Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Pop Culture’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2010

On the inside of the gatefold of the Beatles American LP “Songs, Pictures And Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles,” the narrative of the band’s young 21-year old bassist, Paul McCartney, starts this way:

Paul is sometimes called the “Nut Beatle” or “Beatle Nut” because he is the zaniest of the group.

Whether that was actually true or not is a matter for Beatleologists.

What is for certain, forty-six years later, is that the “Nut Beatle” isn’t zany at all. Rather, the ever-wrinkling “cute one” is a bona fide “shut up and sing” archaic hippie moron with a disgusting and warped sense of values. He is not only reaffirming to the world that even the greatest of musical geniuses can have the emptiest of heads, he is further showing himself to be an insensitive mental oaf in his (almost) old age. That he also worships the most incompetent American President since James Earl Carter only emphasizes his oblivion.

The crotchety old songsmith from Liverpool – who once wrote a song called “Freedom” in response to the 9/11 attacks (a song that was harshly ridiculed by left and has all but been banished from the face of the earth since then) – has already disgraced himself in recent weeks by insulting a former American President on American soil while receiving an award from the American government.

Such class.

Well the “Beatle Nut” has brilliantly advanced his own cause toward immortalized irrepressible idiocy by comparing those who don’t buy into the global warming myth to those who deny the Holocaust.

Yes, the fool on the hill is saying that to deny the unproven, unsubstantiated, ever-crumbling claims that the world is in danger from rising temperatures due to human activity is akin to denying the most well-documented atrocity in human history.

To this day, there is not a stitch of proof – only agenda-driven theory, scattered supposition, wishful leftist thinking and fear-mongering – that human beings are not only causing the planet’s temperature to rise, but that we are putting the planet in danger by doing so. Yet, proof of the Holocaust exists in abundance. To deny it would be like denying the existence of the sun.

From Fox News:

Sir Paul McCartney just can’t let it be.

The former Beatle predicted in an interview that the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico might expedite a move to cleaner, renewable energy sources in the world.

Sir Paul could have stopped while he was ahead, but McCartney went on to compare people who don’t believe in global warming to “those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.”

“Sadly we need disasters like this to show people,” McCartney said in an exclusive interview with The Sun. “Some people don’t believe in climate warning — like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.”

McCartney continued, “But the facts indicate that there’s something going on and we’ve got to be aware of it if we want our kids to inherit a decent world, not a complete nightmare of a planet — clean, renewable energy is for starters.”

Sir Paul is obviously among the many deep thinking hysterics on the left who believe that temperatures are naturally static, with little fluctuation. I would ask him: What temperature should it be right now, Sir Paul? And how would he explain the melting of all the Ice Age ice thousands of years before the advent of the Hummer?

To begin with, the planet is not in a warming cycle.

Even Phil Jones – the Maharishi of the man-made global warming hoax – admitted that during the last fifteen years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

As I wrote in February:

There is not one scintilla of data (i.e., evidence) showing that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, as asserted by the likes of King Hysteric, Al Gore. In fact, a closer look at King Gore’s famous hockey stick charts purportedly showing that increased CO2 levels trigger temperature boosts actually suggests that the opposite may be the case.

There is not a neutron’s worth of scientific evidence that human activity is causing temperatures to go up, nor is there anything to back up the claims that the planet is in danger. Every so-called bit of proof put forth by the enviro-fascists is either inconclusive, irrelevant, anecdotal or an outright misrepresentation. There is nothing – repeat nothing – scientific about the so-called causes of global warming and the so-called effects of such warming, nor is there anything of any kind proving that human beings are contributing anything to such phenomena.

It’s all nonsense

But even if there was some sort of warming trend, so what?

Temperatures fluctuate all the time. There have been plenty of warming periods in this planet’s history as well as plenty of cooling trends. It is the height of arrogance – and ignorance – to think that human beings can have such a major impact on global temperatures. If we so desired – if the very existence of humanity depended on it – no matter how we might try, we do not have the ability to raise the earth’s temperature in any significant way.

But the bigger issue here is equating the denial of something that is, at best, scientifically questionable – a left-wing movement riddled with scandal, manipulation and outright deceit – with the denial of something as provable (and abhorrent) as the Holocaust.

To deny the greatest documented evil of all – the Holocaust – is itself evil.

Thus, to equate the denial of man-made global warming to Holocaust denial is to say that disagreeing with the likes of Al Gore, Ed Begley Jr. and Paul McCartney is evil.

It not only trivializes Holocaust denial, it is the ultimate insult to those whose lives were impacted by the Holocaust.

It is shameless.

Not that anyone is paying much attention, mind you.

Rest assured, however, had McCartney compared the denial of God to denial of the Holocaust, he certainly would have gotten play in the lamestream media.

McCartney without a guitar or piano is much like Barack Obama without a teleprompter.

Incidentally, the lyrics to the now extinct song Freedom are:

This is my right
A right given by God
To live a free life
To live in freedom

Talkin’ about freedom
I’m talkin’ ’bout freedom
I will fight
For the right
To live in freedom

The left hated that song.
wordpress statistics


Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Music, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 3, 2010

No one will ever forget the White House wang-dang-doodle that took place during Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s visit to America last month. The glitz-and-glam White House state dinner honoring the man who runs the country that supplies America with the bulk of its illegals was a memorable evening of spinelessness, delectable cuisine and Latin rhythms.

It was about recognizing “bonds,” rejecting borders, bashing Arizona and giving the uninteresting George Lopez something to talk about on his painfully stagnant television program. It was a much-needed escape for an over-worked, distressed Messiah with only so much of himself to give who had spent his every waking moment – every molecule of energy and focus – trying to figure out how to stop the Gulf oil spill.


The highlight, of course, was Calderon’s harsh criticisms of the Arizona illegal immigration law, delivered on American soil – in front of a joint session of Congress, no less – culminating in a standing ovation from Democrats.

For those who may have thought that such a golden treasury of memories could never be duplicated, you thought wrong.

Enter Sir Paul McCartney – former Beatle, songwriter extraordinaire, uncouth moron.

On the soil of the country that solidified his legend – on the very ground of the nation that has embraced him and deified him for more than four decades – he took a page from the Ungrateful Rich Bastards handbook and decided to toss dignity onto the fecal pile of civility by insulting a former President of the United States. Without a shred of dignity – with the grace of a lanced boil – the author of such classic songs as “Hey Jude,” “Yesterday,” “Eleanor Rigby” and “Let It Be” decided it was appropriate to play panty-waste politics at an event that was to be decidedly non-political – his receiving the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song – and take a jab at an ex-American President.

After extending his thanks to the Library of Congress, the 67-year old Mother Nature’s Son said, “After the last eight years, it’s good to have a president that knows what a library is.”


Such class.

Of course, Barack Obama has been President for 17% of the last eight years, but we know what Paulie meant.

And incidentally, George W. Bush –  a voracious reader, by all accounts – reads books that would short-circuit the lovely Liverpool lad’s brain and cause his head to explode.

As a lifelong Beatles fanatic, collector of Beatle memorabilia, and one who has a genuine reverence for the genius of McCartney’s songwriting, I don’t give a damn how great “Hey Jude” is, or how much I adore “Can’t Buy Me Love,” or how impressed I am with “For No One.” This man – this foreigner – has some pair of iron apples to stand on American soil and insult a former Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America.

It isn’t only improper, it is a thoughtless, selfish jab at half of his audience.

Why would he go out of his way to alienate a sizable chunk of people who love his work by going political?

Where is his graciousness? 

What did it accomplish?

Well, another White House party, of course.

From the Washington Post:

Arguably the most influential musician alive, the 67-year-old pop architect was in the East Room to receive the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song, celebrating an unparalleled career that spans his years with the Beatles, Wings and on his own.

“In a few short years, they changed the way we heard music,” Obama said of the Beatles before presenting McCartney with the prize. He added that he was “grateful that a young Englishman shared his dreams with us.”

The president also welcomed an array of artists to perform McCartney’s tunes and genuflect before the maestro. Stevie Wonder, Dave Grohl, Faith Hill, the Jonas Brothers, Jack White, Elvis Costello, Emmylou Harris, Herbie Hancock, Corinne Bailey Rae and classical pianist Lang Lang each offered thoughtful reads on the McCartney songbook.

But McCartney was the first to perform, and despite feigning nerves at a Tuesday news conference, he waltzed into the East Room as if it were his living room. He dived into “Got to Get You Into My Life,” plunking away on the same Hofner bass he played on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964 — his once-boyish yelp now an older, coarser shout.

Let’s pretend the “party all the time” White House machine was grinding along with a Republican at the helm while the Gulf oil spill continued to wreak havoc more than a month after it began. And let’s pretend that instead of Paul McCartney, the honored performer was someone a little less liberal – a country singer, perhaps. And let’s pretend it was the second White House bash inside of two weeks while unemployment continued to tickle 10%. And let’s pretend there was a scandal brewing about the White House’s involvement in promising jobs to people for dropping out of specific political races.

The outrage would be incalculable.

The fallout from a White House so “out of touch” would be downright toxic.

But to so many, Barack Obama is like a hot babe. He’s a Beatle. He’s just too cool for the rest of us to be harping on issues like ineffectiveness and weakness. He’s the Messiah we can touch and smell and gush over – unlike invisible men in the sky who pass judgments. He’s the one who can see the other side – unless that other side is conservatism. He’s the one who will bring the world together – except longtime allies of America. He’s what all of us – including Paul McCartney – have been waiting for.

Paul, do me a favor.

Get back to where you once belonged.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Music, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 19, 2010

Biblical scholars and religious academics come and go, but very few have the insight of Great Britain’s Sir Elton John. Captain Fantastic not only knows how to caress the keys and make them sing, but his biblical prowess is unparalleled in the world of pampered musicians, whiny divas and historically illiterate celebrities.

How does he do it?

Two millennia of humanity were not able to discover it. Holy men, teachers, philosophers, students, archeologists and historians for the better part of twenty centuries could not unearth it. Never has there been serious consideration of such a thing … that is, until now.

Thank you, Sir Elton, for letting the world know that Jesus Christ was a homosexual.

Pete Samson from The Sun writes:

JESUS was GAY – according to the gospel of SIR ELTON JOHN. The singer makes his controversial claim about the Lord in a new US interview that will enrage America’s bible belt.

Elton, 62, declares as he pours out his heart to a magazine: “I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems.”

He adds: “Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel. Try being a gay woman in the Middle East – you’re as good as dead.”

Presumably, these revelations came to him through the Gospels of Doug and Bruce.

I find it interesting that Sir E neglected to specify “Islam” when pointing out that being a gay woman in “the middle east” makes one as good as dead.  The all-encompassing “middle east” designation only showcases Mr. John’s extraordinary understanding of that part of the world.

After all, think of all those lesbian executions that take place in Israel.

One other question, Tiny Dancer: Would Jesus have been just as compassionate – or super-intelligent – if he were heterosexual?

Just asking.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Entertainment, Music, Pop Culture, religion | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2010

Let me be perfectly clear.

In the grand scheme of things, a person’s race is the least relevant factor to me in determining appeal, worth or moral fiber. On the list of things that matter to me when assessing someone’s merits, his or her favorite fifteenth century Gaelic philosophers carry more weight than skin tone.

Because I am not a modern liberal, I do not obsess over one’s race. Amidst the trials, tribulations and travels of my daily life routine, I just couldn’t care less. I respect Thomas Sowell, for instance, because he is a brilliant thinker and writer, not because he’s black. I oppose almost everything Barack Obama does politically because he’s an inexperienced, in-over-his-head, arrogant, leftist, not because he’s black. By the same token, I dislike Michael Steele because, as Chairman of the RNC, he’s an incompetent clod, not because he’s black.

To that end, I think Black History Month should be abolished. I believe the Black Congressional Caucus needs to be disbanded and tossed onto the ash heep of history. And if Martin Luther King Jr. has a national holiday in his honor – and I certainly think he should – then the mockery that is “President’s Day” needs to be wiped off the calendar and George Washington’s Birthday reinstated as a federal holiday. (How is it that arguably the greatest American of them all is lumped into a catch-all, mattress-sale day that includes such giants as Millard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce and Jimmy Carter?)

I would ask … What exactly does a “post-racial” America look like in the eyes of those who say there is still much work yet to be done in the ever-contentious area of race relations? How would such a nation look to those who still see everything through the prism of race? How do we know when we get there? Is it even possible to do so? Or do race baiters, victicrats, excuse-makers and pop culture icons continue to define the parameters of the game?

No one is denying that racists exist in America. But America is not a racist nation. There also exist pink-haired teenagers, but we are not a pink-haired teenage nation. There are atheists in America as well, but we are not an atheist nation.

We are the United States of America – one nation under God.

We are the freest, most accommodating, most welcoming nation the world has ever known. We are the least racist nation on earth.

Enough already.

(Deep breath)

You may ask, “Okay, Andy, what prompted you to write this today?”

Recall that when Barack Obama was still a candidate, back in the summer of 2008, he spoke out against Rene Marie. You may remember that Marie sparked quite a controversy when she unexpectedly sang what is known as the “black national anthem” before Mayor John Hickenlooper’s “State of the City” address in Denver, Colorado. She did so without anyone’s prior knowledge or approval, saying later that, “I realize the mayor’s State of the City address was not my personal platform, I know that. But an artist tends to take advantage of situations where we can make an artistic statement, we tend to do that. I like knowing that my art leads to dialogue.”

At the time, Barack Obama said that America had only one national anthem – the Star Spangled Banner – and that Marie was wrong to do what she did. Marie said, “I am not signing the national anthem anymore, it just doesn’t represent me.”

Fast forward to February, 2010.

The White House hosted a concert a couple of nights ago called, “In Performance at the White House: A Celebration of Music from the Civil Rights Movement.” It was a Black History Month celebration featuring a slew of black artists, civil-rights era performers, and other dancing Obamacrats.

The grand finale was the singing of ‘Lift Every Voice and Sing’ – the black national anthem.

Barack Obama joined the artists on stage, grabbed a microphone and sang along.

No, they weren’t singing the national anthem. They were singing the “black national anthem.”

There he was – the leader of the free world – shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Smokey Robinson and Morgan Freeman, not singing God Bless America or America the Beautiful, but rather, singing the song better known as the “black national anthem.” There he was, the President of all the United States – the President of all Americans, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, or party affiliation – up on stage in the People’s House, singing the “black national anthem.”

Did I miss the on-ramp to “post-racial America?”

Is he kidding me?

Is this the same man who said he wouldn’t wear that “flag pin” on his lapel? Is this the same man who wouldn’t say the Pledge Of Allegiance? Or put his hand over his heart? Is this the guy who, as the most powerful man in the world, apologized on several occassions for his own country on foreign soil? Or the one who bowed to foreign heads of state? And the Mayor of Tampa? Or the one who laughed when Wanda Sykes made tasteless jokes about Rush Limbaugh’s death?

Yes. The same.

There may be only one national anthem, but there are obviously two Barack Obamas (or more) – the less-threatening, all-race-friendly President of all the people (save for conservatives) … and the one who finds no problem getting on stage and singing the “black national anthem” at the White House.

I will hand over the deed to my house to the first passer-by the day we see Barack Obama grabbing a microphone and singing the national anthem on stage with anyone anywhere.

Or God Bless America.

Or America the Beautiful.

Incidentally, the President hosted a meeting yesterday with “black leaders” to discuss the economy – including the race-baiting, riot-inciting hate-merchant, Al Sharpton. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous, in the spirit of post-raciality, compared Senate Republicans to “Dixiecrats” who blocked civil right legislation over over four decades ago. Said Jealous: “If the Senate Republicans want to kind of keep on using tactics … from the last century that were used against black people in this century, against working people, then we’re going to hold them to account.”

Hope and change, hope and change …

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, American History, Pop Culture, Racism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 8, 2010

So, let me see if I got this straight…

All the controversy was over that?

That’s what all the rowdydow was about?

The much talked-about, hotly-debated, hyper-contentious Super Bowl ad featuring 2007 Heisman Trophy winner, Tim Tebow, that had pro-abortionists across the map frothing at the mouth did not contain the word “abortion.” It did not use the phrases “right to life” or “pro life.” Tim’s mom, Pam, who was the main focus of the ad, never talked about her decision to avoid terminating her pregnancy, never mentioned making the choice to “keep her baby,” and never even used the word “life.” In fact, this wonderfully sentimental, but thoroughly benign ad, couldn’t have been less controversial if it had to be. The only indication at all that this ad had anything to do with the “pro life” movement was when the final screen featuring the words “Focus On the – Celebrate family. Celebrate life.” appear.

That’s it.

Here is the exact text of the ad:

Mrs. Tebow: I call him my miracle baby. He almost didn’t make it into this world. I can remember so many times when I almost lost him. It was so hard. Well he’s all grown up now, and I still worry about his health. You know, with all our family’s been through, you have to be tough.

(Tim comes roaring in and “tackles” his Mom. Mom quickly pops back up).

Mrs. Tebow: Timmy, I’m trying to tell our story here.

Tim: Sorry about that, Mom.

(Focus On the Family Screen pops up).

Tim: “You still worry about me, Mom?”

Mrs. Tebow: “Well, yeah. You’re not nearly as tough as I am).

This is what the national panty-twisting was all about? Are you kidding me? Bugs Bunny wearing a bra to disguise himself from Elmer Fudd was more controversial than this.

See for yourself (if you haven’t already):

How shall America recover from this?

wordpress statistics

Posted in abortion, Pop Culture, Sports, Television | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

Here in New York, everything is New York Jets. Admittedly, I’m unaccustomed to having the media go berzerk over my team. That’s something usually reserved for the good teams – like the Yankees or Giants.

The week leading up to today’s AFC Championship Game has been an exciting one. I’ve enjoyed it immensely. Indeed, it seems everyone in New York has gone “green” … but rest easy, there isn’t an Al Gore in sight. This is the good kind of green.

With a win today over the Indianapolis Colts, the Jets move on to the Super Bowl for the first time in 41 years. (Just saying that is to dabble in the surreal).

When the Jets played in Super Bowl III all those years ago, they were heavy underdogs against a team that, on paper, should have chewed them up, spit them out, and used the remnants as window insulation. Forty-one years later, it is, once again, the mighty Colts – they were in Baltimore then – standing between the Jets and destiny.

As much as football and broadcasting have changed in four decades, I thought it would be interesting to take a look back – before football was America’s most popular sport, before the ten hours of pregame hooplah, before cigarettes were banned from television advertising, before the age of space-age television graphics – at how that first Jets/Colts game looked, forty-one years ago, as it happened on broadcast television.

Forty years ago, the pregame show for Super Bowl III did not begin five days before kickoff. There were not pregame concerts, channels dedicated to endless prognostication, nor were there in-depth profiles of everyone from the waterboy to the clubhouse toilet scrubbers accompanied by cutting edge computer animation.

Not that any of that is bad.

Rather, back in the olden days, the pregame show was 30 minutes long.

Here is exactly how someone would have kicked off his Super Bowl III television festivities forty-one years ago.

It begins with the famed NBC peacock and a slight sampling of the state-of-the-art technology.

The clip is :59 seconds long.

It is the first of four clips I am sharing from Super Bowl III.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

This is the second of four clips I am sharing of the original NBC broadcast of the Super Bowl game forty-one years ago between the Baltimore Colts and the New York Jets.

