Wednesday, October 22, 2008

My Afternoon Jay

A new feature!

How do you like the title?

Jay Bookman has finally been dragged into the sloppy little world of blogging and all I can say is thank God! I've alway thought Bookman's style was perfectly suited for a blog and was sorely disappointed when I heard he was reluctant.

I will admit that there probably won't be as much Bookman as there is Wooten because even though he is slightly left of me, I agree with him most of the time. Also, he's far less strident than his counterpart.

That does not mean I will not task him when it is deserved.
Does “real America” drop 75 grand at Neiman Marcus? Does “small-town America” shop at Saks Fifth Avenue?
Now, Ms. Palin did set herself up for this punchline with all the latest, greatest right-wing us against them populist rhetoric. But first, there's the real world fact that until we get past certain social silos and practicalities in fashion spurred by those mores, women will face the insidious double standard of being required to spend more money and time to appear "appropriate".

More importantly, the entire thing is just another stupid distraction along the lines of such tangential issues as associations with Ayers and Wright.

Can we take a moment to stop talking about the shiney things and instead focus on things that really matter.

I was torn about even posting on this story, in part because it’s only natural that Palin and her family would need a wardrobe upgrade to play the parts they’ve been handed on the national stage. Washington ain’t Wasilla.
Is that a tinge of regret? Well, Jay, at least I can say this is something you rarely see in my morning giggings.

And welcome to the community.


Anonymous said...

Oh come on. I am totally sympathetic to Palin needing a wardrobe upgrade for the campaign, and agree that we should be talking about more important things. However, $150,000 is really an outrageous, indefensible amount of money. Perhaps, Grift, you haven't been shopping for women's clothes lately, but there is no way they couldn't have outfitted her with a really nice, high-quality, stylish, designer wardrobe that would have been scrutiny-proof for $20,000.

- Paula

Unknown said...

sorry, professional stylists spending campaign funds does not even remotely compare to "tangential" issues like a long frindship with a convicted terrorist with American blood on his hands whose only regret is that he didn't place more bombs.

Moral equivalency doesn't work on this one.

griftdrift said...

Dale I suppose I could make some moral equivalency analogy about this being an example of Republican's controlling spending but that's not really my point.

My point is these are all irrelevant distractions from real issues.

And Ayers never said he regretted not placing more bombs.

Unknown said...

I guess it all depends on the meaning of the word "more". The article also details a lifelong fascination with explosives by the "Rich Kid Radical".

The NY Times HEADLINE - No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen

''I don't regret setting bombs,'' Bill Ayers said. ''I feel we didn't do enough.''

"So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said."

Link -

Unknown said...

I do agree the spending is irrellevant.

Sara said...

I believe he has since clarified that what he meant was he wished he had done more to stop the war, not setting more bombs just because he liked blowing shit up.

Unknown said...

I fined it hard to believe that a professor, author and editor mispoke that grossly while being interviewed by the NY Times.

Thought experiment - a man cheets on his wife to "get her attention". Later on in marriage counseling he says "I don't regret banging my secretary, I wish I had done more". Do you think he means more to get her attention like flowers, cards and thoughtful gifts or more banging of said secretary.

I didn't think so. Sorry for the sarcasm, but ....come on.... Really?.... really? (hat tip to Weekend Update)

Curious when, where and how he clarified such a clear statement.

Unknown said...

From Wikipedia

January 2004 - "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."

September 9, 2008 - "The one thing I don't regret is opposing the war in Vietnam with every ounce of my being.... When I say, 'We didn't do enough,' a lot of people rush to think, 'That must mean, "We didn't bomb enough shit."' But that's not the point at all. It's not a tactical statement, it's an obvious political and ethical statement. In this context, 'we' means 'everyone.'"[

Looks like he "clarified" after it was damaging to Obama.

Sorry, I don't buy it. This is like people who apologize for cheating. Usually, they are sorry they got caught.