratings, no GOP nominee will position him or herself as the keeper of the flame, so hearings into Bush's abuses won't necessarily tar the GOP nominee in 2008. And don't forget that hearings matter much more inside the Beltway than they do outside (for all the hearings into Clinton's 'abuses', just how much did it help the GOP?).
As for your assumption that, absent a 'culture of corruption' to run against, the GOP wouldn't be able to regain control of Congress in 2008, I think you're mixing some things up. People aren't upset per se with 'corruption', they're upset that Congress isn't doing more of what they want done and they're grabbing corruption as a handy scapegoat (even if Abramoff and crowd weren't in the news, the public would be just as ticked off, they'd just cite some other reason).
I think the bigger argument against the GOP looking to retake control is that it's likely the public wouldn't have yet given up on the Democrats running things. The Dems would argue that they needed more than 2 years to clean up the mess the GOP made over the previous 12. Heck, they'd probably claim that their reforms were being stymied by Bush, so if the public really wanted Washington running again, they'd give the Dems in Congress a Democratic President as well.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 30.05.2006 @ 15:13
I think Jack shooting Nina Myers in year 3 (?) was pretty close to Jack shooting Palmer's assasin and Henderson this year.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 25.05.2006 @ 14:22
The Chinese twist was a nice one, but was done so badly. Even assuming the Chinese had a mole (logan?) telling them Jack was alive and where he was taken, just how were they supposed to have gotten their crew there so quickly (less than 15 minutes by my count) and without suspicion? These guys show up in a helicopter and nobody asks questions? And just how were they supposed to have kidnapped Jack and gotten him to the ship so quickly and without suspicion? And just how did the Chinese consul get to the ship so quickly?
I know that to some degreee we're supposed to suspend reality for the show to work. But sometimes I think the writers take us for granted.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 23.05.2006 @ 22:58
And sorry if I'm repeating what someone else has picked up on, but Bierko has a mole inside of CTU and I'm wondering if the writers are going to clear up who it is.
How else would Beirko's group have known he was alive, that he was being moved to Division and the route the convoy was taken (they would have had to have known the route in order to set up the IED that took out the lead vehicle)?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 17.05.2006 @ 20:19
One of the annoying tactics the writers take is when they're desperate for a new plot twist, they go in a direction that is totally unsupported by anything that had happened so far that day. For example, in year 1, Nina is revealed as bad towards the end of the day when she tries to screw Jack... yet, if she was bad, why didn't she screw him any of the other 25 times she had the chance that day? This year, it's Miles going bad... here is the perfect bureaucratic munchkin, following protocols and orders to the T, the guy who has been seemingly content for years to follow in Hayes' shadow, who just 10 minutes earlier was pissed off because the rules weren't being followed... and he's the guy who goes freelancing?
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 9.05.2006 @ 08:59
Here's a twist: whoever on the plane Henderson handed off the tape recording to is NOT part of Mr. Big's (and, by extension, Logan's) group. The tape was Henderson's insurance against his being killed by Logan so he never would have given it to someone in that loop... which means we have two - possibly competing - factions in play.
btw, it would be quite a kick if it turned out that Henderson handed off the tape to his brother, the baggage handler, who most certainly isn't on the plane.
Of course, as I posted in my list of 24isms, I can't see why Henderson - if he is the smartest crook on the show, would pass off his insurance to someone else.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 25.04.2006 @ 11:12
CIA VS THE WHITE HOUSE: THE LONE PARTISAN?
Rick: I just posted that we shouldn't jump to conclusions regarding Mary the Traitor's contributions to Kerry and the Democrats, as, for all we know, the contributions might have been from her husband/at her husband's bequest, they might not have been that much money (on a relative scale) depending on how much money her husband pulls in and that she may have been pressured while at the liberal-leaning CSIS to make contributions to 'like-minded" candidates.
Comment Posted By steve sturm On 23.04.2006 @ 15:25