This is how the actual game broadcast began, following the thirty-minute pregame show.

This one showcases the state of the art graphics and the sponsorship billboard (yes, that means cigarette advertisers). It also features play-by-play man Curt Gowdy talking a bit about Joe Namth’s famous guarantee of victory over the mighty Colts.

We’ve come a long way in forty-one years.

The clip is 2 minutes 45 seconds long.

Fascinating to be sure.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

Forty-one years ago, when there two professional football leagues – the AFL and NFL – arguably the most famous Super Bowl was played in Miami, Florida.

Super Bowl III matched the NFL’s Baltimore Colts and the AFL’s New York Jets.

I thought it would be interesting to take a look back at how different the game was presented back then – both in content and , obviously, in technological terms.

First, from the original NBC broadcast of January 12, 1969, here is something that has LONG since been eliminated from the pregame festivities …. the Pledge of Allegiance.

It was conducted by three of the Apollo 8 astronauts.

A different time, indeed.

The video is :57 seconds long.

It is the third of four I am posting looking back at how the big game looked 41 years ago.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2010

Once upon a time, Super Bowl commercials weren’t exactly super. Of course, Super Bowl ads weren’t quite as pristigious as they are today. Products like mint shaving cream, Bic ballpoint pens and Clamato flavored juice from Motts aren’t exactly the type of products we have come to associate with Super Bowl advertising.

Forty-one years ago, when the Colts and Jets met in Super Bowl III, the primary products advertised during the NBC broadcast were not cars and beer.

It was cigarettes.

Here is a sampling of some of the commercials that aired forty years ago during the broadcast of Super Bowl III. (There’s only one cigarette commercial included).

This is the fourth of four clips I am sharing from the Super Bowl III broadcast. 

It is 4 minutes, 29 seconds long.

Posted in Pop Culture, Sports | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 9, 2009

Yesterday was the twenty-ninth anniversary of John Lennon’s murder here in New York City. Indeed, I remember that evening as vividly as anything in my life. I was a thirteen year old Beatle freak (a generation removed, but no less fervent), much more liberally minded, somewhat rebellious, with a dream of either being a professional musician or a radio personality, sitting in front of my television (when I probably should have been in bed asleep) watching Monday Night Football when Howard Cosell made the announcement on the air, somewhere around 11PM, that Lennon was dead.

As a young teenager who had only recently become a bona-fide Beatlemaniac, his death was a tremendous blow. To the tens of millions of people he touched with his music, his senseless killing was, to me, as devastating a loss as there could have been outside of losing a loved one.

I so adored the music of the Beatles that – at the risk of sounding painfully maudlin – I felt (at the time) like a little piece of me died that night.

Much has come and gone in nearly three decades, including my own set of “right turns.” I am, as ever, a steadfast conservative, a proud American – pro life, pro-military, a proponent of tax-cuts and limited government, a strict-constructionist, a firm believer in God, happily married for eighteen years, father of two.

John Lennon, by contrast, was a liberal’s liberal – a genuine leftist who coined and popularized the insipid phrase “Give Peace A Chance” and asked us to imagine a world without a heaven or religion. His childlike – some would say childish – visions of a planet without borders and possessions (always an odd thing, I thought, coming from a man who loved his money and his toys) was beyond simple idealism. It was pure fantasy, void of all critical thought (as all hippie drivel was), without a scintilla of reality tied to it. He and his widow, Yoko Ono, were more than dreamers. They were, frankly, fools, given credence because of Lennon’s enormous celebrity.

Lennon was no hero. I don’t really know of any entertainers who are – or who should be. Heroes defend nations, save lives, protect neighborhoods and raise families. And as important as music is in every one of our lives – Dennis Prager calls it “God’s drug” – I can hardly equate genuine heroism with a killer sounding rhythm guitar track (as in Lennon’s performance on the Beatles’ “All My Loving”). As a musician, I admire Lennon’s songwriting ability (particularly with the Beatles) and his capabilities as a rhythm guitarist.

Lennon – the peace-loving, dope-smoking, anti-establishment, power-to-the-people leftist variation – is inexorably woven into the popular culture. Speaking purely as a musician, it is a genuine shame that when the name John Lennon is mentioned, the images that are conjured up are almost always of his hippie-dippie, anti-war activist, bed-in era self, ever-epoxied to the side of Ono.

The fact is … that Jesus-Christ looking pop culture icon wouldn’t have attracted a fire engine had he been on fire if it were not for what he and his three mates from Merseyside accomplished during the years 1963-1968.

It is John Lennon, the songwriter, the Beatle, the man who helped transform popular music forever (with his equally genius partner, Paul McCartney) that I acknowledge here.

Simply put, John Lennon either wrote or co-wrote some of the most memorable music in the history of human civilization. His sense of melody, timing (odd as it could be at times) and his ability to create an unforgettable “hook” has rarely been duplicated – save for his partner of many years, Sir Paul McCartney. During the early Beatle years, so many of the songs that are now considered pop music standards and classics came from John Lennon.

Long before there was the experimental, socially conscious, primal scream version of John Lennon with wire-rims and scraggly center-parted hippie hair, there was the brilliant mop-topped songsmith John Lennon – the one that will forever have his name uttered by human lips long after almost every other human being that has ever existed on this planet is forever forgotten. The music and melodies he and Paul wrote were as influential on the artists that succeeded them as any that have ever existed. John, Paul, George and Ringo – to this day – are the benchmarks by which others are measured.

John with his first wife, Cynthia

From the Beatles first number one song in Great Britain, “Please Please Me,” to the far-ahead-of-its-time guitar signatures on the infectous “I Feel Fine,” to the unforgettably heavy “Ticket To Ride,” to the classic melody and harmonies of “Help!”, not to mention one of the most recognizable guitar riffs ever in “Day Tripper,” Lennon’s genius, coupled with his prolific output, is something to marvel at.

On the album “A Hard Day’s Night,” the first and only Beatles LP to contain nothing but Lennon-McCartney songs, 10 of the 13 songs were either composed partly by Lennon, or completely by him – including the instantly recognizable and beautiful “If I Fell,” the harmonica driven “I Should Have Known Better,” the Wilson Picket inspired “You Can’t Do That” and the rockin’ “Tell Me Why” – all radio staples.

Let’s not forget that he co-wrote, with Paul, some of the biggest hit singles in music history, including “I Want To Hold Your Hand,” “From Me To You,” “She Loves You” and “A Hard Day’s Night.”

1965 may have been his most amazing year of output. Along with “Ticket To Ride,” “Help!” and “Day Tripper,” he composed such timeless classics as “Norwegain Wood,” “In My Life,” “Nowhere Man,” “Girl,” “You’ve Got To Hide Your Love Away” and “You’re Going To Lose That Girl.”

Damn impressive.

Equally extraordinary is his work on the “Revolver” LP from 1966, which was by that time becoming more complex and experimental – but no less memorable. “I’m Only Sleeping” is one of my favorite songs of all – lethargic, melodic, dreamy – and one of the most beautifully haunting melodies he ever composed. It is also, by the way, one of the first recordings ever (if not ever) to employ a completely backwards guitar solo. And yes, I admittedly love the hypnotic “Tomorrow Never Knows.”

Two of his contributions to the “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” LP are not only among his best ever, but are two of his most recognizable Beatle songs – “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” and “A Day In The Life” – both considered among the greatest classic rock tracks of all-time.

Indeed, I may not have believed for a second that all we needed was love, as he sang in the summer of 1967, but I still loved the song – particularly the line, “There’s nowhere you can be that isn’t where you’re meant to be.”

“I Am The Walrus” is one of my favorite recordings of all time, incidentally.

I just wanted to take a moment – as a musician of twenty-five years myself – to say, from a musical perspective, thanks to Beatle John Lennon – a wonderful musician cut short in the prime of his life. He was a thoroughly flawed (as we all are), politically imbecillic human being whose public importance beyond his contributions with the Beatles is exponentially exaggerated by mindless leftists.

He was no savior. He was no hero. He was sometimes the walrus.

He was a hell of a songwriter.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Music, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 3, 2009

If not for radical judges who circumvent the will of the people by legislating from the bench, how many states would have legalized same-sex marriage today? (There are currently five). Without these fanatical, agenda-driven, left-wing policy pimps sifting through the penumbras of existing law to magically discover formerly obscured legal epiphanies, would there be any state where same-sex marriage was lawful? In thirty-one prior instances (out of thirty-one), when the redefinition of marriage was brought before the people, the measure has flat-out failed. This has been the case not only in red states, but in the blue ones as well.

Americans simply do not want marriage redefined. And as mystifying as it may be to proponents of same-sex marriage, that does not mean Americans hate gays.

Yet, in what was supposed to be the post-everything era in America, the plague of intolerance is apparently still pervasive, so the story goes.

The proof?

Yesterday afternoon, another shade of east-coast blue was added to the rainbow of intolerance. This time, it was the State of New York.

Indeed, it was not a direct vote of the people – like last year’s Proposition 8 in California, for instance, or last month’s ballot initiative in Maine – but for all intents and purposes, the number of states that have said “no” to redefining marriage is now at thirty-two.

By a vote of 38-24 – a far higher margin than most would have anticipated – the New York State Senate said “no” to a bill that would have made same-sex marriage legal. Eight Democrats were among those who voted to maintain the traditional definition of the institution.

The bill had already passed the State Assembly. This was would have been the final step before the governor’s signature made it law.

Jeremy Peters of the New York Times writes:

The vote means that the bill, pushed by Gov. David A. Paterson, is effectively dead for the year and dashes the optimism of gay rights advocates, who have had setbacks recently in several key states.

Mr. Paterson made an unusual trip to the Senate floor minutes after the last vote was cast, saying, “These victories come and so do the losses, but you keep on trying.”

The debate was as personal as any to take place in the Senate chamber in years. Senators spoke of their experiences as Jews and Baptists, as blacks and women. They spoke of spending long nights contemplating their votes and the deceased gay friends and relatives who inspired their decision.

Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, a Democrat who represents parts of the Bronx and Westchester County, spoke publicly for the first time about her gay brother, who was shunned by her family and moved to France.

To being with, I do sympathize with Senator Hassell-Thompson. I mean that sincerely. But matters of public policy can not be formulated based on emotion. Sound decisions, in any walk of life, can not be scored through emotional filters. The ordeals of her gay brother and family, while heartbreaking and tragic on a micro level, is irrelevant to the macro issue. The adoption of same-sex marriage would have had no bearing on whether or not the senator’s brother was shunned by his family. As callous as that may sound to those whose value sets are defined by their emotions, it isn’t meant to be. What proponents of same-sex marriage fail to realize is that keeping the definition of marriage as it has always been isn’t rooted in hatred of homosexuals, as many gay activists incorrectly charge.

As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, I don’t hate gays.

I don’t hate my siblings either, despite my vehement objections to sibling marriage.

The redefining of marriage to include same-sex couples is a foreign concept in the cumulative of human history. This is not to say that same-sex relationships have been alien to humanity – far from it – but there is no thinker, philosopher, theorist, religious leader, sage, academic, poet or guru who has ever been a proponent of redefining what has been the foundational institution of humankind for millennia.

Not one.

Are we to believe that the gay activists of the last couple of decades posses more wisdom than the whole of humanity that preceded them?

Arrogance, I believe is the word.

As I wrote a year ago in my piece, “I Don’t Hate Gays, Okay? Part Two“:

Is sensitivity to be measured by how much one concedes to the requests and desires of given population groups? Is it not possible to be sensitive and sincerely empathetic to the desires of homosexuals on a personal level while wanting to maintain the traditional definition of marriage on a macro level? These are not mutually exclusive positions.

My purpose here is not to once again make the case against same-sex marriage – or even make the case for traditional marriage. Rather, my contention is that matters of public policy, such as the redefining of marriage, are issues that are to be decided by the people – not frustrated judges who are well aware that their radical agendas cannot pass muster with the American electorate, nor by elected representatives who tug on emotional heartstrings in order to win.

Instead of gays demanding that heterosexuals accept their lifestyle choices – while simultaneously admonishing them for butting into their private lives – how about taking a page from the suffrage movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries and try to change minds through good old fashioned grass roots activism? The arduous, decades-long struggle that led to the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920 was far more than just a string of angry protest marches. The idea of giving women the right to vote had to be sold.

Instead of lambasting traditionalists and labeling them as “haters” and “bigots,” how about explaining in reasoned tones why the definition of marriage should be changed? How about clarifying in rational terms why the value system that would permit same-sex marriage is better for America than one that recognizes marriage as a union between one man-one woman? How about defending the notion that same-sex marriage is okay, but sibling marriage is not? Or polygamy? Indeed, rallies are fine, but how about getting out there and engaging with the American public through debates, town hall meetings and other interactive forums? How about facing skeptics and detractors in the arena of ideas and present the best case for the legalization of same-sex marriage? Go out and sell it.

That’s how things get done in this country.

There’s no guarantee, of course, that same-sex marriage can be sold. Think of the movement to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. It didn’t fail for lack of activism or trying.

And if the people of my state find themselves persuaded after years of effective “gay rights” campaigning to vote in favor of same-sex marriage, what then can I say about its legitimacy? Despite my vehement opposition to it, I would grudgingly have to cling to my credibility and consistency by conceding that “the people have spoken.” Indeed, I wouldn’t like it, but no one ever guaranteed me complete satisfaction in this life.

If I am so inclined, there are always other states.

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Gay issues, Pop Culture, same-sex marriage | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 30, 2009

Limbugh - he's number one

It won’t surprise most to learn that talk show host Rush Limbaugh is considered by Americans to be the most influential conservative in the country. In fact, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll issued yesterday, Limbaugh sits comfortably ahead of the pack with 26% of the tally, 15 points ahead of Glenn Beck.

To many, however, that number sounds too low. Way too low. The general perception persists among influential lefties (i.e., the mainstream media) that all conservative thinkers, talkers and pundits get their daily marching orders from Limbaugh in some form.

He is the puller of strings, issuer of swastikas, and mentor to all who hate.

It cannot be denied that no other conservative can twist the panties of the mainstream media like Limbaugh. They obsesses over no one else on the right like they do Limbaugh. All other conservatives combined don’t draw the attention that Limbaugh does on a daily basis. (Yes, even the current Sarah Palin fervor will subside over time).

But that’s okay.

It has almost become a spectator sport to see which news outlet can take a Limbaugh quote and render it most unrecognizable from its original meaning each day.

Good times.

That the most influential conservative in America is not a politician is both telling and predictable. The reality is, Americans are infinitely more likely to hear conservative values articulated more eloquently and more thoroughly on talk radio than from almost anyone serving in Washington.

Incidentally, both former-Vice President Dick Cheney and former-Governor Sarah Palin came in one point behind Glenn Beck at 10%.

Two other tidbits from the poll are worth touching upon.

First, President John F. Kennedy was chosen by 29% of those polled as the face they’d most like to see added to Mount Rushmore. President Ronald Reagan finished behind him at 20%.

This is not the least bit surprising.

In all honesty, I am actually quite astonished Reagan pulled in as many as 20%.  I say so not because Reagan is undeserving. To the contrary, I can think of no one more worthy of such an honor. 

Unfortunately, President Reagan is not nearly the popular culture icon JFK is. (Who is?) That Kennedy was a politician is almost secondary. Kennedy is revered much the same way John Lennon, Elvis Presley and James Dean are.

To this day, he personifies “hope” and “promise” and “what might have been.”

Those are big ones on the lefty hit parade.

He was young, charismatic, uncommonly photogenic, as quick on his feet as any one in public life has ever been, and murdered in the prime of his life.

All the ingredients are there.

To this day, Kennedy is regularly referenced and cited by Democrats who long to build bridges to their party’s storied past; and yes, even by Republicans who routinely claim that he’d actually be a conservative on many critical issues by today’s standards. For whatever reason, it seems mighty important to folks on both sides of the aisle that they are able to claim their share of the JFK pie.

Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, couldn’t even muster a mention by the current President during the ceremonies earlier this month commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. As I recall, there was that whole “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” thing that might have been interesting to bring up, but Reagan’s name never came from Obama’s lips.

Obama did, however, manage to quote JFK.

The President exemplifies how America is hard-wired.

The fact that one of America’s greatest presidents – largely portrayed by the mainstream media as an overrated, yet likable, cowboy who could never have accomplished a damn thing without the great Mikhail Gorbachev to guide him – still manages 20% of the vote behind someone as culturally deified as John Kennedy is quite astounding.

Attaboy, Gipper.

Finally, which of these events did Americans say they would most want to participate in?

Laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier; lighting the Olympic torch; tossing the coin to open a Super Bowl; starting the race at the Indianapolis 500; ringing the opening bell at the stock exchange; or throwing out the first pitch at the World Series?

Believe it or not … half of Americans said that laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns is the ceremony they’d most like to be a part of.

Maybe there’s hope yet.

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Polls, Pop Culture, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 30, 2009

You probably didn’t realize that Gore Vidal – an icon, I’m told – is a sharp provocateur, did you? You weren’t aware, I’m sure, that this 83-year old “too smart for the room” cultural relic is as delightfully irreverent as he is engagingly irascible. He is so complex, so enchanting, so cantankerous, so dazzling – a veritable bouillabaisse of pervasive cogitation – that to not elicit his opinion on any given subject is to embrace intellectual apathy. He apparently possesses a “trademark wit” and does “dead-on” imitations of John F. Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Oh, goody.

Mr. Vidal – interviewed by John Meroney of Atlantic Magazine – believes that the United States doesn’t deserve a man like Barack Obama at the helm.

Gore VidalMeroney: Barack Obama’s books seemed to persuade many people to support him. Have you read them?

Vidal: No. Does one ever read a politician’s books?

Meroney: Well, Obama actually wrote them himself.

Vidal: I’m sure he did. He’s highly educated – and rather better than a country like this deserves. Put that in red letters.

Yes, according to Gore Vidal – one time chairman of the People’s Party in the early 1970s, and an advocate of impeaching former President George W. Bush for war crimes – Barack Obama is “rather better than a country like this deserves.”

“A country like this?”

(Vidal once famously said, “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat … Essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”)

And didn’t Bill Ayers, the terrorist, help co-write the Obama book Dreams From My Father?

Vidal goes on to refer to the 13-year old girl that Roman Polanski drugged and sodomized in 1978 as a “hooker.”

Meroney: In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

Vidal: I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

Meroney: I’ve certainly never heard that take on the story before.

Vidal: First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

Such class.

Such wit.

Trademark, I’m told.

But wait … it gets better. Not only was the raped child a “hooker” – which, presumably, sheds some much-needed light on the misunderstandings that characterize the entire Polanski affair – but the fact that Polanski is Jewish played a major role in what happened to him.

Yes, anti-semitism – not the raping of a minor – is what brought Polanski down.

Vidal: The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

Yes, the story was totally different thirty-one years ago. It has been manipulated by Jew-haters and conservatives alike over the course of time. Why couldn’t the rest of us see that?

Some of the original headlines – “Young Teen Seduces Director – Forced Him Into Sodomy” and “Polanski Hoodwinked By Teeny-Bopping Tart” – have since been lost to the annals of time. Thank goodness the great provocateur Gore Vidal could set it straight for everyone.

Meroney: You think anti-Semitism is motivating the prosecution of Polanski?

Vidal: Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski. He was also a foreigner. He did not subscribe to American values in the least. To [his persecutors], that seemed vicious and unnatural.

