December 11, 2007 2:30 PM
Six degrees of John Edwards
HERE is today's newspaper story on Edwards
Photo by Chris Schneider, The Rocky
This is celebrity week in Iowa.
First, Sen. Barack Obama brings talk show host Oprah Winfrey to stump for him.
Next, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton plays her trump card: Bob Vila. (You know, the home improvement guy...)
Well, not to be outdone, Sen. John Edwards is stumping this week alongside Hollywood actors Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon.
We'll never forget Robbins performance as the studly primadonna pitcher, aka "meat," in "Bull Durham"
And folks of a certain age probably know Bacon best for the game "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon," which tries to prove the theory that any two people on the planet can be connected to one another in six steps or fewer.
So, how do Edwards and Bacon know each other?
As we learn from the Rocky's David Montero, a "six degrees" master of the highest order, they're practically related.
Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon - The John Edwards Edition:
1. John Edwards was on "Real Time with Bill Maher."
2. Bill Maher was in "Tomcats" with Jerry O'Connell
3. Jerry O'Connell was in "Stand by Me" with Kiefer Sutherland
4. Kiefer Sutherland was in "A Few Good Men" with Kevin Bacon.
The only thing Montero fails to mention is that this also gives Edwards a link to former President John F. Kennedy, given Bacon's very memorable performance in the Oliver Stone film "JFK."
December 13, 2007
8:40 AM
Pauline writes:
DSS -- Thank you kindly. It is always a pleasure to read your thought-filled responses. Even though these generally raise far more questions than may ever be answered outside long essays and books that have not yet been written.
Below were some of the driving questions behind the earlier post: what is the impact of celebrity power on a Presidential campaign? how do campaign issues get selected, and by whom? how can we the people expand the candidate dialogue regarding substantive issues?
HR/S 1959 is just one of many interesting bills currently making its way through Congress. It was spearheaded by the RAND Corp. In the 'olden' days when Congress enjoyed common sense, a bill of such ilk would probably have been tabled on "void for vagueness" grounds. Instead it was passed by an overwhelming majority in the House. I entertain little doubt the Senate will 'clean up' the language in the main text and definition sections, and as required by the US Constitution.
Meanwhile, it would be, at least I think, exciting to hear the candidates dig their teeth into the tissue of some such bill, indeed, any equivalent would be appreciated. Why? Because this voter would like to learn 'how' the candidates think, and not just 'what' they think...
Consequently, when I read about Presidential candidates hob-knobbing with celebrities on the political podium, I am unable to resist lamenting over the apparent degradation in dialogue and issue analysis.
To sum up, could Ophrah's statement: "He's the One" actually have any impact on the direction of the vote?
Beam me up Scottie.
December 12, 2007
9:21 AM
DSS writes:
Pauline, I agree with you. This is simply another example of the Congress pandering and throwing money to appear as if they are doing something worthwhile. It is similar to enaction of hate
crime legislation. Ten years ago it became fashionable to enact legislation against hate crimes. Why? Pandering.
I was raised with the chant "sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me." Apparently, that is no longer true.
If someone punches me in the nose why not charge that person with assault as we have for 200 years? Why, instead, say "Well, we must examine that person's mind to know what crime just occurred. If the punch was from a white to a black or vice versa, or from a non-gay to a gay person or vice versa then we will punish the hitter BECAUSE of what that person was thinking.
Wow! I thought abortion rulings discovered a right of privacy in the Constitution. But, under hate crime philosophy, a person no longer has a right to think. Suppose a black person simply says "I hate white people." Is that a hate crime? I would hate to think so.
December 12, 2007
12:32 AM
Pauline writes:
Where do each of the candidates stand, regarding HR 1959, which is currently in committee review in the Senate? I hear Obama is supporting this measure, although he has expressed concerns.
Below is my response from Senator Salazar. My email to him was brief and concise. I simply asked for a 'no' vote on this bill when it comes to full consideration before the Senate. Why? Because America already has a Criminal Law System to cover criminal behavior.
From:
Date: Dec 5, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: A message from Senator Ken Salazar
To:
Dear Pauline:
Thank you for contacting me with regard to H.R.1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. I appreciate hearing from you.
Let me first say that I believe the United States must understand and address the ideological roots from which terrorists originate. This is a vital component of winning the War on Terror. We must also recognize that these ideologies are not exclusive to foreign nations, and take the necessary steps to ensure they do not take hold on our own soil.
As you know, H.R.1955 would establish programs and studies focused on the prevention of violent ideological radicalization within the United States. This legislation passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 404-6 on October 23, 2007, and currently awaits action in the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. Though I am not a member of this committee, please rest assured I will keep your concerns in mind should H.R.1955 come to the full Senate for consideration.
Again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Ken Salazar
United States Senator
December 11, 2007
5:18 PM
M.E. writes:
Ice, ice, baby...
December 11, 2007
4:56 PM
DSS writes:
I thought ME was complaining about the temperature in Iowa today. At least is did not have a - sign in front of it.