Too Sexy
President William Howard TaftI'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan
--I'm Too Sexy, Right Said Fred
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan
--I'm Too Sexy, Right Said Fred
___________
Just musing here upon Ashcroft and the Night Visitors--Jim Comey's damning recent Senate testimony on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales's uber-unctious 2004 ''bedside ambush'' of a hospital-ridden Ashcroft, in which he attempted to railroad the ill then-Attorney General into okaying illegal eavesdropping plans.
When WaPo writer Milbank stated ''Gonzales preyed on the infirm,'' I realized how swept up in this crazy GWB administration mindset I had become, for my mind first perceived what was written as, ''Gonzales prayed on the infirm,'' like some kind of latter-day Jerry Falwell.
Still a frightening prospect from your Attorney General, but that I read prey as pray is telling of how the propaganda machine has infiltrated and commandeered our expectations.
Where do we find these people that are leading America? Are we so morally bankrupt as a society that this is the best we can do? What does this bode for our future as a nation? I wonder, what is the critical mass of avarice, corruption, vanity and shallowness a society can bear before it implodes?
The selection and election process is not mindful of the needs of the average taxpaying American. Ranger knows that something is seriously wrong when Mitt Romney fronts a major news magazine cover which touts, ''He Looks Presidential.''
Think about it. Did General Grant look like a general? Would Grover Cleveland have had a chance in today's world of pretty boy politics? Surely FDR in his wheelchair would never have passed the virility test, which demands clearing brush off the ranch.
John Kerry lost his pretty boy chance in his tight, frou-frou lycra biking shorts. Too pretty boy. Yes, he has a Silver Star, but that signifies real-world action; the proof is, he looks like a pansy, and in the metrics of electability, he fails.
Electability is such a precarious quality. The candidate must seem like us, which means he must dissemble (as Bush taught us) to begin with. Pugilistically patriotic, in insecure and xenophobic times. In our newly pious times, the wife (and he must have a wife) must not be too threatening, possessing just enough stand-by-her-man -ishness.
Yet she must strike the balance, too. She must be seen as trying to do something, like advocate for children's literacy, for instance. Something close to the hearth, and cute. We can indulge her aspirations in that arena. Something motherly, or teacherly, or librarian.
Laura Bush strikes it, and Al Gore's wife, too, with her worries over naughty song lyrics. Lady Bird did with her wildflower prettification projects. Hillary did and does not, though it remains to be seen whether Bill will. Jackie Kennedy would be too French for our current times. Refinement is outre.
Appearances have trumped reality, image trumps essence, but maybe this is not new. Reminds me of my Texan grandma, who loved James Garner and Dean Martin (I'm certain it was only because she had lived with my Air Force grandfather while he was stationed in Italy, she could brook Martin) --the hale, well-met fellows with swagger, and feet of clay.
She always said what a ''good looking man'' Reagan was before his election, with nary a word on his politics. That did not much matter. He looked presidential. Tough, but with an aw-shucks demeanor. You could see the boy beneath the man (but not in a Mark Foley way, you see.)
In the way that Romney looks like Ted Danson, who looks like he could play a president; in the way that Danny DeVito looks like he could not.
What is the value of democracy and free elections if there are no clear differences between the candidates? If it is a beauty contest, where $400 haircuts happen, but they must not seem to be $400 haircuts. And if that is what we want, that is what we will get. The blame gets shared all the way 'round for this failure.
In U.S. elections, the choices benefit the corporations and not the taxpaying electorate. Why can't we see that, and demand better?
--Jim and Lisa
When WaPo writer Milbank stated ''Gonzales preyed on the infirm,'' I realized how swept up in this crazy GWB administration mindset I had become, for my mind first perceived what was written as, ''Gonzales prayed on the infirm,'' like some kind of latter-day Jerry Falwell.
Still a frightening prospect from your Attorney General, but that I read prey as pray is telling of how the propaganda machine has infiltrated and commandeered our expectations.
Where do we find these people that are leading America? Are we so morally bankrupt as a society that this is the best we can do? What does this bode for our future as a nation? I wonder, what is the critical mass of avarice, corruption, vanity and shallowness a society can bear before it implodes?
The selection and election process is not mindful of the needs of the average taxpaying American. Ranger knows that something is seriously wrong when Mitt Romney fronts a major news magazine cover which touts, ''He Looks Presidential.''
Think about it. Did General Grant look like a general? Would Grover Cleveland have had a chance in today's world of pretty boy politics? Surely FDR in his wheelchair would never have passed the virility test, which demands clearing brush off the ranch.
John Kerry lost his pretty boy chance in his tight, frou-frou lycra biking shorts. Too pretty boy. Yes, he has a Silver Star, but that signifies real-world action; the proof is, he looks like a pansy, and in the metrics of electability, he fails.
Electability is such a precarious quality. The candidate must seem like us, which means he must dissemble (as Bush taught us) to begin with. Pugilistically patriotic, in insecure and xenophobic times. In our newly pious times, the wife (and he must have a wife) must not be too threatening, possessing just enough stand-by-her-man -ishness.
Yet she must strike the balance, too. She must be seen as trying to do something, like advocate for children's literacy, for instance. Something close to the hearth, and cute. We can indulge her aspirations in that arena. Something motherly, or teacherly, or librarian.
Laura Bush strikes it, and Al Gore's wife, too, with her worries over naughty song lyrics. Lady Bird did with her wildflower prettification projects. Hillary did and does not, though it remains to be seen whether Bill will. Jackie Kennedy would be too French for our current times. Refinement is outre.
Appearances have trumped reality, image trumps essence, but maybe this is not new. Reminds me of my Texan grandma, who loved James Garner and Dean Martin (I'm certain it was only because she had lived with my Air Force grandfather while he was stationed in Italy, she could brook Martin) --the hale, well-met fellows with swagger, and feet of clay.
She always said what a ''good looking man'' Reagan was before his election, with nary a word on his politics. That did not much matter. He looked presidential. Tough, but with an aw-shucks demeanor. You could see the boy beneath the man (but not in a Mark Foley way, you see.)
In the way that Romney looks like Ted Danson, who looks like he could play a president; in the way that Danny DeVito looks like he could not.
What is the value of democracy and free elections if there are no clear differences between the candidates? If it is a beauty contest, where $400 haircuts happen, but they must not seem to be $400 haircuts. And if that is what we want, that is what we will get. The blame gets shared all the way 'round for this failure.
In U.S. elections, the choices benefit the corporations and not the taxpaying electorate. Why can't we see that, and demand better?
--Jim and Lisa
Labels: ashcroft and the night visitors, jim comey vs. alberto gonzales
posted by rangeragainstwar at 9:29 PM
6 comments