Meroney: What are “American values”?

Vidal: Lying and cheating. There’s nothing better.

If ever there was something that does not require any further analysis, it is Vidal’s definition of “American values.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Pop Culture, Values | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

Readers of Roman Around know that I’ve no need to resort to the use of profanity here, and save for a few occasions in which I’ve opted to quote someone else, I have deliberately avoided it. I assure you, I am no prude, and I certainly don’t say this from a position of superiority or righteousness. I do not begrudge any of my colleagues in the blogosphere who do (including some I respect immensely). It’s simply a choice I’ve made for this blog.


Primarily because I find it beneficial to elevate language whenever possible. Yes, I am wont to have a little fun with words now and again, but as a rule, I find wanton profanity polluting and wholly unnecessary – particularly in a world where competing ideologies and value sets can get explosive.

I don’t even allow replies with profanity to be posted here. If there is a point to be made in response to something I’ve written, I trust it can be made without having to resort to vulgarity.

If it cannot, then I invite the reader to go elsewhere.

Indeed, a case can be made that there is a time and place for profane language – like in a movie, or when listening to Senator Chuck Schumer speak.

However, there are times – rare occasions – when the inclusion of profanity and epithets on this blog become a necessary evil to illustrate critical points.

(Uh oh, says the audience … What am I trying to say here?)

Here’s my point:

The common criticism – the underlying theme – in the tsunami of anti-Rush Limbaugh rhetoric that has flooded the mainstream media in recent days has been Limbaugh’s (supposed) insensitivity and divisiveness. His bid to be a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams football team actually offended and outraged many.

Limbaugh has no place in the National Football league, his enemies have said. He is simply is not good for professional football, his detractors have argued. He would not project the right image or uphold the league’s high standards, his opponents have claimed.

At Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood site, blogger “Stage Right” exposes hypocrisy at its double-standard ugliest:

And now a word from an NFL owner:

“And the game done chose me to bring pain to niggas and pussy holes, they one in the same.”     – I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Sensationally crude, I know.

(My sincere apologies)

But in light of the brutal beating Limbaugh has taken in the media for things he never said or did, such eloquence and lyrical vivacity bear repeating in order to emphasize the point: “Niggas and pussy holes.”

Isn’t it delightful?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you that grandiloquent wordsmith – and minority owner of the Miami Dolphins – Jennifer Lopez.

As “Stage Right” explains:

Jennifer Lopez, whose Sondheim-like lyric genius is on display at the top of this post, holds the same status with the Miami Dolphins as Limbaugh would have with the Rams. And, not only does she have co-writer credit on this offensive drivel, she also recorded and performed it live. She continues to earn money in royalties for her genius use of the “N-Word.” My guess is that those who took issue with Limbaugh’s imaginary racial slur are OK with J-Lo’s actual racial slur because she looks a lot better in tight pants.

Although Limbaugh has slimmed down considerably in recent months, I’ll concede the point and give the nod to Lopez in the “looks-better-from-behind” department. However, distinguishing between that which is excreted from that shapely backside of hers and the filth coming from her mouth is no easy task.

(My apologies once again).

Remember, liberal bigotry unifies.

Compare Lopez’s lyrics with these words that actually did come from Limbaugh’s mouth:

When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals.

Appaling, right?

Divisive, yes?

How dare he say that he wants every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. How dare he see Americans as human beings. Perhaps if he saw them as “niggas” and “pussy holes,” he’d have been accepted by the standard bearers of professional football.

Stage Right at Big Hollywood continues:

Meanwhile, another minority owner of the Dolphins has some controversial issues with public statements as well. Recently, Dolphins minority owner Serena Williams broke quite a few FCC laws by letting loose an “F-word” filled tirade on live television during the US Open. Then she menacingly threatened a side judge and was subsequently disqualified. This kind of behavior and speech seems to be right in line with the NFL’s standards since I missed the press conference from Commissioner Roger Goodell condemning it.

Ahh, yes.

Self control personified.

If only the coffers of Medicare and Medicaid could have been fortified with one dollar for each use of the F-word in Serena’s nationally televised snit; President Obama could have then focused on his pursuit of the Nobel Prize in Physiology instead of health care reform.

Finally, we get to Fergie, some-time member of the Black Eyed Peas and some-time solo artist.  You betcha, she has also been approved as a minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Earlier this week, Goodell said of Limbaugh’s potential ownership, “Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.” Is he splitting hairs between “comments” and “lyrics?” Because these lyrics from a 2003 Black Eyed Peas song sounds pretty divisive to me:

Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA …

A war is goin’ on but the reason’s undercover
The truth is kept secret, it’s swept under the rug

Nothing like accusing the CIA of terrorism and our government of lying to bring people together.

 Goodell also said, “We’re all held to a high standard here.”

Really? Does this meet his high standard?

Whatcha gonna do with all that junk
All that junk inside your trunk
I’ma get get get get you drunk
Get you love drunk off my hump
My hump my hump my hump my hump my hump
My hump my hump my hump my lovely little lumps

How about drinking so much that you wet your pants, mid-song, on stage, in front of a live audience?

Where, pray tell, is the contingent of outraged football players on this one? And who will summon the courage to comment on the divisivness of accepting a  member of a musical group that accuses the CIA of terrorist activities as a minority owner?

Am I to assume the league would somehow be tarnished to have a man who doesn’t care a damn thing about skin color – and has said repeatedly that he wants everyone in the United States to succeed – as a minority owner, but somehow benefits from embracing a foul-mouthed, undisciplined, F-bomb dropping cry baby?

When can we expect a statement from Al Sharpton on the unacceptability of a non-black using the word “nigga?” (Beacuse it’s clearly okay for blacks to use that word). 

Aren’t 70% of the NFL’s players offended by the diviseness of Jennifer Lopez’s use of a racial epithet? 


And other adjectives too.
wordpress statistics


Update – October 17, 2009, 10:08 AM

In a column published online last evening at the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh wrote:

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?


Posted in American culture, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

As a public service to faithful readers of this blog, I am going to cautiously lead some of you to a place that is all at once frightening, disorienting and embarrassing. It is a place that many of you have heard about in one context or another, but one that can make even the most iron-constitutioned conservative shudder.

Be forewarned.

It isn’t pretty.

I take you deep within the chattering ranks of a leftist blog.

(Now would be the time to remove any children or frail seniors from the room).

At Think Progress, back before it was announced that Rush Limbaugh would be dropped from the group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team,  many of leftism’s deepest and most articulate thinkers weighed in on Limbaugh potentially becoming a part-owner in the NFL.

The best and brightest of post-racial America voiced their concerns and shared their intuitive analyses.

Not a single word has been altered, and not a single one of the screen-names has been changed to protect the pathetic.

If Rush is approved , he could change the name from Rams to the Nazis or KKK, have his own Brown Shirt Army and at half time have them drill march with swastika flags and have a KKK celebration with a burning cross at midfield.                                    -Nellieh

When I heard that Boss Limbaugh expressed interest of buying the Rams, I had to wonder what bad pain killer did he take. Having Limbaugh buy any football team which have predominently African-American players is like having the KKK buy a football team. This would put a black eye on the NFL franchise if EL Rushbo brought the Rams.                               -SP Biloxi

After all, when Limbaugh told an African-American caller to “take the bone out of his nose”, he was just “commenting on race.”                                   -Ralph the Wonder Llama

I’m sure plenty of owners have racist tendencies. The only difference is that Rush’s feelings are on the record.                                         -Badmoodman

It would be a real hoot if after tub-o-lard shelled out all that dough and bought the team, the entire team walked out on his fat ass.                                -Bozo the Neo Clown

Rush couldn’t even pass the NFL’s drug abuse policy.                     -Kid Charlemagne

Rush just wants a bevy of team doctors to shop from.                            -Xisithrus

Limpballs has so thoroughly immersed himself in white-wing racism that it will be a monumental task for any team he would own to keep non-white players. Limpballs has catered to the stereotypical dumb white bozo who hates anyone non-white.                              -Evangenital

This is great news… After Limberger’s ego gets back into shape after finding out he can’t change the symbol on the St. Louis Cards helmets to a burning cross, and that they refused to wear white hoods under their helmets, he’ll go on a two-week rant about his being singled out for discrimination. What joke this lump is.                               -Winski

You folks are thinking the wrong way about Rush. He thought that, by buying the team, he was actually buying the players. He figured that this would be an end run around the 13th Amendment and that he could treat his black players like the slaves he wishes he could own.                                -fergus

He also fantasizes about hanging around the locker room ogling his big, strapping athletes and ordering them to do nasty things to him.                                          -fergus

I’m not sure any additional commentary is needed here. It speaks for itself.

And keep in mind, this was but a sampling.

These are the same cerebral heaviweights who profess that if you are in favor in same-sex marriage, you must hate homosexuals. These are the same intellectual powerhouses who say that if you are opposed to affirmative action, you must hate minorities. Therefore, what other reason could there possibly be for Rush Limbaugh to want to be part-owner of a professional football team other than his desire to be able to say he effectively “owns” black men?

Reasonable, no?

Meanwhile, on his radio program yesterday – just one day after being booted from the potential buyers group – Limbaugh took a few moments to speak with Ken Hutcherson, a former NFL linebacker who is now best known as the pastor of the Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington.

Incidentally, “The Hutch,” as Rush calls him, is black.

(It shouldn’t matter, but to the American leftocracy, nothing matters more).

Here was the exchange between Hutcherson and Limbaugh. (That’s Uncle Tom and Adolf Hitler to you lefty bloggers):

Ken Hutcherson

Ken Hutcherson

Limbaugh: Hutch, Welcome to the program.

Hutcherson: Hey, my man. I am so mad. I am doing backflips up here in Seattle. What in the world is going on in the United States? I mean, the whole issue, Rush, whether you like it or not, is they have done you wrong. And this is intolerance. It’s prejudice. And if America don’t wake up, it’s going to happen to them. I am so mad, man, I can’t even – and I’m a man of the cloth, Rush. I’m not supposed to get this upset.

Why don’t they talk to some African-Americans who know you?

Limbaugh: Oh, that would destroy the narrative. That would destroy the template.

Hutcherson: Oh, forget that. You know, and talk to some African-Americans who know the poverty pimps, Sharpton and Jackson. They’re nothing but slave sliders and pushers to get their way. And they’re going to let them have a voice on all the stuff that they’ve done? Jesse Jackson was telling Bush to, “Stay out of the bushes.” He was the one in the bushes having illegitimate kids. How in the world can the NFL – and I’m going to tell you something else, brother, straight from me, who played football – those African-American brothers who talk about they wouldn’t play? That is the biggest lie on this side of the universe. Not only would their wives get on them and make them go – and their girlfriends, and their moms – they would beat them all the way to the 50 yard line and tell them, “You better get out there and get that game check.” And why don’t they talk to the hundreds of African-American players that would be excited about you owning a team?

Limbaugh: Well, they want to present the idea that there are none, and that’s what they’ve done. 

I’ll have to check the archive of Rush’s famed “ditto cam” to see if he was still wearing his minstrel paint when talking to Hutcherson.
wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009

Although not hard core, I fancy myself a bit of collector – primarily New York Mets and Beatles memorabilia – but I concede to being out of my league on this one. Therefore, from the perspective of a wet-behind-the-ears, low-level, minor-league pack rat, I must ask … How exactly does one display singed hair?

I’m sure that among those bad-to-the-bone, big-time collectors who make it their business to scarf up everything from Hollywood ear wax secretions to the fruits of a good rock and roll nose picking, the quandry of how to prominently showcase the burnt hair of a dead pop singer poses no problem.

To me, however, it is a mystery.

Under glass?

In baggies?

As part of a multi-container body hair display case?

I don’t know.

Once I heard that Michael Jackson’s burnt hair was up for sale, I knew this would keep me awake nights.

From The Sun:

Michael Jackson on fireSinged strands of Michael Jackson’s hair that were burned in a Pepsi advert are coming up for sale.

They were collected by Ralph Cohen, the executive producer of the commercial, who took off his coat to put the flames out on the singer’s head.

Jackson was said to have never fully recovered from the second degree burns and an autopsy reportedly showed he was almost bald.

The hair was preserved after the accident in 1984 by Mr Cohen and the 12 strands are clearly singed.

The hair and Mr Cohen’s account as well as a signed colour photo of Jackson are set to make up to £1,000 when they go under the hammer.

Also up for sale are two confirmed carrot stubs used by Bugs Bunny in his 1942 film “Bugs Bunny Gets The Boid.”
wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 30, 2009

question-markFor the sake of argument, let’s say a high-profile conservative talk show host was embroiled in a sex scandal involving an underage girl. Specifically, let’s pretend that Rush Limbaugh was the talk show host in question, and the underage girl was thirteen years old. In our hypothetical scenario, let’s make believe that Mr. Limbaugh, responding to a fan letter, made a promise to an aspiring thirteen year old broadcaster – a ninth-grader – that he would fly her to his studio in Florida and put her on his radio show. Let’s say he contacted the excited girls’ parents about the plan, and they agreed.

The thrill of a lifetime, right?

Now let’s say that during her visit, Mr. Limbaugh got the young girl drunk, fed her drugs and sodomized her.

Let us all try to imagine the absolute firestorm that would inculcate every free molecule of print, airwave and bandwidth of the mainstream media and beyond. Let us all try to envision and comprehend the totality of not only the expansive media coverage of such a disgusting thing, but the sheer outrage that would blanket and dominate the national dialogue.

Everyone from the uninteresting and self-absorbed Keith Olbermann to thinker-extraordinaire Whoopie Goldberg would be calling for the head of Mr. Limbaugh on any platter. Unbridled indignation would sweep across the nation faster than a college kid can mutter “Dude.” There would be nonstop coverage of Limbaugh the Rapist on every news channel, website, blog, and checkout-stand tabloid. Limbaugh’s reputation would be instantly obliterated, and his career would be over – and rightly so.

But here’s the real question … Could anyone ever envision a time when the public’s outrage of Limbaugh’s crime would ever diminish, especially given the fact that he is an outspoken, unapologetic conservative?

Not likely.

Let us assume that Limbaugh went to jail for the crime, lost everything he had, served his time, and eventually attempted a comeback of some sort down the road. Would he ever be able to shake the tag of child rapist?

Wouldn’t it follow him everywhere for the rest of his natural life?

“Former talk show host and convicted child rapist, Rush Limbaugh …”

“Conservative child rapist Rush Limbaugh …”

After all, despite overcoming his drug addiction to Oxycontin years ago – an accomplishment normally lauded by the Left – Rush is still blasted as an addict by the likes of the tactless and unfunny Congressman Barney Frank, the gay brothel’s best friend.

What I’m really asking is … Does the rape become less terrible with time? Does any rape?

The answer seems obvious, but perhaps the reality of the answer depends on who is committing the rape and who is being asked the question.

Thus, let us remove Rush Limbaugh from the discussion and instead insert celebrated film maker Roman Polanski.

What has changed?

Polanski - film maker, rapist

Polanski - film maker, rapist

For one, we move from the hypothetical to the real. Polanski actually did drug a young thirteen year-old gal before raping her.

Second, while Limbaugh (like Polanski) is a celebrity, Limbaugh is not widely admired or held in awe by the most influencial forces of popular culture. To those who control the “drive-by media,” Polanski is seen as flawed, but still eminent and significant.

Limbaugh is simply a hater and a divider.

And so it was that 76-year-old Polanski was finally arrested in Switzerland on Saturday – more than thirty years after the fact.

And as expected, the star-studded, morally-bereft Left is rallying to his cause – primarily because of his “brilliance” as a director and the fact that the crime took place more than three decades ago.

From Harrison Ford to Debra Winger, from Woody Allen to Martin Scorsese, the “Free Roman” cheers are filling the air.

Morality, apparently, has an expiration date if you’re left of center.

Anne Applebaum of the Washington Post exemplifies this attitude perfectly:

There must be some deeper story here, because by any reckoning the decision (to arrest Polanski in Switzerland) was bizarre — though not nearly as bizarre as the fact that a U.S. judge wants to keep pursuing this case after so many decades.

So, in other words, because it happened so long ago, and because the crime is not nearly the emotional lightning rod it was in the 1970s, the desire to administer justice all of these years later must fall within the realm of the bizarre. (Accordingly, Applebaum effectively places blame with “a U.S. judge” for bothering to keep this old annoyance alive – not with the rapist).

What if the fugitive rapist was not an artistically influential pop-culture icon? What if it was someone on the decidely conservative side of the cultural or political spectrum – Ronald Reagan, Oliver North, Sean Hannity, Thomas Sowell, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, William Buckley, or anyone not revered for his soul-touching artistry and ground-breaking creativity?

Would Applebaum come to his defense, too?

She continues:

He can be blamed, it is true, for his original, panicky decision to flee. But for this decision I see mitigating circumstances, not least an understandable fear of irrational punishment.

Actually, Polanski can be blamed for drugging and raping a child.

The fact that Polanski survived the Krakow ghetto during World War II (while his mother was murdered at Auschwitz) has absolutely nothing to do with his raping of a thirteen year old girl in 1977, and should not, by any moral standard, play a role in whether or not Polanski should pay for his crime. Additionally, the fact that his wife and unborn child were murdered in 1969 by the Charles Manson family, while profoundly tragic, is irrelevant to this case. Indeed, as Applebaum points out, Polanski was a suspect for a short period of time in Sharon Tate’s murder – a factor that coupled with his experience at Krakow, according to Applebaum, contributed to Polanski’s “fear of irrational punishment.” But so what?

What on earth does that have to do with his contemptible treatment of a thirteen year old girl?

And yet, the growing sentiment is: Poor, poor Roman Polanski.

Cries of outrage at Polanski’s arrest are coming in from all corners of the globe.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said, “A man whose talent is recognized around the world, recognized especially in the country that arrested him, that’s not nice. This story, frankly, is a little sinister.


This is now the criterion for whether or not a man should be punished for a detestable crime?

“Not nice?”

Would the French Foreign Minister feel the same if it were his thirteen year old daughter having her senses numbed by alcohol and quaaludes at the hands of a horny 44-year old pervert before being violated? Would Polanski’s “recognized talent” amount to a hill of beans to Kouchner if it was his child who was being penetrated, both vaginally and anally, by a man more than 30 years her senior?

If I may ask him directly … How exactly do you define “sinister,” Mr. Kouchner?

This is the crux of my article today and where much of my distaste rests – that Polanski’s standing as an artist somehow has any bearing on whether or not what he did should be subject to any further punishment.

From the Globe and Mail Online:

Frédéric Mitterrand, the Minister of Culture, went further. He called the rape case “an old story” and said he was stupefied that Mr. Polanski would still be pursued.

“There is an America that we love,” he said. “There is also a certain America that scares us.”

International leftists love America when it is more like Europe, i.e. weak and unwilling to stand up against evil. The fact that America values goodness and liberty more than how many vacation days one has on the books, like the French do, scares them.

Again, note how Mitterrand refers to the Polanski case as “an old story,” not worthy of pursuit all of these years later. Clearly, as alluded to earlier, the crime’s severity seems to be directly proportional to the talent of the criminal and the amount of time that has passed since the crime.

Yet another factor that cannot be overlooked is whether or not the crime was perpetrated on a human.

Leftists seem to save their most bombastic displays of outrage for crimes against animals – or the execution of convicted first-degree murderers.

