News and Views RTH! Style
It’s a very busy day for me with one of our dogs in the vet hospital (for Meatbrain, that’s “veterinary” not “veterans” ), two appellate issues to analyze and brief and prepping to spend a week on the water in San Diego with the family Hounds! But some light social commentary is always in order.
Lindsay Lohan will be dead before she hits her 25th birthday. Sorry, not so light, is it. She’s been picked up again for DUI, what is it, two weeks after getting out of rehab, and while she has a prior DUI charge pending. The cocaine found in her pocket during booking isn’t going to help matters. Can you imagine if she was actually old enough to drink legally?
Although she has her defenders who explain that she’s young and oh, such a great actress, the bottom line is that Lindsay is an accident that has already happened. Remember when we were being told that Michael Jackson was just as normal as you and me, just with a bit more cash in the bank. You don’t hear that anymore now that he’s officially changed races and moved to Bahrain, where I guess he believes Muslim sensibilities are so much more open to eccentric behavior, including sleeping with pre-pubescent boys.
No. Lindsay Lohan is a drunk, drug abusing narcissistic loser who made some cute movies when she was a child but has now pretty much torpedoed her career. Good riddance. My only hope is that when her train wrecks, it crashes into Brittany Spears.
* * * * *
Every once in awhile this idea pops into my head, so I figure it’s about time to write it down.
Here’s the setup: I like Rudy Giuliani as a presidential candidate. He’s a straight shooter, who has his priorities in order with keeping this country safe and fighting terrorism at the top of the list. That’s why I can look past his stated pro-choice position (made easier by the fact that he has clearly stated he would appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Roberts). But whenever he, and pretty much every other pro-choice candidate, makes the comment that despite the fact he is personally antiabortion, he will not impose his personal moral beliefs on anyone else, or when Hillary righteously intones that she wishes to keep abortion safe, available and rare (or whatever), I begin to wretch.
I simply don’t understand how you can have heartfelt personal convictions on an important moral issue but then not believe that those convictions ought be applied to others. It makes no sense to me. How is that any different than a candidate saying he finds racism morally repugnant, evil and abhorrent, but would not dream of imposing his personal moral convictions concerning racism on others. What would the response of the American people be to something like that? “Oh, sure I understand. If a person wants to refuse to rent to, or offer a job to, someone simply because they’re African-American, that’s their own personal moral choice.”
As to Hillary, I would ask her to identify what other constitutional right we should ensure is only “rarely” exercised.