Vick - quarterback, dog killer

Vick - quarterback, dog killer

NFL Quarterback Michael Vick will forever be branded a cruel, despicable human being unworthy of forgiveness because of what he did to dogs. Indeed, his actions were deplorable, but when other athletes have actually been involved in the death of humans, outcry has been minimal, at best.

To many, Vick is evil personified.

Roman Polanski, on the other hand, has directed such cinematic classics as Rosemary’s Baby and Chinatown. He’s a supremely talented and highly respected movie maker. His crime was committed against a thirteen year old girl over thirty years ago – something he’s certainly sorry for.

It’s time for all of us to get over it and move on.

Besides, the girl who was raped is doing just fine today.

Producer Harvey Weinstein said he would try to mobilize the movie business to support the petition drive so that Mr. Polanski would not be forced to return to court. Mr. Weinstein reportedly owns the international rights to an HBO documentary that was broadcast last year and contends that Mr. Polanski did not get a fair trial in 1978.

And Polanski was in Krakow, and his wife was slaughtered by Manson, blah, blah, blah …

Please understand, I am not diminishing the brutality of the Manson murders. Each of those examples of human debris who participated in those killings should have long ago been executed.

And I am certainly not diminishing the horrors of the Holocaust.

Rather, I chide those who rally around a child rapist who has, for three decades, escaped the justice that he must rightfully face in some form, regardless of his age, the time between the crime and his arrest, and his talent for film making.

Ticks of a clock do not lessen the ruthlessness of what he did to that little girl.

With all of that said, it is necessary that I acknowledge the fact that a legitimate argument can be made that the amount of law enforcement resources it would take to have Polanski extradited, along with what would almost certainly be a long, drawn-out, costly re-trail, is not the wisest or most efficient use of money and energy. A case can certainly be made that Polanski poses absolutely no threat to anyone. I am willing to concede that point as well. Even the young women who was raped by Polanski has said that she forgives him and wishes Polanski would be able to return to the United States.

For those not aware, Polanski actually served 42 days at Chino State Prison in California where he underwent a psychiatric observation period. Initially convinced that he would ultimately only get parole for what he did, Polanski fled the United States when prison and deportment became a very real possibility.

He remained a fugitive until Saturday. He was taken into custody while on his way to the Zurich Film Festival, which is actually holding a tribute to him this year.

Actress Deborah Winger epitomized the raging amorality – and sick irony – that is rampant among Hollywood elites when she reacted to Polanski’s arrest, saying, “The festival has been unfairly exploited.”

The festival.

Still, the questions loom … Is justice to be set aside because of how long ago the crime took place? Or because of the financial burden of bringing him back to the United States to face charges? Or because he has (in the eyes of some) already “paid” for his crimes in ways more tangible than mere jail time?

And as the morally weak of the world continue to come to the defense of Polanski, one of my favorite mottos is given more credence: “Whatever world opinion is on any given subject, go with the opposite.”

Kudos to the Swiss, incidentally.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Entertainment, Ethics, Pop Culture, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 17, 2009

Congressman Hank Johnson

Congressman Hank Johnson

“He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks,” said Congressman Hank Johnson about colleague Joe Wilson, “If I were a betting man, I would say that it instigated more racist sentiment.”

Tolernace is a peculiar word to use.

I would say something about the pot calling the kettle black, but I might get accused of being a Grand Wizard or something.

I don’t recall Mr. Johnson – or any of his fellow Dems – condemning anyone during the nearly eight-year cavalcade of vitriolic Bush bashing that took place prior to the Messianic Age. Where exactly was Mr. Johnson when swastikas were being substituted for the letter “s” in any number of anti-George W. Bush protest signs? Where were his thoughtful remarks after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called President Bush a liar? Where was the call for civility when former Vice President Al Gore bellowed like an angry old man returning socks at Wal Mart, screaming that Bush had betrayed this country.

I suppose Dems were just being tolerant.

If I were a betting man, I would guarantee that the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are at (or near) their breaking points, tired of this ongoing desperation game being played by panicked Democrats.

Johnson went on to say, “I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again, riding through the countryside intimidating people.”

Contemptibility, thy name is Hank Johnson.

Come now, Congressman, do you actually believe that people will now start sporting white hoods and uniforms? Are you serious? Do you truly think that in this day and age Ku-Klux-Klan-like bands of angry racists are going to take to the “countryside” and terrorize people? Because of two words blurted out by one congressman?

Are liberals born this way, or is it a contracted condition?

I don’t expect the mainstream media, in its infinite uselessness, to question such ignorant and embarrassing comments made by a black congressman. The fact is, from Charles Rangel to Diane Watson, when black politicians cry racism, the rest of the world is expected to take it, accept it as truth, fold up like a cheap table, and go find other racist conservatives to yak about.

But aren’t Johnson’s claims of a possible return to burning crosses and lynching at least as provocative, or worthy of at least the same media attention, as the assertion by the President that illegals would not be covered by his health care reform plan? Is there no one in the mainstream media who thinks that Mr. Johnson needs to explain himself any further? Are there no follow up questions anywhere to be asked of this man? Are journalists simply exhausted from expending all their energy and resources into covering Joe Wilson and the aftermath of his ruthless “You lie!” attack on the President?

I would ask Mr. Johnson, and every other coward who has used racism to explain away opposition to the President’s agenda, if it is possible to disagree with Obama and not be a racist? If so, what would that opposition look like or sound like?

Posted in American culture, health care, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 24, 2009

David Paterson, NY GovernorSo, let me see if I understand this correctly – and please feel free to jump in at any time with any necessary corrections.

In a state so egregiously liberal as New York – ranked as the “least free” state “by a wide margain” in a recent study released by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University – where equality supercedes liberty, high taxes are driving out business by the boatload, and government intervention is the happy norm, Governor David Paterson believes a racist media means him no good.

In blue New York, where avid multiculturalists, same sex marriage advocates, abortion proponents, and Al Sharpton all feel right at home, David Paterson thinks a bigoted press wants to drive him from office because he’s black.

In a state so blue that centrists are seen as potential fascists; where campaigns for “gender neutral” bathrooms are par for the course; where individual income, corporate and sales taxes are disgustingly high and spending on social services is well above the national average; where certain cooking oils are banned from use in privately owned restaurants; where the mayor decided that the will of the people was irrlevant and put the kaibosh on term limits; and where one of the most diverse population centers of the world – including a large, vibrant, influential and culturally expansive black community – exists, the Governor is yanking out the good old race card and slamming it on the table.

In New York of all places!

Kenneth Lovett of the Daily News writes:

Gov. Paterson blamed a racist media Friday for trying to push him out of next year’s election – launching into an angry rant that left even some black Democrats shaking their heads. “The whole idea is to get me not to run in the primary,” Paterson complained on a morning radio show hosted by Daily News columnist Errol Louis.

He suggested that Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the country’s only other African-American governor, also is under fire because of his race.

“We’re not in the post-racial period,” Paterson said. “The reality is the next victim on the list – and you can see it coming – is President Barack Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system.”

Paterson said the campaign against him is being “orchestrated” by reporters who would rather make the news than report it. But critics said the governor should blame his own blunders.

“He’s given the media more than enough to feed on with the incompetence shown in his administration,” said state Sen. Kevin Parker (D-Brooklyn), an African-American.

“To quote Michael Jackson, he should start with the man in the mirror,” Parker said. Even state Sen. Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), a black supporter of the governor, urged him to be more like Obama by staying “focused on the message.”

Paterson has been the target of Democrats who fear his low approval ratings – 18% at their lowest and about 30% now – will endanger the party next year if he decides to run for his first full term as governor.

Paterson’s incompetence as New York’s head honcho couldn’t possibly be the reason for any negativity coming his way. Rather, it must be the inherent “white hooded” mentality that secretly permeates the media in the Empire State – and elsewhere. The main stream media simply cannot stand blacks. They’ll do anything necessary to help facilitate their removal from public office. After all, it’s common knowledge that New York’s media complex is ferociously right-wing.

Everyone knows that.

As a blogger at Red writes:

His inability to deal effectively with a complete break-down in the state economy, numerous state level scandals among the Democrat leadership and the leadership debacle in the state Senate have certainly not helped this lightweight.

Recall during the Presidential campaign that Paterson said the repeated use of the term “community organizer” by Republicans in describing Barack Obama’s experience was really code for “black.” Recall that it was during a speech at the NAACP convention in Cincinnati where Paterson implied that an Obama loss in the presidential election would be a win for racism. He also said that being called an “accidental governor” following Eliot Spitzer’s resignation was motivated by racial bias.

The Governor of New York has got to learn to shut his whiny mouth, act like a man, and come to the realization that he is simply ill-equipped to handle the position. His well publicized failures and almost non-existant support reflect his lack of skills as an executive, not the level of melanin in his skin.

No one gives a damn about his skin color.

Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 7, 2009

John Hughes

John Hughes

John Hughes, writer and director of such classic 1980s teen-life films as “The Breakfast Club” and “Sixteen Candles”, as well as being the man behind “National Lampoon’s Vacation” and “Home Alone,” died in New York yesterday at the age of 59. 

Film critic Roger Ebert once called Hughes “the philosopher of adolescence.”

There’s no way to improve upon that.

I am not one normally taken to crafting tributes or summarizing the lives of those I respect or admire – that’s better left to people who will due the deceased justice – but I do admit to being sad about his passing, perhaps more so than I expected; not only because he was so young, but because his work admittedly made a lasting impression on me.

Films he either penned or directed, such as the iconic “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” and the hilariously underrated “Planes, Trains And Automobiles,” have always been among my favorites. His films were marvelously uncomplicated, well constructed, always entertaining and never condescending.

And, of course – most importantly – his films made me laugh.

And although Hughes hadn’t directed a film for almost twenty years, I always had the feeling – and the hope – that he might return to the director’s chair one day.

Hillel Italie of the Associated Press writes:

Hughes’ ensemble comedies helped make stars out of Molly Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy and many other young performers. He also scripted the phenomenally popular “Home Alone,” which made little-known Macaulay Culkin a sensation as the 8-year-old accidentally abandoned by his vacationing family, and wrote or directed such hits as “National Lampoon’s Vacation,” “Pretty in Pink,” “Planes, Trains And Automobiles” and “Uncle Buck.”

“I was a fan of both his work and a fan of him as a person,” Culkin said. “The world has lost not only a quintessential filmmaker whose influence will be felt for generations, but a great and decent man.”

Other actors who got early breaks from Hughes included John Cusack (“Sixteen Candles”), Judd Nelson (“The Breakfast Club”), Steve Carell (“Curly Sue”) and Lili Taylor (“She’s Having a Baby”).

Actor and director Bill Paxton credited Hughes for launching his career by casting him as bullying older brother Chet in the 1985 film “Weird Science.”

“He took a tremendous chance on me,” Paxton said. “Like Orson Welles, he was a boy wonder, a director’s director, a writer’s writer, a filmmaker’s filmmaker. He was one of the giants.”

Back in the day, when I had fewer rings around my trunk, and I was sure I was either going to be a professional (world renowned) musician or a highly-respected film maker, John Hughes was one of the people in the artistic community I admired most. His way of capturing a moment without ever needing to overstate or exaggerate it – to be able to summon the emotions of the viewer so that the happenings on the screen were as accesible as they were believable – impressed me tremendously.

I, too, wanted to do that.

So did many others.

I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to John Hughes and thank him for some wonderful memories of adolescence (few as they might have been).

Rest in peace.

Posted in American culture, Entertainment, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 30, 2009

Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

We have finally made it.

We have finally entered the long-awaited “Post-Racial” era in the United States of America – the era of colorblindness envisioned by the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – where character is central to how we judge our fellow man. This is (coincidentally enough) synonymous with the coming of the Obamacratic Age – a new Messianic Age – where harmony and understanding finally sit at the foundation of American society, particularly among grey-haired pony-tail types, aging angry blacks, and members of academia. It is the time when both sympathy and trust abound. (Indeed, peace shall guide the planets while love steers the stars).

Today, in fact, at the White House, President Obama – the Post-Racial President, the Unifier, the One – will be hosting what is being billed as a “teachable moment” as he brings together white Cambridge, Massachusetts police office James Crowley and black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for a glass of beer and a slice of understanding.

Officer James Crowley

Officer James Crowley

Whether Crowley and Gates will be helicoptered in or will simply balance themselves on the shoulders of President Savior as he water-shuffles onto the south lawn is unclear, but media coverage of the event should displace all other news stories for a good five to six hours – even pushing aside the latest on the month-old death of Michael Jackson. (Yes, he is still dead).

The police officer (who acted “stupidly,” according to the President’s initial evaluation of the situation, void of facts and full of crap) and the professor (angry that he wasn’t instantly recognized as one of planet’s most important academics, only to blame it on racism) will hopefully clear the air, mend fences and put a pretty bow on the latest Obama photo-op. After all, what kind of “Post-Racial” America is this if white Americans and black Americans can’t come together to agree that the United States is full of bad white Americans?

And that goes for their institutions, too!

It ought to be a hoot.

There will be so much for them to talk about.

Sadly, however, the one person that really ought to be at the big powwow today – and will not – is Lucia Whalen.

Remember her?

Lucia Whalen

Lucia Whalen

She played a fairly important role in this over hyped, overplayed, non-story that only became newsworthy because a relic black professor, bitter that the Cambridge Police Department asked for his identification instead of his autograph, made it so. It goes without saying that if Gates had never screamed “racism” after being asked to produce identification, there would not have been a piece of newsprint small enough, or a slice of bandwidth narrow enough, to accommodate an event as painfully routine and extraordinarily uninteresting as this.

Whalen is the one who placed the call to 9-1-1 that brought the police to Gates’ residence after he and his driver were seen breaking into the house.

Since then, Whalen has been ostracized, scrutinized and abused almost everywhere – from the leftist end of the blogosphere to the mainstream alphabet channels. She has been picked apart, her motivations dissected, her character questioned, and flat-out been branded a racist simply for doing what any reasonable human being would have done given the circumstances. She saw something that was, at the very least, an unusual event and, at most, a felony – and she’s been paying for it ever since.

Beating me to the punch, Roger Simon at Politico commented on this White House “shunning” of the widely reviled Lucia Whalen before I had the opportunity to finish this piece.

He writes:

She will not get a beer with the boys. Lucia Whalen has not been invited to the White House.

The three amigos — Henry Louis Gates Jr., James Crowley and Barack Obama — will throw back some cold ones on the South Lawn on Thursday as the whole world watches this “teachable moment” on race in America.

And they deserve a drink. They have been through so much! How they have suffered!

In reality, only Whalen, the woman who called 911 on July 16 to report a possible break-in at the Cambridge, Mass., home of Gates, acted responsibly from beginning to end in this whole affair.

And she doesn’t even get a free drink out of it.

Whalen never used the words “black” or “African American” in her 9-1-1 call. In fact, except for a dubious description about one of the men possibly looking Hispanic (after being asked to describe the men), there was absolutely nothing in her call about race or ethnicity.

Simon is also incorrect on one point.

Having read the police reports, heard the comments from the parties involved, and weighed analysis from law enforcement officials who are familiar with the accounts and details of the incident, I am convinced that Officer Crowley did precisely what he was supposed to do. He did act responsibly, following proper procedures in responding to a possible breaking-and-entering call.

In this instance, I refuse to be one of those “both-sides-could-have-handled-it-better,” mushy-in-the-middle, lightweight, friend-to-everyone peace makers.

The truth is the truth.

Gates was in the wrong – not for locking himself out of his own home, but for behaving like an ass when the police arrived to protect that home. Ultimately, his foot-stomping got him arrested … and a trip to the White House for a beer.

Meanwhile, Lucia Whalen – the vigilant citizen – is under fire.

Eric at the Great Vocal Minority blog writes:

This morning Ms. Whelan, on the verge of tears, went on nationwide television and delivered a public statement defending herself against what is nothing other than a modern-day tarring and feathering.

Only in “post-racial” America does a woman who did absolutely nothing wrong have to do this. Whoever has leveled such charges against her no doubt adopted their sick ideology from hate-Whitey liberals like the Harvard professor. And it is of no small significance that Gates is a friend of our pathetic hate-Whitey president.

I am embarrassed for Cambridge, for Harvard, and for the president of the United States, who I consider personally responsible for flaring this story up into a national debacle.

The transcript of Whelan’s 911 call is right here and there is not a single racist remark made in the whole thing. Whoever has done this to her should be ashamed of themselves. They are no different from the 88 loathsome Duke Professors who wrote and still for the most part defend their letter smearing the Duke lacrosse players.

It is a sad irony that an innocent bystander trying to do the right thing has been the target of more hateful racist remarks in a few days than Henry Louis Gates Jr. has probably had to endure for many years.

Had he even been remotely subjugated to the kind of “racism” he claims he had to brave at the hands of the Cambridge Police Department at any point in the last, say, fifteen or twenty years, is there anyone alive who honestly believes America would not have heard about it in grizzly detail by now?

He’d already have created at least two documentaries on “Black Hatred in Modern America.

He might even have a telethon.

Of course, this is not to claim that racism has been erradicated in America.  Belief in a flat Earth hasn’t been erradicated in America, let alone racism.

I would submit, however, that Americans like Professor Gates are far more likely to experience everyday, run-of-the-mill, normal human “unpleasantness” due to the disposition of others and the routine nature of human interaction than racism.

Welcome to the “Post-Racial” United States.

And by the way, Officer Crowley’s integrity was not only brought under fire on a national level, he was roundly insulted by an uninformed, quick-to-twitch President of the United States for doing his job “stupidly.”

Mr. President, you know what you can do with that beer.

Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics, Pop Culture, Racism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 6, 2009

Jacko and Big AlA good Monday morning to you.

As I prepare for what promises to be a tremendously trying day work-wise – slowly sipping my iced coffee, wondering if a few left-over grilled hot dogs is really the smart choice for breakfast – a couple of quick thoughts come to mind.

If there are two words I do not want to hear used in the same sentence for an indefinite period of time, effective immediately, they are “Jackson” and “Michael” – in any order.

I have no degree in journalism and I am not employed by any major news outlet, but I’d like to offer this tantalizing little news nugget (and please feel free to use it at your own discretion) – Michael Jackson is still dead. Chances are excellent that his status will remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. Reports of his death have not been exaggerated, and readers of this blog can expect no further updates on his condition unless something remarkable happens.

I sincerely pray for his soul and wish for his loved ones to find comfort in what is obviously a most difficult time, but once again, this just in … Michael Jackson remains dead.

(Although I hear that the CNN Special Report – “Michael Jackson – The Beverages He Loved and the Soap He Used” was pretty good).

Second, why is it that Reverend Al Sharpton matters? How on earth does such a race-baiting, irrelevant, lying sack of arrant swill – the self-proclaimed arbiter of all that is just and equitable – still get any sort of face time on any news channel? How is it that what he thinks about anything is newsworthy?

I am a steadfast supporter and defender of the First Amendment, so I don’t wish him to be silenced in any way.

My only wish (this morning) is that Mr. Sharpton could hear himself the way most everyone else hears him.

That’s quite a wish, I know.

That, and world peace.

I don’t ask for much.

Posted in American culture, humor, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 26, 2009

The poster that launched a billion fantasies

The poster that launched a billion fantasies

Yes, I know.

Just about every blog from here to the Columbia River country has this image posted today. Certainly, there’s nothing particularly insightful, original, ground-breaking or unique in simply posting this iconic picture and jotting down some quick assembly-line words of tribute – like I am doing here. I have no stories to tell about her, no “dirt” to dish out, no heartfelt synopses to convey, no juicy morsels of gossipy blather to share.

Boring, I know.

Indeed, this legendary image of her says nothing about the type of person she was. It doesn’t reveal anything about her character or strength. It is simply a snapshot in time – a very well known snapshot in time.

She was obviously far more than a sexy young gal in a bathing suit who once upon a time triggered the collective hormones of just about every red-blooded male over the age of 12.

She was loved by many, and those who were close to her are now dealing with the pain of her loss.

I just wanted to take a moment, for what it’s worth, to say thanks to Farrah Fawcet for making my adolescence just a touch more enjoyable. Millions and millions of us who were growing boys back then will never forget this image, nor forget her.

Rest in peace, Farrah Fawcet.

You will be missed.

God bless you.

Posted in Pop Culture | Tagged: | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 24, 2009

Chinese Theater

Democrats, liberals, social activists and other utopia-seekers need to prepare their exit strategies a little better. Whether following a successful and noble struggle (like the civil rights battles that culminated in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), or a dreadfully unsuccessful one (the so-called War on Poverty that has cost trillions of dollars and has accomplished absolutely nothing), the first and foremost question to be answered is “What happens next?”

Liberals don’t have answers, of course.

They lather, rinse and repeat, with the emphasis on repeat – even though the shampoo is lousy and smells something like Spam.

People like the Reverend Al Sharpton, for example, continue to fuel decades-old skirmishes in a war that has long since been won, simply to hold on to fleeting relevance. Despite the fact that today’s America – the most accommodating, least-racist nation on the planet – is light years from resembling the troubled nation that more than five decades ago began confronting its social demons in earnest means little to the race-obsessed of today. If we – both non-intimidated white Americans and post-racial blacks who are sick and tired of being told that their skin color is their most relevant characteristic – can be reminded by the loudest and most bombastic among us how horrible we still are, then any and all progress in race relations can continue to be labeled as “not good enough.”

It gives them meaning and purpose at the expense of genuine progress.

The soldiers of social change from days gone by are simply not as relevant as they once were – and that is, by definition, a good thing. Those principals and values for which they fought valiantly and heroically for – character over color, equality of opportunity for all – are timeless. But the victory has long since been secured. They have succeeded, thank God. Their irrelevance today is a testament to the social changes they battled for back then.

Thus, I humbly suggest that what is best for this country is for these relics acknowledge the important victories of the past and cease continuing to wage meaningless and counterproductive wars.

This bit of unsolicited advice is respectfully directed to NFL football legend Jim Brown.

Neil Best from writes:

Football Hall of Famer Jim Brown blasts Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods for their lack of social activism in an interview that is to appear on HBO’s “Real Sports” Tuesday night.

Of Woods, Brown said, “This cat is a mamajama; he is a killer. He’ll run over you, he’ll kick your ass. But as an individual for social change or any of that kind of — , terrible. Terrible.”

Brown criticized Woods in January 2008 for not speaking out against the Golf Channel’s Kelly Tilghman after she used the word “lynch” in a joking reference to him.

Of Woods and Jordan, Brown said, “I know they both know better, OK? And I know they both can do better without hurting themselves.”


Exactly what sort of social change should Woods and Jordan be engineering, according to Brown? What is it they are neglecting to do for their race?

mike and tigerIn his day, in the not so distant past, there was no athlete in any sport more revered or admired as Michael Jordan. Today, Tiger Woods is an icon, a living legend, at the very top of his field, probably on his way to being the greatest golfer who has ever lived (if he isn’t already). Both men conduct themselves admirably and are the idols of tens of millions. Their followings transcend every conceivable category of society. They are loved by people from every walk of life from every corner of the country. America has afforded them the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and they have succeeded as men – not just black men (precisely the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King). Neither man has ever been denied a hotel room, or the ability to sit at a lunch counter, or use a water faucet because of their skin color. This is twenty-first century America. Their skin color is positively meaningless. Their achievements are what matters – just as Dr. King had wished.

This has always perplexed me.

If the goal was to have a society that was, for all intents and purposes, color blind, how can someone criticize others who are actually following through and reaping the benefits of the hard fought battles of the past?

I would never suggest that anyone forget the injustices of history, but wouldn’t liberals do better for themselves to actually behave as genuine progressives and look ahead?

To help illustrate my point, think of a busy four-way intersection somewhere without a working stop light and only a stop sign on two of the four corners. Picture how nightmarish the traffic at such an intersection would be, particularly during rush hour. The amount of fender benders and injuries at such an intersection would be unacceptable.

Now imagine a group of people in the community actively working to put genuine stop lights in place, complete with turning lanes and crosswalks. They petition their local government, they hold rallies, they print up literature, they go from door to door building support for their cause. Eventually, the stop lights are put in, the intersection is made exponentially safer and all goals are met.


Those who lived through the pre-stop light era will always remember how it was. They may even tell stories of how dangerous things used to be at that crazy intersection and how different life was during that time. The good that was done by the people who fought the battle to put in that stop light will never be forgotten – nor should it be.

But the need to keep fighting the original battle to put in that stop light just wouldn’t exist anymore.

Naturally, the presence of a stop light will not keep individual drivers from being careless – the same way one will never be able to completely eradicate racism from the country. But the existence of careless drivers does not mean the intersection is unsafe.

To time to fight the battle of the stoplight has come and gone.

And just because there are racists in America does not mean we are a racist nation.

We are not.

There are deaf people in America. Are we a deaf nation?

There are paraplegics in America. Are we a paraplegic nation?

For my money, I happen to think Jim Brown is the greatest running back in the history of the NFL (with all due respect to Walter Payton, Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders). He is the only man to average 100 yards a game for every game he ever played – an astonishing accomplishment (Barry Sanders is damn close, though). The era he played in during his prime years is a far different place than the one Michael Jordan did or the one Tiger Woods currently plays in – attributable to those who fought the battles for social justice “back in the day.”

Those who did should be admired.

Sadly, those who still do are an often an embarrassment to that legacy.

Posted in Liberalism, Pop Culture, Racism, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 10, 2009


Many thanks to The Great One, talk show host (and author extraordinaire) Mark Levin, for airing two clips from a speech given by actor Jon Voigt at a Republican fundraiser on his radio program on Tuesday.

As articulate and well-spoken as the vast majority of talking-point pundits and one-trick politicians out there (if not more), Voigt was spot on with his commentary. He spoke with refreshing clarity and conviction – and you can bet the deed to the house he will not be invited to the Sean Penn home anytime soon for cocktail weenies and shrimp rolls.

Levin called Voigt a “real thinker, a reader and a believer. He’s a patriot.”

Noteworthy is the fact – quite obviously – that Voigt is (at least, professionally) a member of the Hollywood community. (He did a marvelous job, most recently, on Fox’s 24).  That he leans right of center – and is unafraid to say so, given his profession – is more than praiseworthy.

I admire him greatly.

From one of the most uncourageous, uninspiring and uninteresting communities of people in the world – Hollywood actors – comes this burst of fortitude and strength.

Speaking of President Barack Obama, Voigt said:

Was I hearing things when he said Iran might have the right to nuclear power? Are we supposed to be sitting and waiting, watching for the possibility of a new holocaust? Who’s going to take the responsibility to keep Israel safe?

I’ll tell you why this really scares the hell out of me … because everything Obama has recommended has turned out to be disastrous.

As Levin said, “Too bad Colin Powell can’t see this and can’t speak like Jon Voigt.”

As often as it needs to be repeated – and I will do so until the undertaker fits me for my final set of traveling clothes – today’s Democrat cannot be trusted with national security. That’s because leftists – synonymous today with the Democrat Party – see the world as they wish it to be – not as it truly is. They create policies based on emotion and fantasy-land, coloring-book scenarios.

You may recall that the President, just prior to his “I’m Sorry” tour of the Middle East, said he wants America to “lead by example” – which, as I pointed out a few days ago, has truly proven to be a wonderfully effective way of defeating evil. The muster of nations who have crossed over from the Despots List to the Good Guy Review simply by watching what we do could take at least several nano-seconds to name.

Voigt continued:

It saddens me greatly to think we were the great, powerful good in the world. We, as Americans, knew America to be strong. And we were the liberators of the entire world.

We are becoming a weak nation.

Obama really thinks he is soft-spoken Julius Caesar. He thinks he is going to conquer the world with his soft-spoken sweet-talk. And really thinks he is going to bring all the enemies of the world into a little playground where they’ll swing each other back and forth.

We, and we alone, are the right frame of mind to free this nation from this Obama repression.

To quote Mark Levin, “the man speaks the truth.”

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, Hollywood, politics, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2009

bam-a-lang-a-ding-dong bam fans

bam-a-lang-a-ding-dong bam fans

From the “If This Were A Republican” file …

As hard as this may be to believe, I was  not in Manhattan on Saturday to become one of the fawning, adoring, saliva-dripping periphery going ga-ga over Obama’s big “date night” in New York. I did not grab my digital camera and home-made “You Barrack My World” sign, head into the city and stand behind a barricade for hours so that I might catch a glimpse of his  right ear as he passed into a restaurant.

It is hard to believe, I know.

Alas, I admit to being a stick in the mud – completely unimpressed, quick-to-yawn and bored to tears when it comes to the mania that surrounds Big Bam.

I find yogurt more culturally enticing – and easier to stomach.

Indeed, I was in the city on Saturday, but not because I hoped to become one of the fortunate ones afforded the opportunity to share the same oxygen stream with him. My wife and I actually had a wonderful lunch with some friends of ours at Carmine’s on 44th Street, several hours before the royal family arrived for dinner and a show. To be perfectly honest, I was unaware that Mr. and Mrs. Messiah would be in town – although the sound of air force jets and presidential helicopters should have alerted me to his arrival, along with the thuds of fainting Manhattanites.

For the record, I’d like to say that I couldn’t give a squirrel’s nostril if the President comes to New York to see a show. He’s entitled. It isn’t as if he can just pop into his Subaru with the Missus and head up to New York for supper and a Broadway play. At the first rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike, he’d be crushed by frenzied, orgasmic Obama-maniacs looking for a piece of his clothing or a bite of his waffle. A President with torn threads, covered in spit-dripping kisses is probably not a good thing.

What fascinates me more is trying to imagine the coverage of a Presidential New York City “date night” had the Commander-In-Chief been a Republican.

Depending on which day you catch Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, the economy is either the worst it has been since the Great Depression (or worse), or it is finally coming around thanks to his astronomical spending sprees, debt creation and overall Marxist tweaking.

Either way, Obama has himself covered.

Recall last week when Obama told a group of self-gratifying Hollywood lefties at a big bucks fundraiser that conditions are starting to improve economically across the country. His spendulous bill, he insisted, is starting to show some returns – and coincidentally enough, just before his big date in the Big Apple.

Far be it from me to deny anyone a night out on the town – especially the leader of the almost-free world.

Go ahead, take a break, Mr. President. You deserve it. A relaxing getaway to New York is more than reasonable. After all, infusing Marxism into a free market system can be taxing.

Picture Republican George W. Bush hand-in-hand with Laura Bush, emerging from a limo in the heart of Manhattan’s Greenwich Village for dinner before zooming uptown to catch a Broadway show, while news stories circulate on how the unemployment rate is approaching double-digits. Can you imagine the brutal beating he would take in the press had he gone on a Big Apple “date night” on the taxpayer’s dime while Katie Kouric and company tell us all about the endless number of Americans being hammered by what was not too long ago “the worst economy ever?”

People are losing their homes in this economy, and Bush is eating out?”

“How could that out-of-touch, insensitive, bible-thumping, oil company-loving, fascist, baby-killing Bush flaunt his power and prestige by seeing a Broadway play at the taxpayer’s expense when billions and billions of Americans are homeless and starving?”

Thanks to the coming of the new Messianic Age, we need not bother with such conjecture.

Posted in American culture, New York City, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 18, 2009

threatened ... overseas

threatened ... overseas

Lord knows I am no fan of Alec Baldwin. His status as a political nimrod is well known among those of us who think. His failure as a radio talkshow host – despite decent pipes – is legendary. His enormous success on the very popular NBC comedy “30 Rock” is undisputed.

To be sure, he’s had his share of negative press, but I am not knee-jerk when it comes to reacting to libs. Indeed, I was among those who thought far too much was made of Baldwin’s now infamous phone message to his 12-year old daughter in 2007 in which he came off as a crazed madman, calling her a “thoughtless pig,” sounding downright demonic.

It should never have been released publicly.

The latest flap surrounding him is so ridiculous that even the standard-bearers of political correctness have to be saying, “Come on. It was a damn joke.”

Baldwin was a guest on David Letterman’s show last week and mentioned that he’d love to have more children. As many know, he and his ex-wife, actress Kim Basinger, have been involved in a very nasty divorce and custody battle. Baldwin, as a joke, said that he was “thinking about getting a Filipino mail-order bride at this point … or a Russian one.”

This has apparently caused quite an uproar in the Philippines.

Apparently, this is a worse insult than saying someone’s mother wears combat boots.

Beacuse of it, Baldwin has actually been threatened with physical violence should he ever set foot in that country.


Actor Alec Baldwin’s joke about getting a Filipino mail-order bride provoked a sharp response in the Philippines, with one senator saying Monday that the “30 Rock” star faces violence if he ever visits..

Philippine Sen. Ramon Revilla said Monday that Baldwin’s comment was “insensitive and uncalled for” and an insult to millions of Filipinos.

He called the actor is “arrogant” and said he is apparently unaware that the Philippines has a law against mail-order brides.

“Let him try to come here in the Philippines and he’ll see mayhem,” Revilla said, using a local idiom that implies the speaker will personally administer a beating.

The senator himself is a former action-movie star who occasionally still appears on Philippine TV.

Class act.

Call it a cultural divide. Call it gross insensitivity on my part. (I am a conservative, after all). Call it a lack of understanding of the heinous societal insult that is the Filipino mail-order bride, but Senator Revilla has got to be kidding … or intoxicated … or reading his copy of “Al Sharpton’s Guide To Victimization, Outrage and Pot Stirring.” Revilla’s undergarments have obviously been twisted to the point of unholy discomfort. 

I’m trying to comprehend this.

A physical threat has been made by a government official beacuse of an innocent line meant as a joke? 

Granted, it may not have been a particularly funny line, but it wasn’t meant as an attack or insult. It wasn’t thoughtless or remotely insensitive. And it certainly didn’t warrant a promise of bodily harm from an elected official, did it?

Because mail-order brides are illegal in the Philippines, Baldwin has now insulted millions of Filipinos?

What if Baldwin instead called Filipino women “ugly” or said he would never consider a Filipino mail-order bride because they are less than desirable? Would Filipino fighter planes be peppering the East Coast of the United States with bombs?

Isn’t it more of a compliment to state publicly that you’d like to have children with someone? Does anyone think Baldwin would like to make babies with a hideous trollop?

Where exactly is the derision?

If Filipino leadership were even one-tenth as impassioned over substantive issues – like combating terrorism, defending liberty or defeating evil, for instance – I might be able to muster a bit more faith in humanity.

Posted in American culture, Political Correctness, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 12, 2009

the great wanda sykes

the great wanda sykes

Enough has already been written about the disgraceful appearance by (so-called) comedienne (and militant black lesbian) Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents Dinner over the weekend.

You’ve surely read about what easily qualifies as one of the most embarrassing and pathetic appearances ever at the annual event in which Sykes decided to unleash some of the most inappropriate and malevolent prattle anyone’s ever heard there – as leftists are wont to do when void of any substance (which is almost always).

With that grating, nasal cavity-dredging voice that would have had both the chalkboard and jackhammer grimacing, Sykes broke out the best of her venomous arsenal of unfunny personal attacks on – of all people – Rush Limbaugh.

How original. How cutting-edge.

Because jokes about the September 11th attacks are so damn funny, she quipped that Rush was the 20th hijacker.


Because people with addictions make for such knee-slapping fodder, she worked in some drop-dead hilarious references to Rush’s former troubles with the drug oxycontin.

How does she do it?

And, of course, what stand-up routine in front of the President of the United States would be complete without asking for the death of Mr. Limbaugh by kidney failure?

Nothing but net.

Even the President thought it was funny. He laughed.

Yesterday, however, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went out on a limb and said that the September 11th terrorist attacks are a topic “better left for serious reflection than comedy.”

No wonder this guy is considered the best Press Secretary in the history of the world. No one can put things in perspective like he can.

Of course, the question has yet to be answered – Why was the President of the United States laughing at any of these personal attacks on Limbaugh?

Indeed, the President thought it was a hoot – including Sykes’ follow up line about Limbaugh needing some waterboarding.

(Move over Lucille Ball. There’s a new sheriff in town).

Let’s set aside the obvious. Limbaugh never said he wanted the country to fail, as Sykes alleged in her “routine.” It never came from his lips. No such quote exists. Rather, Limbaugh stated that he wanted Obama’s leftist policies to fail – just as libs wanted the policies of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to fail.

Somehow, this is news – that the opposition party wants policy failure of the party in power.

Let’s also put aside the outpouring of affection and support regularly given to celebrities who battle addictions with recreational drugs. Inspirational stories about their “courage” and “fortitude” fill magazine pages and gossip columns as the celebrity in question navigates the troubled waters of addiction toward the safe harbor of sobriety. However, slap a conservative label on the celebrity and all bets are off. It’s open season. After all, what could be funnier than addiction?

But even more noteworthy than all of that – even more of a head-shaker to me – is something I’ve written about several times since Obama’s inauguration – namely, what seems to be a diminishing sense of dignity and elevation surrounding this White House. It is no secret that President Obama is very much an anti-pomp and circumstance man. He is, in his own words, more laid back and casual than any of his predecessors. Traditions mean far less to him than those who came before him. Thus, with that “there is nothing bigger than me” mentality that leftists regularly embrace, Obama believes everything is all about him and not about the Office of the Presidency – which is infinitely larger than any man who has ever occupied it.

el rushbo

el rushbo

In approaching his Presidency this way, he erodes some of the dignity of the office – and in doing so, entertainers like Wanda Sykes, who have had open contempt for Obama’s stodgy, God-happy, predecessor, now see themselves as more welcome and closer the inner circle of power. They see the President as more like one of them, one of the “regular” people, not tied down by an antiquated, patriarchal set of traditions. Without saying so specifically, the laid-back President sends the signal that it is quite alright for Sykes and her ilk to bring a more gutteral act – something more “real” and unconstrained – to a public function involving the President of the United States. Thus, the undignified diatribe of Wanda Sykes in front of the leader of the free world becomes possible.

Dignity matters. Decorum matters. As talk show host Dennis Prager says, “It adds tremendous substance to life.”

I couldn’t agree more.

But perhaps most astonishing is to observe how much anger still exists on the left. I admit to being astounded at how much nastiness and bitterness still comes from that side.

If you doubt me, here are two words to illustrate my point: Miss California.

The left owns both houses of Congress, the have the White House, they maintain their stranglehold on academia, they run just about every major newspaper in the country, Hollywood is all theirs, most of television media serve as Obama’s personal cheerleading squad, and outgoing liberal Supreme Court justices are fixed to replaced with even more liberal judges.

What in hell do they have to be angry about?

Utopia is no laughing matter, I guess.

Posted in American culture, Liberalism, politics, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2009

whip it, baby - larger, older and in the same costumes thirty years later

whip it, baby - larger, older and in the same costumes thirty years later

I am well aware of how much of a waste of oxygen (and broadband) it is to take the time to quote the inanities of insignificant celebrities. I know this to be true because it is very often a waste of vital resources to quote well-known celebrities.

Still, I am enamored with the absurdities that roll off the tongues of people best suited to hacky-sack, political science or go-fish. Musicians (like actors and university students) are particularly susceptible to this affliction of knee-jerk, ad hominem, vapidity of thought. With leftists, the development of an idea or premise often reaches the “sounds good, high-five” stage before dying on the liberal vine.

Enter Gerald Casale – best known as a member of the post-punk, new wave group from the 1970s and 80s, Devo (short for devolution). Many of you will remember Devo’s huge hit from 1980, “Whip It.” Many of you will also remember the video that accompanied the song – geeks with ridiculous looking red hats (energy domes) cracking whips.

Mr. Casale believes that humanity is, indeed, devolving – and he believes one of the clearest examples of its devolution is the existence of talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

From Spinner Magazine Online:

Nobody thinks the idea of devolution is far out anymore,” Casale says. “Just look at the decimation of the air, land and water, and the crisis with the food supply on a global level.”

But to truly illustrate the decline of the three decades since they began, Casale doesn’t need to look further than the TV and radio airwaves — namely, a certain conservative broadcaster. “Rush Limbaugh, to me, is a great example of devolution,” Casale says. “He’s exactly what we were sickened by, the kind of human being we talked about back then. He’s a bad spud.”

A bad spud?

The decimation of the air, land and water?

Food supply crisis?

Let’s see here … pollution levels are as low in the United States as they’ve been in decades. Our rivers and lakes air are remarkably clean – and getting cleaner. Air quality is exponentially better than it was thirty years ago. There is even more forest land in this country than in previous decades. And as far as food shortages go, I thought humanity was already supposed to be out of food by now.

I must be getting my crises mixed up.

I love it when libs try. They’re so cute.

And the idea that a graying, used-to-be-someone, irrelevant, lefty devolutionist would attack Rush Limbaugh is about as shocking as hearing a car horn in Manhattan.

The irony of an aging music star wearing a three-decade old getup consisting of a (let out) yellow jumpsuit and red dome hat talking about “devolution” cannot be overstated.

Posted in Liberalism, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2009

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

It would simply never occur to me to pose controversial, highly volatile, politically charged questions to beauty pageant contestants – the kind of inquiries that can cause the otherwise unlearned, knee-jerk, shallow-capped leftists among us to launch into personal foul-mouthed attacks as a consequence of not giving the answer they want. Of course, I am not cut from the same intolerant cloth that today’s leftocrats are, so the obviousness of my assertion cannot be overstated.

In fact, it is now abundantly clear that conservative young ladies who wish to be contenders in beauty contests, like the Miss USA pageant held this past weekend, had best stick to showing off their legs, smiles and figures and not open their mouths to share opinions on anything that may fall out of lockstep with showbiz Leftocracy – even if specifically asked. Beauties right-of-center are apparently better off seen and not heard if they have any hope of actually winning, while people like the contemptible Perez Hilton – a judge in last weekend’s pageant best known as a celebrity gossip blogger – are often obscene and regularly absurd.

More on this in a moment.

For those who came in after the opening credits, the Miss USA pageant saw Miss California, Carrie Prejean – one whom many felt was the odds-on favorite to win the crown – spark controversy by answering a question from pageant judge Perez Hilton about same-sex marriage with a response that didn’t sit well with the ever-tolerant Leftocracy.

The question:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Naturally, this is precisely what beauty pageant contestants should be addressing when competing for the crown – contentious, divisive, polarizing topics, right? Short of a bra and panty pillow fight, or a game of naked quarters, what else could have the power to breathe much-needed life into such an event?

Honestly, what the hell kind of question is that to ask of a Miss USA pageant contestant? What would possess the ever-abrasive, never interesting and exceedingly infantile gossip-hound, Mr. Hilton – a man who would lose to a strand of typhoid in a popularity contest – to choose such a flaming potato of a question?

To her great credit, Miss Prejean’s answer was solid, concise, clarifying, and yes – compassionate:

I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.

A good portion of the audience applauded her answer while Mr. Hilton gave her an “I’d crash a mayonnaise jar over your head right now if I could” kind of look.

Of course, this prompted the foul-mouthed pustule, Perez Hilton, to issue a response, after the pageant, via video blog.

His response is a study in leftist compassion:




Perez Hilton

Perez Hilton

Hello. Okay. So, Miss USA literally just finished and I have to make a video blog. Everyone’s going to be talking about it. I was the You Tube moment of the show, the pageant, when I asked Miss California her question, and when she gave the worst answer in pageant history. She got booed. I think that was the first time in Miss USA – ever – that a contestant has been booed.

Now, let me explain to you. She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she’s a dumb bitch, okay? This is how a person with half a brain answers the question I posed her … Well, if I was Miss California, with half a brain, I would have said, “Mmm, Perez. That’s a great question. That’s a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that is a question each state should decide for themselves, because that’s how our forefathers designed our government, you know? The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal.” Something along those lines, but she didn’t. She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people …

If that girl would have won Miss USA, I would have gone up on stage, I shit you not, I would have gone up on stage, snatch that tiara off her head and run out the door.




I choose my words very carefully, and I wish to assert – in no uncertain terms – that Mr. Hilton is a moral degenrate of the highest order – not because of his sexual orientation, but because of his disgusting personal attacks unleashed on Carrie Prejean for not answering the question the way he would have liked it answered. That he would have the audacity to attack the intelligence of Miss Prejean (his command of the language is breathtaking) is akin to a skunk asking his buddy the turtle to slap on some deodorant.

First, I’ve played her response several times, and I hear no boos coming from the audience. There may have been, but it was not reproduced on the video tape. In fact, the cheers that followed her answer were noticeably louder than those that followed Hilton’s comment about the “legalization” of same-sex marriage in four states.

Second, The idea that the great thinker and historical scholar, Perez Hilton, has even the faintest concept of what he’s talking about when he speaks of state’s rights would immediately have me wondering if he would extend the same sentiment toward something like abortion – i.e. overturning Roe vs Wade and sending the issue back to the states. (Of course, the people of the state of California voted no to same-sex marriage, but why sully things with pesky facts?) Seeing as Mr. Hilton is keen to reference the Founders and the sovereignty of the states, perhaps his views on the Founders’ intent – prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and its “equal protection under the law” provision – would make for some interesting theoretical banter, especially on the issues of slavery and official state religions. Maybe he could pen a column or two, or tap into his Constitutional prowess via his blog – sandwiched in between blurbs about Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, of course. It could prove instructive.

Of course, if someone can distinguish between Miss California’s position on same-sex marriage and that of the President of the United States, I’d be more than willing to listen. I’ve been combing through You Tube looking for Perez’s “dumb bitch” commentary on our 44th President, but have come up empty. I’m probably looking in the wrong places. If someone can point me in that direction, I’d be most appreciative.

The truth is, to Perez and his angry ilk, Miss Prejean is (at the very least) intolerant and void of compassion, yet Hilton’s You Tube rant is not only the height of intolerance and the lack of compassion, it is mean and insulting.

By contrast, Miss Prejean was anything but mean and insulting. She simply answered a question posed to her in the most respectful and compassionate manor possible. She hurled no expletives or attacks. She went out of her way to offend no one. That one can defend the millenia-old definition of marriage and then be attacked for it shows the sad state of existence this country finds itself in.

Again, to be a conservative is synonymous with being bad.

Compassion is now defined as agreement.

This brings me to Shanna Moakler, Miss USA pageant co-director, who appeared as a guest on CBS’s Early Show on Tuesday:

You know, I have to applaud her, that she was willing to miss out on the opportunity of being Miss USA, you know, to stay true to her convictions.


And frightening.

In other words, to posses a traditional view of society is an automatic disqualifier if one aspires to win the Miss USA pageant. Moakler unambiguously acknowledges that one must either think like a leftist or be a liar in order to wear the tiara. Miss California’s view that the definition of marriage should remain in tact, while somewhat applaud-worthy, is what caused her to “miss out,” according to Moakler. To believe that marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman is to give up any hope of ever winning Miss USA.

She continues:

But on the same token, you know I think she’s muddied the waters a little bit by making – uh – her question was insensitive and it’s now become more about compassion in the way she answered her question.

It always fascinates me when people use phrases that are inappropriate and mean nothing. How it is that Miss Prejean “muddied the waters” when her answer to a ridiculous and unsuitable question was as clear as a Barney Frank lisp during a House sub-committee meeting is uncertain.

What exactly does Moakler mean by “muddying the water?”

What Moakler did clarify, however, is that it isn’t possible to disagree with one’s given position and still have compassion. This is precisely the same school of thought that says those who wish to see the definition of marriage unchanged must hate homosexuals.

Incoherence, thy name is liberalism.

I must ask … What would have been a genuinely compassionate response from someone who believes in traditional marriage?

Posted in American culture, Conservatism, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, social issues | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2009

It’s interesting.

I’ve received a ton of e-mails this morning asking me if I plan on commenting on Barack Obama’s tasteless “Special Olympics” crack on last night’s edition of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Apparently, while speaking with Jay about his bowling prowess (or lack thereof), the President remarked that he wasn’t particularly happy with his score of 129. Said the President, “It was like the Special Olympics or something.”

I say “apparently,” because I haven’t seen it. All of the information I am receiving about this appearance with Leno is coming through e-mails. I don’t watch The Tonight Show, so I wasn’t familiar with the incident.

I say “apparently” also because I don’t know that it actually happened. I can’t just arbitrarily comment on something being conveyed through e-mails without proof of some kind. I need corroboration before I start opining.

How could this have really happened when none of the major news outlets seem to be reporting on this?

The New York Times and the Washington Post are silent on the matter.

(Someone tell those crickets to pipe down!)


I’m actually flipping through web pages right now looking to see if …

Oh wait … Here’s one!

I see “Obama Makes a Late-Night Gaffe” on the CNN website, off to the right under “Latest News,” buried in a long list of links.

How adorable.


Nothing about denigrating the handicapped, just a cute little link that says “Gaffe.”


I see the same thing on MSNBC. It says “Video:Gaffe” underneath the headline “Obama Stunned By AIG bonuses,” which is underneath an even bigger headline “Obama offers Iran ‘new beginnings.

Haystack, meet needle.

I guess it really did happen.

If this were President Bush, how many stories of outraged advocates for the handicapped demanding an apology would we have seen by now? How many stories of little Peggy Jones from Bootlick, New Jersey who has been in a wheelchair since the age of three, wondering why her President is making fun of her and everyone like her, would we have had to stomach on CNN and MSNBC?

In all candor, while the remark was entirely inappropriate – and yet another attestation of how lost this man is without his electronic cue cards – the point is not to crucify the President for a foolish remark, which it was. Rather, the point is to continue to touch upon the egregious media bias and protectionism that still surrounds the President.

As I wrote yesterday, given the President’s boo-boo-filled, less-than-impressive first two-months in office, it’s not difficult to imagine how he would be treated were he a Republican.

Picture George W. Bush making the same remark about the “Special Olympics” on a late-night talk show. Beside the fact that he would have been skewered for the cheap political ploy of going on The Tonight Show while the worst “financial crisis since the Great Depression” continued to grip the nation, the feeding frenzy that would have followed the “Special Olympics” quip would have made a gang of starving sharks look like nap-time at the retirement home.

Really, could Mr. Obama’s appearance on The Tonight Show been any less presidential if it had to be?

Maybe Leno should have booked the teleprompter.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 24, 2009

i'm sorry ... so sorry

i'm sorry ... so sorry

Earlier this morning, CNN had a link to this blog – specifically to an article I “penned” called “Race Baiter On The Attack.” It was part of CNN’s “From The Blogs” section, underneath the headlining story of Rupert Murdoch’s apology for publishing a cartoon deemed “offensive” by old-school racists and victimized societal dinosaurs.

My “inbox” and I may never be on speaking terms again.

After all the ruckus of what should’ve been less than a non-story, it occured to me that it may, indeed, be time to resurrect and redefine the term “yellow journalism” for the twenty-first century. Fear, intimidation, apology and appeasement are becoming the cornerstones of today’s free press. The mainstream media exists almost entirely to reinforce the protective cocoon that surrounds Barack Obama. The Messiah is, for now, untouchable, and any reference to anything that could even appear critical is roundly disposed with.

Let’s be truthful … if anyone other than Barack Obama – and I mean anyone – got up in front of the media and said that federal spending was out of control and needed to be tamed after signing a nearly one trillion dollar porkfest into law, they’d be skewered (and rightly so) by every journalist, pundit, blogger, talk-show host, cab driver and columnist in creation.

The “objective” American press is a disgrace.

I was disappointed – but not surprised – to see that Robert Murdoch, owner of the New York Post (NewsCorp), felt it necessary to issue yet another apology for the now infamous dead-chimp cartoon published last week that some took as a racial attack on the President. Never have so many been so outraged over so little. It is both disturbing and embarrassing.

The paper already apologized for this, you may recall, immediately after the cartoon was originally published.

But like the less-than-relevant sniveling radio speck Don Imus did a couple of years ago, Murdoch caved.

Does Mr. Murdoch truly believe that this latest apology will finally be the end of this saga? Does anyone honestly believe that these disgraceful race merchants will go away now? Sharpton and Crew have been empowered. There’s blood in the water. They won’t stop.

When do liberals ever stop?

The haters have already called for the firing of the editor-in-chief of the Post as well as the cartoonist. What next? Will they be satisfied to see those who did the actual printing of the paper canned as well? Or the folks who supplied the ink?

As expected, many happy readers of CNN are in line with Reverend Al:

-Sharpton was right on about this one. The Post has a history of using monkeys to portray black people. Because of this I hesitate to only call it thoughtless.     –Matt

-Another neocon speaks. I thought you people died off like the dodo bird. Yes Sharpton is extreme and can be a race baiter however even a klansman would have seen the NYP’s cartoon to be racist. Rupert gave a half assed apology by saying he was sorry if anyone was upset by the cartoon; which is the equivalent of apologising for your emotions rather than his racist content … Thanks for writing your blog, you have reminded me why I left the Republican party. It was once a party of intelligent people, real conservatives (not neocons) who had complex solutions to complex problems. Now it is populated and supported by monosyllabic idiots who see everything in either black or white and hate anything different.     –Andy H

-If you’re so offended by Al sharpton then i would have to assume the sight and sound of the prejudice, racist and all out black race hating commentaries of Sean Hannity, Rush limbaugh and the rest of the ”white race is superior posse” makes u want to puke. It amazes me how people such as yourself get so upset abt sharpton but dont say or condeem any of the bigotry and racist comments tht come out of their mouths. The cartoon was racist and offensive and sharpton had every right to complain.     –Tammy

Another Neocon, says the other Andy. Too funny.

And isn’t it interesting, as demonstrated by Tammy, that all roads (naturally) lead to Rush Limbaugh?

Speaking of Rush, a blogger by the name of Ben Sprouse said he actually agreed with my assessments of Al Sharpton as a racist. However, being an a confused moral relativist, Ben attempted to paint Rush Limbaugh with an equally unflattering racist brush, going so far as offering a series of “direct quotes” from Limbaugh that supposedly illustrated his hatred of non-whites. These quotes included:

-I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

-You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

-The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

-They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

-Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

Valiant effort, Ben, but no dice.

First off, most of these so-called direct quotes are not even correct. Second, they are taken completely out of context – to such a degree that Ben ought to be embarrassed for attempting to use these as a point of argument. These “quotes” were used either to illustrate the absurdity of others who regularly attributed comments like these to Limbaugh (without proof) or they were used in demonstrating the ugliness of racism itself.

These things are verifiable with minimal effort.

There is no one in all of conservative talk radio to whom race matters least than Rush Limbaugh.

To those on the right, overwhelmingly race is a non-issue. Not so on the Left.

Are there conservatives who are racist? Of course.

But no one group finds more ways to interject matters of race into more different issues in more different ways than the modern American liberal.


Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009

sharptonThis is one of those instances that force me to come clean. On Friday, I predicted that the re-emergence of the deplorable and wholly repugnant Reverend Al Sharpton onto the public stage would be short-lived – perhaps a couple of days at best – once America remembered how entirely irrelevant he really is.

I was wrong … and I wish to extend both my apologies and some cherry Maalox chewables to those who put any validity in my assertion.

The race-baiting, riot-inciting, hateful, “civil rights” windbag – who is often far from civil and hardly ever right – is in full “don’t-fire-until-you-see-the-whites-of-their-skin” mode. He has not only called for a special session of the New York City Council to keep the city from advertising in the odious, conservative-leaning New York Post, but he is also asking the FCC to give a look-see at a waiver that currently allows Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp (owner of the New York Post) to own more than one newspaper and television station in the same city.

And all because of a dead chimp, a very bad spending bill and knee-jerk racism.

From WPIX TV in New York:

Outrage and protests continue to mount over The NY Post’s controversial cartoon interpreted by many as comparing President Obama to a chimpanzee that was shot and killed by police in Stamford, Connecticut last week.

“I think that they have sadly tried to reduce this to some personal fight than to really understand the level of offense,” Sharpton at a press conference on Sunday. “It seems that we cannot have a true level of democracy in terms of how the newspapers and airwaves are used in this city.”

The New York Post issued an editorial on its website last Thursday saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, and apologized to those who were offended by it.

The chairman of the NAACP, Julian Bond, spoke out about the cartoon on Saturday, and called for the firing of both the cartoonist and the editor-in-chief of the New York Post.

Of course he did.

While you’re at it, Mr. Bond, why not strip them of their citizenship, have them hung by their short-hairs in the village square and set them adrift on a wooden raft?

These are the same people (Bond, Sharpton, et al) who say that terrorists in Guantanamo Bay are entitled to a fair trial in this country, yet demand that a newspaper editor and freelance cartoonist lose their jobs for “offending” them.

First off, just about everyone – outside of a few crotchety, insignificant old race merchants locked in disgusting antiquity – knows what the New York Post cartoon was supposed to represent. Everyone with any sense of reality (and honesty) knows damn well that the cartoon was not meant in any way to be a racist slam at President Obama. I would wager the deed to my house that Sharpton, too, knows this.

The truth is … if it was meant as a racial incursion against Barack Obama, it wasn’t particularly smart, because President Obama did not write the bloody stimulus bill.

How much more clear can this possibly be?

If intended to denigrate Obama, it should have said, “They’ll have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill.”

It was, in actuality (as has been explain thirteen million times) a direct hit at the “monkeys” in Congress – in other words, the real authors of the $787 billion pork-meat extravaganza. The bill, as seen by folks like me, was a stupid bill (to say the least), beneath the sensibilities of those who are charged to serve the American people. It was so dim-witted and ill-conceived, the cartoon lampooned, it could have been written by a temporarily world-famous chimp that just got killed in Connecticut.

It was satire.

Do the race-baiting haters think the cartoon’s artist, Sean Delonas, was just sitting around waiting for something – anything – to come across the news wire so that he might cleverly craft it into a timely racial attack on President Obama?

bondSecond, Sharpton and Bond – and all of the other melanin-obsessed whinycrats – are only happy if they believe they have the power to see people’s lives ruined on demand. It affords them credibility. That they can insist the livelihoods of people be stripped at their whim bestows upon them a position of influence they should have long ago lost.

These haters seek to control the content of what’s published and – yes – what’s broadcast.

Can there be any doubt that Sharpton has been waiting for something like this to pounce on ever since the Don Imus “nappy-headed ho” scandal of 2007?

As I wrote back then, the Imus affair was the first real battle in the war that will be waged (and is now under way) in attempting to reinstitute the “Fairness Doctrine“:

In the aftermath of this incredibly overblown controversy, the gauntlet has officially been thrown down by Al Sharpton in his successful attempt to vanquish Don Imus from public view. With an authority vested in him by the state of his own love of publicity, speaking like he was FDR addressing Congress after Pearl Harbor, he has fired the first real shot in what is the latest, full-bodied, unexpurgated revival in the battle to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

With Imus (temporarily) excommunicated from the church of tolerance, Sharpton has decided there are bigger fish to be fried. Said Mr. Sharpton,”It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms the airwaves.”

Thank goodness he’s around.

Translated, using my Sharpton/English dictionary, his rousing words read like this: The “our” he is referring to is, of course, himself, his crony race-baiters and petrified guilt-ridden white liberals. The term “only the beginning” is self-evident – there are a whole bunch more evil, racist, sexist, whatever-ist radio talk-show scum who need to be examined and dealt with. When he uses the phrase “broad discussion,” he means that he and his ilk will dictate what is acceptable for the airwaves while the media continues to do all they can to demonstrate how unbiased and straight up the middle they are. The word “airwaves,” naturally, means talk radio.

The progression is a natural one.

Julian Bond also said, “This is tastelessness taken to the extreme and its something you expect from this publication. But for the publication to suggest that the only people who object to it are constant critics of the New York Post is beyond ridiculous.”

If not for bona-fide racists like Bond and Sharpton manufacturing this scandal and making this a “story,” would any of this really be an issue?

Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , | 26 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2009

women-love-apesGutless recreants. Or as Michelle Malkin puts it, “Behold a nation of cowards…”

And so it was yesterday, the Washington Post issued an apology – on Page A02 – for a cartoon issued the same day in its Sunday magazine. Call it a pre-emptive move, if you like. Say it was cautionary, if it suits you.

I prefer any of the following: intimidated, terrified, frightened, whipped, scared, owned, yellow, lily-livered, liberal … it all works.

Indeed, master (race) baiter Al Sharpton has suddenly become important again, screeching racism as only he can do, muscling the FCC and the New York City council, along with the New York Post, after a completely racially benign cartoon published last week has given relics like him something to do.

The Washington Post decided to bend themselves over the davenport voluntarily – before being bullied into doing so by Sharpton and company – by issuing the following apology for a cartoon that is about as racist as Sean Penn is conservative:

The headline, illustration and text of “Below the Beltway,” a column in The Washington Post Magazine today, may cause offense to readers. The magazine was printed before a widely publicized incident last week in which a chimpanzee attacked and badly mauled a woman in Stamford, Conn. In addition, the image and text inadvertently may conjure racial stereotypes that The Post does not countenance. We regret the lapse.

Lapse. Funny word to use there.

Here’s the thing …

The story that this cartoon is attached to has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with politics, President Obama, blacks, or anything of the nature. There is nothing about race anywhere in this article, nor is it implied in any way. It is actually a piece written by Gene Weingarten called “Monkey Business – The good news for men: Women love apes.” It’s all about a scientific study dealing with what arouses men and women.

The study suggests that while straight men were only aroused by images of women (and gay men aroused only by men), women “were turned on by absolutely everything … including videos of bonobos having sex. Bonobos are apes.”

Yet, the spineless Washington Post decided that it was prudent to cut off the race-baiting brigades at the pass before the Sharptonites started strong-arming them.

Such courage.

Word has it that the WaPo research team is combing through Post articles dating back to 1877, so that they might prepare apologies for the use of such phrases as “black eye,” “monkey around,” “ace of spades,” “guerilla warfare (before spellcheck)” and “dark chocolate.”

Retroactive apologies are also in the works for any and all articles about filmmaker David Lynch published through 2009, and any articles dating back to 1991 in the arena of computer technology that insensitively made reference to master drives and slave drives.

Posted in American culture, Animal News, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 21, 2009

obama-jesusTwenty-first Century America … where a man who associated with a known-terrorist can land the top spot in Washington; where an unaccomplished community organizer who was mentored by a racist anti-American reverend can become the Big Cheese; where a man who lied to the American people on numerous occasions about “earmarks” in the largest wasteful spending bill in all of human history can lead the free world; where a man who has done nothing but fear-monger Americans with falsehoods on the state of the economy can be called “leader;” where a man who has suspended ongoing trials of known terrorists at Guantanamo Bay can be called Commander-In-Chief; where a man who has been President for a little less than five lousy weeks is polled as being more of a hero than Jesus, Ghandi, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln – that according to a new Harris Interactive Poll.

Ladies and Gentleman … Meet President Barack Obama – the greatest human being that has ever existed.

Allow me to summon some of that “courage” and dispel any misgivings about any “cowardice” I may be perceived as having, at least according to an intellectual relic, Attorney General Eric Holder (who called America a nation of cowards when it comes to matters of race).

How’s this for being brave – and let’s see how much honesty liberals are willing to face …

Three words … because he’s black.

If this poll of “heroes” had anything to do with substance, President Obama would be among those tallying the poll, not topping it.

One thing that was somewhat surprising in this poll of over 2,600 Americans … George W. Bush (hated and ridiculed in story and song) apparently made the top ten – and ahead of God, who ranked 11th.

And one absolute travesty of note in this poll … George Washington, arguably the greatest American of them all, ranked 16th – tied with (grab your air sick bags) Bill Clinton and Colin Powell.

According to Fox News:

Of the multiple reasons participants gave to explain their choices of heroes, the ones most cited is, “Doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences” with 89 percent, “Not giving up until the goal is accomplished” with 83 percent and “Doing more than what other people expect of them,” with 82 percent. Also popular were “Overcoming adversity” and “Staying level-headed in a crisis.”

In the first Harris Poll asking this question in 2001, Jesus came in first, followed by the Rev. King, Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresea.

Seeing as Obama’s pig-meat spending bill has only just been signed into law, the excuse of “not giving up until the goal is accomplished” is meaningless – unless simply passing the damn thing, regardless of what was in it, counts as accomplishment. (See my article BAM’S BILL HAS (SLIM) MAJORITY SUPPORT … 37% SUFFER FROM DO-SOMETHING DISEASE).

And what’s this nonsense about “overcoming adversity?”

Are they serious?

Exactly what adversity did Bam have to contend with in his run for the Presidency? Faulty teleprompters? The inability to eat his waffles in peace? This man was The Chose One from jump street. He was elevated, protected, anointed and coronated by America’s free and objective press. Even longtime Democrat bed buddies like Hillary Clinton didn’t stand a chance against the Messianic tide. The maverick, John McCain – once the darling of the New York Times – was tossed back to our side of the yard like so much moldy bread. Before Obama even took the oath of office, streets and schools were being renamed for him. Holidays were even created in his honor.


Number 11 help us.

Update: February 21, 2009 – 5:05 PM

A blogger at Free called mcjordansc commented:

Read the article. There was no list of names from which to choose. When asked who your hero is, most people, of the top of their head, would say their father or mother. If naming famous person, the sitting President always has an advantage. Take the same poll and offer names – Jesus, Obama, Reagan, Lincoln, Washing, etc. from which you have to choose and I doubt Obama places in the top three. This is a non-story.

Respectfully, the idea of whether it is a “story” or not is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and I admit to seeing it as such – and an interesting one at that.

It’s true that a list of names was not provided to those who were polled, but it is interesting to note that when those who were polled were asked who they admired enough to be a hero, only 8% said “father” (down 5% from 2001), and only 6% said “mother” (down 3% from 2001).

(To be fair, the percentage of those who chose a “public figure” as a hero did also go down in this poll from the 2001 poll – by 8%.)
To the best of my knowledge, this poll was an “off the top their head” poll.

It’s sad that so few thought to choose “father” or “mother” off the top of their heads when asked to pick a hero without the benefit of a list.

See the report here.

Posted in American culture, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 20, 2009

sharpton_caricatureLike cockroaches and reality television, old race-baiters die hard. The truth is, however, there just hasn’t been a whole lot for Al Sharpton to do in recent times, except maybe tinker around with his Turbo Tax software. The papers simply aren’t plump with bogus stories of young black girls being raped by white cops anymore, or of nooses being hung from trees by young whites.

Not like they used to.

Those were the days, eh Al?

Today, it’s hard to imagine anyone more insignificant or more detached from the societal realities of American life than Reverend Al. After all, what’s an old blowhard with bad hair to do now that a black man has been elected President of the United States and Donald Trump has already chosen the cast of Celebrity Apprentice?

Visions of Sharpton wandering the floors of his home waiting for something – anything – to happen that would require him to spring into action as a civil rights crusader aren’t difficult to conjure.

Enter the New York Post – my candidate for the Attaboy Award for February 2009.

The Post has decided not to take the crawling-on-hands-and-knees-for Sharpton’s-forgiveness approach mastered so brilliantly by radio talker Don Imus in 2007 after he made his silly – and now infamous – “nappy-headed-hos” comment (in reference to the Rutgers girls basketball team) that cost him his jobs at both MSNBC and CBS Radio.

The Post is not rolling over.

On Wednesday, they published a cartoon by artist Sean Delonas that brought Big Al scurrying (or rumbling) out of his Rice Chex and Twinkie hibernation to cry racism. (Fancy that). The cartoon was nothing more than effective commentary on a very bad spending bill signed by President Obama coupled with the very bizarre story (that has captured headlines everywhere) of a chimp shot dead by police in Connecticut after it attacked a house guest. Al and Company have called it offensive, because it supposedly depicts President Obama as a chimp, and also because it depicts him as dead.

These people really need something more to do with their days.

In truth, the most “offensive” aspect of the whole thing is that the Post cartoon will keep Sharpton’s face (and voice) in public view for a couple of days until America is reminded of how irrelevant he is.

On Thursday evening, the Post responded to the absolute inanity surrounding this cartoon and its phony controversy:

Wednesday’s Page Six cartoon – caricaturing Monday’s police shooting of a chimpanzee in Connecticut – has created considerable controversy. It shows two police officers standing over the chimp’s body: “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill,” one officer says.

It was meant to mock an ineptly written federal stimulus bill.


But it has been taken as something else – as a depiction of President Obama, as a thinly veiled expression of racism. This most certainly was not its intent; to those who were offended by the image, we apologize. However, there are some in the media and in public life who have had differences with The Post in the past – and they see the incident as an opportunity for payback.

To them, no apology is due.

Sometimes a cartoon is just a cartoon – even as the opportunists seek to make it something else.


The cartoon is very funny and very smart … but let me correct the nothing-better-to-do Sharpton race warriors on something.

Obama didn’t write the bill.

True, it is certainly his in the sense that he is the President and it was written with his blessing and misguidance, but the “chimps” here – in the most literal sense – would be Pelosi and company (and all of the other Capitol Hill morons who shaped it into what it was when it was signed).
Another thing … can so-called legitimate news outlets stop affording this lying, hurtful, riot inciting, unapologetic, race-jockey credibility as some sort of arbiter of all that is just and fair?

To CNN, for example, he is a civil rights activist:

A New York Post cartoon Wednesday drew fire from civil rights activist Al Sharpton and others who say the drawing invokes historically racist images in suggesting an ape wrote President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus package.

Barf bag, please.

Sharpton is as much a civil rights activist as Al Gore is a scientist.

Sean Delonas, creator of the extraordinarily clever cartoon, said in a brief interview with CNN, “Absolutely friggin’ ridiculous. Do you really think I’m saying Obama should be shot? I didn’t see that in the cartoon. It’s about the economic stimulus bill.”
I applaude the New York Post for not throwing Delonas under the bus and for taking the correct steadfast approach. Some may legitimately argue that the Post shouldn’t have even offered the apology they did, but that didn’t bother me.

I have no problem with it because the Post ultimately asserted what we all know to be true in no uncertain terms – that whenever there is any segment of the media that expresses a conservative point of view, it is swiftly criticized, labeled and attacked by any number of victims’ groups, special interest brigades, publicity-starved leftists or Oprah Winfrey with the predictable arsenal of “-ists” and “-phobes.”

Good for you, Post.











Posted in American culture, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2009

This cartoon is the perfect precursor to some anecdotal observations I thought I’d share regarding the blathering mania for President Obama that still seems to have this country in its clutches. It comes from Zack R. at Diversity Lane, via the great Vocal Minority blog.

(Thanks Eric!)


Over the course of a two week period, here in the liberal epicenter of the east coast, I decided to break out pen and notepad and do some informal Obama tallying – just for kicks and tickles. My goal was to record how much apparel, merchandise and reading material related to “The One” I would come across on a typical trip from Southern Brooklyn to the Upper West Side of Manhattan (80th and Broadway, to be precise), understanding fully that conducting such an unscientific experiment in New York City, of all places, would be akin to walking into a McDonalds and counting how many people are eating. 

Still, I thought it’d be interesting.

The trip involved taking one bus and two trains – a total of about an hour and fifteen minutes worth of travel time.

To see if the mania for the President was at all dissipating – or even trending that way – I recorded my observations on two separate trips. The first trip was taken the week of the inauguration during morning Rush Hour, when the excitement of the inauguration was all still new. The second was taken a week later.

On the first trip, as expected, every newspaper I saw that morning (eight different publications) had Obama’s face on their front page. Out of the 28 magazines covers I was able to discern from all three legs of my trip, including those being read on the platforms by folks waiting for the train, 19 had Obama on the cover. 2 had only the First Lady. 2 others had no picture of any Obama, but did have the word “Obama.”

On that trip I counted 14 Obama buttons on jackets and book bags – especially in and around New York University – including one (that looked homemade) featuring Obama’s face resembling the infamous Cuban murderer Che Guevara , complete with the word “Victory” underneath.

I found one person reading “Audacity of Hope,” and oddly enough found two people reading Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism.”

Just south of 79th Street, on Broadway, is a newsstand that displayed 25 magazines that morning. 18 out of the 25 had Barack Obama on the cover.

I saw the phrase “Yes We Can” in some capacity a total of 14 times … as in, “Yes We Can save you money!” and “Yes We Can treat your corns.”

On my second trip, taken six days after my first trip – again, during morning Rush Hour – results were similar.

Every newspaper I saw that morning (six different papers) had Obama’s face on the cover. (Interestingly, I did not see the New York Times cover that morning). I was able to distinguish 21 different magazine covers that morning – 17 of which had the President’s mug on it.

I totaled up 16 Obama buttons – two more than last time – mostly on coat lapels, but three pinned to shoe tops.

At the newsstand on 79th Street, there were 24 magazines on display – 16 of which had Obama on the front.

The instances of “Yes We Can” dropped considerably, down to only 5, but the book vendors on Broadway had far more Obama material to sell.

In both instances, the vagrants who occupy the benches on the median at 80th Street seemed just as oblivious to everything around them as they did when President Bush was in office.

It was not clear if any of them were willing to “work for food.”

Posted in New York City, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 2, 2009

You ain't no "Sting."

You ain't no "Sting."

I must admit that when “Hail To The Chief” was played during the Inauguration of President Obama, something about it didn’t seem right – and it had nothing to do with the fact that I would have voted for Pete Puma before Obama. It was, rather, a strange uneasiness – or even a sadness, if you will – at what I hoped was just a misguided instinct on my part. All of the typical Inaugural “pomp and circumstance” seemed a touch out of kilter with the new President – as if the ceremonious proceedings were there as good-intentioned recompense to “old school” types who just couldn’t let go of the old ways. It was as if traditionalists like myself were being humored in advance of Obama’s tidal wave of “change.” Something told me that all of the majesty and custom I was watching didn’t really click with the new Chief Executive.

I found that sad.

Well, as it turns out, the new man in the White House is not a big one for all that grandiose formality stuff traditionally associated with the Presidency of the United States, at least according to the best Press Secretary that has ever existed, Robert Gibbs. Obama is a new kind of leader, perhaps the greatest human being that has ever appeared on sixty-two thousand magazine covers simultaneously – a political meterosexual, the new casual Executive, the informal shackle-breaker and unifier of all oppressed peoples.

Tim Graham at Newsbusters writes:

Veteran CBS Radio White House correspondent Mark Knoller reports that President Obama is relaxing more than the dress code at the presidential mansion. Pomp is giving way to piano-bar pop.

On Day One of his presidency, everywhere Mr. Obama went they played “Hail to the Chief” for him – but not since. In fact the U.S. Marine Band’s duties at the White House over the last 10 days appear to have been dramatically downsized.

Instead of the usual contingent of trumpets, tubas and drums, a single piano player now provides musical interludes before and after the president’s appearance.

And the tunes have little connection to the military marching music of John Phillips Souza [sic] that is the usual accompaniment to presidential appearances. These days the pianist’s repertoire includes Cole Porter’s “Night and Day” and Sting’s “Desert Rose.”

The so-called “pomp and circumstance” that surrounds the American Presidency, at least in my mind, is an important and relevant component to the office. Indeed, it is on one hand symbolic (and there’s nothing wrong with that), but it, too, reinforces the respect that this country affords the position. It rightly sets the Office of President of the United States above any single person who might occupy it.

There was always something marvelously awe-inspiring, for instance, about the reverence and esteem President Ronald Reagan had for the Oval Office, always wearing a tie when he was there as a sign of respect.

And to assert that all of the convention and ritual associated with the Presidency makes him seem less accessible or less able to “relate” to the American people is as false as the Obama claim that sending out checks to people who don’t pay income tax are tax cuts. Ronald Reagan was the quintessential everyday American – and there has been no one in my lifetime that more embodied the state of being “presidential” than he.

Graham continues:

To many Americans, this excessive informality suggests a real distaste for “official” or “patriotic” music, not to mention the Marine band that plays it.

This issue is light enough that Matt Lauer could have asked about it yesterday during his fluffy pre-Super Bowl interview. Will the rest of the media inquire about this musical flag-pin controversy?

We all know the answer to that. 

But if, by chance, the new “relaxed” White House is broached anywhere on the cackling news networks, it will be seen as a huge positive, as something beneficial to the United States somehow.

Of course, Obama is a product of the Age of Narcissism. If he harbors personal indifference for the traditions that are tied to being President, what’s the difference? As long as he is satisfied.

A blogger at the Ace of Spades site called Drew M. writes:

What Obama, like Carter before, doesn’t get is it isn’t about him. Yeah, he’s some guy from Chicago (by way of Hawaii, Indonesia and wherever) but right now in everything he does he’s the living, walking embodiment of the United States of America. He may think he’s being cool and hip but eventually Americans will grow weary of seeing the symbols of the United States made small.

He goes on to say that such a thing has happened before, under the illustrious and intestine-gurgling Presidency of “The Wortheless One” (as talk show host Michael Medved calls him), Jimmy Carter.

From the very start of his presidency, Jimmy Carter attempted to make the office more personable and accessible: he walked along the inaugural parade route, ended the playing of Hail to the Chief, and carried his own luggage. Elected largely on his promise to never lie to the American people, Carter soon seemed out of place in the vastness of the presidency. Events conspired to further impede his progress: rising energy costs, high unemployment, Americans held hostage in Iran, Soviets in Afghanistan. A man of peace who took pride in bringing together age-old antagonists, Carter was finally viewed by his countrymen as lacking presidential stature.

Call me old-fashioned – although I prefer the moniker “American.”

I like my Presidents to look and act Presidential.

Silly me.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | 9 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2009

The Chicago White Sox are feeling the love of the Obama-Nation. Despite the fact that a sizeable portion of their fan base did not vote for the current President, the team is planning on celebrating the election of their new “hometown” hero with an Obama-themed cap that could be ready by the start of spring training next month.

Brooks Boyer, the team’s vice president and chief marketing officer, commented:

“We’re very excited. This is somebody who’s obviously a White Sox fan, but more importantly, really embraces and embodies the attributes of our brand: the notions of pride, passion and tradition we rally around. He’s made it hip to be a White Sox fan.”

If Mr. Boyer is referring to a tradition of failed big-government entitlement programs, he may be on to something. If the tradition Mr. Boyer talks about is liberal class warfare, then the promotion could be a very successful one. If by “traditional” the White Sox vice president means more intrusion of government into the lives of Americans, well golly gee, break out the peanuts and beer, they’ve got a winner.

The hats have been approved by MLB Properties, and the White Sox now are awaiting a formal blessing from the Obama administration before league licensee New Era goes into production.

I assure you, I’m not saying the team shouldn’t be able to do this, if that’s what they choose. I’m a free market guy, and if they can generate revenue this way, more power to them.

My point, rather, is to illustrate yet another example of the continuing mania that surrounds this man.

Tom Fox, former Gatorade and Wasserman Media Group executive said:

“There’s a tremendous amount of good will around this guy right now, regardless of political affiliation. As time goes on, and his positions in office become more defined, you do run some risk of this becoming more of a polarizing thing, but not in the short run.”

white soxHe’s kidding, right?

How much more “defined” does the proposal of an astronomically expensive “stimulus” bill package that includes $5.1 billion for “Community Development,” $5 billion for “Public Housing,” $13 billion for the “Education for the Disadvantaged,” and $600 million for “Energy Efficient Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Procurement” have to be? (How in hell do any of these things stimulate a sputtering economy?)

How much more “defined” does the closing of our detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for no other reason than to appease his voting base have to be?

How much more “defined” does wanting to redistribute the money of the wealthiest Americans to those who have neither earned it nor deserve it have to be?

How much more “defined” does saying that the only answer to this country’s economic woes is government, as he did on January 9, 2009, have to be?

How much more “defined” does telling Americans not to listen to Rush Limbaugh have to be?

These are not political acts?

What exactly will President Obama have to do that he hasn’t already to convince the Chicago White Sox – or anyone for that matter – that Obama’s political beliefs are defined?

After all, according to Fox, the time to strike the iron is now before Obama gets too political.


Meanwhile, here in Brooklyn, as I wrote about a few days ago, the Brooklyn Cyclones minor league baseball squad is celebrating the election of Barack Obama by renaming their team, for one day, the Baracklyn Cyclones.

In other news, Barack Obama reportedly has said that if his name weren’t Obama, he’d change his name to Obama.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 27, 2009

PetaAs many of us learned from the 1978 comedy classic Animal House, vegetables can be very sensual (while people are sensuous). However, the magical combination of gorgeous girls and fresh vegetables is not getting a whole heck of a lot of love from NBC – the network broadcasting Super Bowl XLIII on Sunday. In fact, they have said no to a :30 second ad from – of all places – PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals).

The organization known for (among other things) the “Holocaust On Your Plate” campaign and the push to rename fish “sea kittens” is being told by NBC that cuts are going to have to be made to the controversial spot before it is allowed to hit the air during the game between the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers.

From PETA’s website:

Apparently, NBC has something against girls who love their veggies. After we submitted our proposed Super Bowl ad, which features a comely crop of models demonstrating their fondness for fresh produce, NBC nixed the ad, saying it “depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards.” No joke, this is straight from NBC—so stop fondling your fruit salad right now and read the list of shots NBC requested we cut before they’d reconsider:

     -licking pumpkin

     -touching her breast with her hand while eating broccoli

     -pumpkin from behind between legs

     -rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin

     -screwing herself with broccoli (fuzzy)

     -asparagus on her lap appearing as if it is ready to be inserted into vagina

     -licking eggplant

     -rubbing asparagus on breast

Wow, that list even made us blush! You can read the full NSFW letter from NBC here and then watch the video out to see what the controversy is all about.

Edited into the succession of quick cuts featuring beautiful women thoroughly enjoying their vegetables, flashes the claim that “Studies show that vegetarians have better sex.”

Assuming they’re talking about eating the vegetables, I’d be interested in how those studies were conducted.

Just curious.

Anyway, PETA goes on to say – and I’m not making this up:

Why so grouchy NBC? Sounds like someone’s not getting enough um … vegetables. I’m thinking network execs could really benefit from a broccoli booty call.

That link takes you to a website called

It’s fairly self-explanatory.


In other news, I have a couple of additional names to add to the PETA “renaming” campaign.

As I alluded to earlier, they’re already calling fish “sea kittens” in an attempt to make them less desirable to “kill and grill” (as Ted Nugent might say). After all, who wants to ram a hook through a kitten, right?

In my never-ending attempt to lend assistance to those wackos in desparate need, I submit that cows be renamed “cud puppies” and that pigs be called “mud bunnies.”

Anything I can do to help.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, PETA, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 26, 2009

Mrs. ObamaIt’s going to be a long four years. The first six days have lasted about that long already.

I’ve shaken my head so many times since last Tuesday, I’m getting threatening mail from my cerebrum. Coupled with the already lib-heavy tone set forth by The One over the first week of his reign will apparently be the obligatory need to inject race into every nook and cranny of the Obama experience. It’s already been a great big melanin-level lovefest in less than a week of Obama-Nation – from the Reverend Joseph Lowery’s rainbow-flavored mumblings to the economic mighty-mo Robert Reich’s condemnation of caucasian show-offs – and it just keeps getting better.

Now, the First lady is being criticized by the Black Artists Association for not choosing an inaugural outfit designed by African-American designers.

How she will be distinguished from the likes of Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong come the Judgement Day is unclear.

From The Politico:

FLOTUS’s inaugural outfits sent designers to their drafting tables to design knockoffs and droves went to J.Crew to get those snazzy leather green gloves. But not everyone is happy with her choices. The Black Artists Association is chiding FLOTUS for not choosing any African-American designers.

They will send a letter to FLOTUS’s office and appeal to her to include items from black designers in her wardrobe. BAA Cofounder Amnau Eele, who was a former runway model told Women’s Wear Daily:

“It’s fine and good if you want to be all ‘Kumbaya’ and ‘We Are the World’ by representing all different countries. But if you are going to have Isabel Toledo do the inauguration dress, and Jason Wu do the evening gown, why not have Kevan Hall, B Michael, Stephen Burrows or any of the other black designers do something too?”

Wu didn’t find out Michelle O. was wearing his dress until he saw her on television Tuesday night. And aides said FLOTUS didn’t even decide until hours before her big night.

Taskforces are being created and put to work to assess the feasibility of making sure that from now on, everything the First Family touches, tastes, smells, looks at, thinks about, puts on, dreams of, steps in, coughs up, brushes up against and stumbles upon has, in some way, been associated with, created by, located near or mentioned in the presence of any African-American in some capacity.

Welcome to the Obama-Nation.

Leading the way to a race-blind society …


Update: January 26, 2009 – 8:22 PM

Special message directed to my lib readers…

I am not posting your expletive-filled, childish, ass-clown responses. Try composing without sounding like George Clooney.

I was not comparing Michelle Obama to despotic disctators of the past. That I have to explain that just to keep idiotic responses from filling my “inbox” says it all. 


wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 25, 2009

uterusCan anything be made adorable? Can anything be made into a toy? Is there anything off-limits?

For instance, prior to 1902, when Teddy Roosevelt refused to kill a cornered American Black Bear on a hunting trip, which spawned the creation of the adorable and cuddly “teddy-bear,” what would the reaction have been if someone suggested that a loveable bedtime comfort toy for children be made in the likeness of an often ferocious wild animal?

Or what about the animated movie Ratatouille? That one particularly stands out in my mind because I live in New York City, and as one who frequents the subway tunnels here, I can assure you there is nothing – repeat nothing – appealing, attractive or even remotely charismatic about rats. Yet, the movie succeeded in making rats likable.

How about the female reproductive system?

Can a uterus be cuddly? Can fallopian tubes actually reach out and hug you?


A company called I Heart Guts has a toy called the Plush Uterus. It is a soft, pink, oddly-shaped doll with a smiley face on front and fallopian tubes (which serve as arms) stretching out to the sides. Each arm is “holding” a purple ovary.

Now, to be fair, the company creates soft snuggly body organ dolls for almost the whole body, including lungs, brains, kidneys, etc.

They are quite popular.

Unfortunately, I Heart Guts is going through a bit of a difficult time now.

There is a voluntary recall notice that has been issued by the company for the Plush Uterus because the ovaries can apparently become detached and pose a choking hazard for children.

From their website:

Voluntary safety recall of Plush Uterus due to potential choking hazard for children. Recall participants will receive a 15%-off online coupon code. Consumers may either return for refund/exchange, or opt-out via email if the uterus is not accessible to children. Please notify gift recipients.

In an effort to ensure our plush products exceed federal and international safety standards, we learned the 2008 Plush Uterus has failed a pull test. The ovaries may detach when pulled, becoming a potential small part choking hazard for young children. No one has been harmed.

The recall has been in effect since just before Christmas.

It is a relief that no reports of children choking on ovaries have been reported.

If your uterus has been recalled, please contact them at Contact:

wordpress statistics

Posted in Pop Culture, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2009

Et, tu baseball?

Since Election Day, 2008, there have been streets and schools renamed for our new President, flags redesigned and desecrated with his image, holidays created for him, and a plethora of blabbering television newscasters gushing like bobby soxers over him. Rumor has it we could even see an Executive Order signed by President Obama – with White House counsel Gregory Craig by his side ready to wind him up for the Q&A – renaming a state or two after him (one of those forgettable fly-over states where the corn is).

The borough of Brooklyn, here in New York City – where voters went for Barack Obama by a margin of 4 to 1 – is home to the single-A minor-league baseball team, the Brooklyn Cyclones. They have a beautiful facility by the famed Coney Island boardwalk called Key Span Park.

On June 23rd, the Cyclones are renaming their team – for one night only – the BARACKLYN Cyclones. They will be issuing jerseys with “Baracklyn” across the front in a red, white and blue color scheme, along with Obama bobbleheads and other goodies such as:

baracklyn cyclonesThe Economic Stimulus Package: From 10am on January 20th – Inauguration Day – to midnight on January 23rd, ticket prices for the June 23rd game will be “rolled back” to the Cyclones’ inaugural 2001 season rates: $10 Field Box Seats, $8 Box Seats, $5 Bleacher Seats. Beginning January 24th, tickets will be priced at the regular 2009 rates ($15.oo, $12.00, $8.00)

Universal Health Care: Free Band-Aids to the first 1,000 fans

Naming Rights: Anyone named Barack gets in for free

Joe the Plumber special: any plumber named Joe gets two free tickets – one for himself, and one to “spread the wealth” with a friend

Bi-Partisan Consolation Prize: anyone named McCain or Palin will get a free Bleacher Seat

A clear-cut Exit Strategy: fans will receive American Flags and discount coupons as they leave the ballpark

Whether scratch and sniff stickers featuring the aromatic splendor of the President puffing on his favorite cigarette will be available is unknown at this time.

The team is also launching a website, , that is said to offer “progress updates, photos, blog entries, and a behind the scenes look at what goes into creating the Baracklyn promotion.”

At the team’s regular website is this inspirational message from the team’s General Manager, Steve Cohen:

“Barack Obama has energized and captivated the entire country, and we are proud to support our new president as America enters a new era in its history. The similarities between his name and our home borough opened up avenues for the Cyclones to incorporate that support in interesting and humorous ways. The President-elect’s message is one of change. In an effort to pay homage to that idea, we’re changing our prices, our policies, and the name of our team – for one day, at least.”

As I’ve alluded to many times, the line separating parody and reality in this country is vanishing like Gitmo. Ideas that once seemed perfectly fitting for the front page of The Onion, or as a sketch on Saturday Night Live have suddenly crossed over into the realm of reality, e.g., “Global Warming Causes Global Cooling.

Back on November 21, 2008 – long before the marketing team at the Cyclones’ front office started congratulating themselves for a promotion well-done – I wrote a piece called “What’s In A Name” after an elementary school here in New York was renamed for then President-Elect Barack Obama. In an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of the whole thing, I wrote:

He is not the President yet, people!

On the horizon, some possible adjustments to look for:

-Brooklyn Bridge to Baracklyn Bridge
-Broadway to Barackway
-Bedford Stuyvesant to Barackford Stuyvesant

I should have copyrighted the damn thing.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 30, 2008

What was it about Greta Gustaffson that captivated so many? And exactly how many young men would you guess spent an inordinate amount of adolescent “alone time” staring at pictures at Jo Tejada?

(Yes, this is a lame set-up on my part).

Now substitute the names Gustaffson and Tejada for Greta Garbo and Raquel Welch, and your ability to answer becomes easier.

Stage names.

Yes, it was a common practice to Americanize your name at one time.



Just like David Kaminsky, Muzyad Yakhoob, Henry John Deutschendorf Jr, Anna Maria Italiano and Alphonso D’Abruzzo did … along with many, many others. Some were born here, some weren’t – but they all had a common thread. They all wanted their identities to be decidedly American.

Millions of immigrants to this country did the same thing when they arrived – as did my own predecessors.

It was called assimilation.

Associated Press writer Deepti Hajela says that having a President with such an unusual name like Barack Hussein Obama (remember, he used to go by Barry once upon a time) changes, what she calls, the “name game.”

Names traditionally considered “American” tend to be “British-sounding stuff,” said Cleveland Evans, professor of psychology at Bellevue University in Nebraska. “We are still basically an English-culture country. We really are still in many ways at our base an Anglo-Saxon culture.”

In truth, Mr. Evans, we are a free-religion, Judeo-Christian value-based, English-culture country – the most accommodating, least racist nation in all the world – but I digress.

He (Cleveland Evans) pointed out that immigrants have long had a history of changing their names to fit in more with the United States, or have even had others change it for them.

And there wasn’t a damn thing wrong with that.

Immigrants to the United States were deliberately making the effort to “fit in.”

In school they used to teach the phrase E Pluribus Unum? Remember that one? Quaint, I know … but I like it.

Obama, born in Hawaii and named after his Kenyan father, went by Barry for some years before deciding to use his full first name.

Electing someone named Barack Obama president reflects a shift in attitudes about names that’s been going on in American society for the past few decades, says Laura Wattenberg, a name expert and author who runs the blog The Baby Name Wizard.


(Reading that last line over a few times).

Electing Obama reflected a shift in attitudes about names? What on earth does that mean? His name was part of his appeal then?

So, America is finally starting to throw off the century-old first-name shackles of “John,” “Jim,” and “Tom” for more non-American sounding names?

And this “unshackling” of the stale Anglo baby-name pool for a more internationally flavored one is a plus? (I’m just trying to understand the thinking here).

Okay, maybe I’m all wet about this.

Fact is … Obama’s name could have been “Saline Solution,” and he would have won.

“As a group, American parents are naming much more creatively and are striving to be distinctive with the names they pick,” she said, pointing out that shift started in the 1960s when Obama was born and has only accelerated in the last 25 years or so.

A president named Obama could break down the perception “that there is such a thing as a ‘normal’ name,” said Wattenberg.

“It’s a powerful symbol of breaking down barriers where it wasn’t that long ago where kids with a non-English name would go to school and teachers would routinely change it. The president having a non-English name is a sign that we’re not squeezing everyone into that box,” she said.

Here we go again – more sub-groups of Americans breaking out of “boxes.”

Sometimes, to read about this country from Leftocrats, you’d have to believe we come in just under Nazi Germany, toothaches and painful rectal itch in terms of goodness.

I’m sorry, there is such a thing as a normal name, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Please don’t misunderstand my point.



I am not saying that naming a child something unusual and unique is a bad thing, or shouldn’t be done. I certainly don’t want jackbooted nomenclature squads taking to maternity wards across the map making sure Anglo-sounding names are committed to birth certificates.

Rather, I despair at the slow erosion of my nation’s culture.

Wishing to Americanize one’s name spoke volumes about the desire to become part of the already existing fabric – a place so desired by people from every corner of the world that they were willing to abandon the lives they knew for the opportunity to become an American. It was as patriotic a gesture as any.

It was beautiful.

If there has been any “shift” in recent decades, it is the desire not to celebrate the American ideals and values that have served to unify people from diverse backgrounds the world over. (Again, think E Pluribus Unum here – Out of Many, One). It is, rather, the celebration – and amplification – of that diversity, i.e., multiculturalism, that is emphasized in place of the American ideal. 

I’m certain to get some e-mails saying things like, “What’s with you, Roman? What are you saying? You want everyone named Michael? Or Jennifer? You idiot!


Not at all.

Rather, it is commentary on the bigger issue of the slow disintegration of an explicit American culture – one I happen to revere very much.

I like the “box” we have here.

By the way … Danny Kaye, Danny Thomas, John Denver, Anne Bancroft and Alan Alda.

Posted in American culture, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 27, 2008

What is this nation coming to?

When an angry, radical, left-wing, hateful, alienated “used-to-be-someone” lesbian puts together a network television variety show, and no one watches, what can we conclude?

(That there is some hope – cursory as it may be – that civilization as we know it can be salvaged?)

Over at James Hibberd’s Live Feed blog:

The network’s attempt to revive the primetime variety show failed to draw an audience Wednesday night, tying for the evening’s lowest-rated program.

A mere 5 million viewers tuned in for the 8 p.m. premiere of “Rosie Live,” with the program earning a 1.2 preliminary adults 18-49 rating. The telecast matched ABC’s recently canceled “Pushing Daisies” as the night’s lowest-rated program on a major broadcast network.

NBC had high hopes for the special and planned to expand the program into a series should viewers re-embrace the decades-old variety format. Other networks, too, were watching closely since several are developing variety shows of their own.

“There’s a notion that the climate is right for the genre to make a comeback,” emailed one executive at a rival network. “I guess we now know what not to do, thanks to Rosie.”

I’m not sure how this didn’t shatter Neilsen records and spawn a line of Rosie-brand product lines, like action-figures and ear wax removal medicines.


Segments included Kathy Griffin impersonating Nancy Grace, Alec Baldwin hitting Conan O’Brian with a pie, O’Donnell singing “City Lights” with Liza Minnelli and Jane Krakowski doing a product-placement-themed striptease for White Castle burgers and Crest Whitestrips.

Critics were not kind. The NY Times described it as “hokey comedy with an enemies list.” TV Guide called it a “ghastly ego trip.” And the LA Times asked, “Rosie, what on earth were you thinking?”

There are plenty of things to give thanks for.

That this show will not be picked up by anyone anywhere at any time for any reason (I presume) is one of them.


Posted in Pop Culture, Television | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »