Outrage of the day:

I come to you today with a story of outrageous behavior, of celebrities out of control. I would like to focus your attention on the recent behavior of rap superstar and producer Kanye West.

I've supported Kanye for a while, and he hasn't always made it easy. But I've been there. Through the groundbreaking musical productions, the on-the-job MC training, the skippable skits on his CDs, the overblown fashion sense, the egotistical outbursts, the Bush Comment. Hell, I've even listened to "Last Call," the 12-minute tribute to himself from the College Dropout album, more than once. I've defended him against people who called him talentless, stupid, self-centered. But I really can't defend him for this most recent act.

In LA recently for some Hollywood swinging with pal Jamie Foxx during the Golden Globes, Kanyeezy was rumored to be spotted in an LA hotel hallway, making out hot and heavy with Pamela Anderson. That's PAMELA ANDERSON.
WTHF (the "H" is for "Holy")? How did this happen? Was the line to screw Paris Hilton too long that night? Admittedly, the Louis Vuitton Don hasn't paraded his love/sex life in our faces before, but why this? And why now?

If this hookup did take place, the temptation is great to congratulate Kanye on being the first brother to hit that (that I'm aware of). But I'm not gonna go out that way. For a few reasons. Number one, have you SEEN Pammy lately? I mean, seen her in an impromptu, unproduced photo lately? Pretty rough. Pushing forty now and starting to get leathery and wrinkled, Pam looks a little like she's been rode hard and put up wet. Secondly, Hepatitis C. Never, ever, go after Tommy Lee. Anywhere. Thirdly, it pretty much neutralizes the final punchline of the song, "Gold Digger." Say it with me: "And when he gets on, he'll leave your ass for a White girl." Too true.

I could be wrong here, though. I'll admit it. I could be exaggerating the importance of this alleged event. I'm sure Kanye has an explanation. And even if he doesn't, dude has talent. His career will face other hurdles and controversies in the years to come. I mean, he courts them, after all. But, anyway, I hear he's getting a cover feature on Rolling Stone magazine. How bad can THAT be?

Shooting Off Your Mouth

In this feature, I will rate the controversial/outrageous pronouncements from public figures issued over the past Martin Luther king, Jr. Day weekend.

- New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin on MLK Day: "Surely God is mad at America. He sent us hurricane after hurricane after hurricane, and it's destroyed and put stress on this country. Surely he doesn't approve of us in Iraq under false pretenses. I don't care what people are saying Uptown or wherever they are. This city will be chocolate at the end of the day (emphasis mine). This city will be a majority African-American city. It's the way God wants it to be. You can't have New Orleans no other way."

This one went over like a lead balloon. The major media and conservative bloggers went at Nagin like he was raw meat. I'll leave aside his comments about God's revenge on the USA. That's his opinion. And I'd like to think God doesn't approve of us invading Iraq under false pretenses, either.

What really put the blood in the water was the "Chocolate City" comments. "What is he trying to say," the media asked. "Is he saying White people will be unwelcome in New Orleans?" If you'd believe the press, you'd think these comments caused developers to stop writing checks and rebuilding efforts stopped until Nagin retracted his remarks yesterday.

I understand the motive behind Nagin's evocation of the old P-Funk song. He was attempting to reassure the aggrieved and suspicious Black population of NO, who feel that they will be displaced in a New Orleans rebuilt into a theme park for binge-drinking Caucasians. Not a bad idea. But the time and place of those remarks was not well-thought-out.

It may be that Ray Nagin is just an idiot. In the early days following Katrina, he lashed out passionately and righteously against the sluggish federal response. I was pulling for him then. Since then, though, I've been questioning his behavior.
His showing up to eat cheese every time Bush wants a photo op down there is understandable, if regrettable. However, his negative comments about the influx of Mexican workers to aid the reconstruction was not a good look. And he can be counted on for a questionable, erratic comment every 4 to 6 weeks. Ray, basically, is a local politician that has been thrust onto the national stage, who quite often seems in over his head. But he needs to realize that conservative and the media are gunning for him, and choose his words more carefully. C-

- Hillary Clinton on MLK Day: "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about."

For those of you who don't, say, read Matt Drudge or watch the Fox News Channel, you could be forgiven for forgetting that Hillary Clinton had come into prominence as an icon of the left. Because for most of the fall, she has apparently been gearing up for her putative '08 presidential run by pandering to the right on issues like Iraq and abortion.

But Monday in a Harlem church, she got back to pandering to her, um, base, with these remarks. Yes, Hillary, we KNOW what you're talking about. Sigh. Does this woman even talk to her husband? Bill could have coached her on telling Black folks what they want to hear, without being so strident.

As for the substance of her comments: Plantation, sure, why not? Unlike the Senate, in the House, Republicans control most of the channels Democrats could use for debate and dissent. So, "plantation" might be considered an accurate analogy by some. But, jeez, Hil, take it slow. Don't blow your whole rhetorical wad before you even announce. C+

- Al Gore on MLK Day: Gore, on the subject of Bush's domestic spying program called for an independent counsel, stating that the President "repeatedly and insistently" broke the law by eavesdropping on American citizens without court approval. Gore called the program "a threat to the very structure of our government."

Oh, the Bush crew was all over this. The administration called Gore everything but a child of God, as the old folks say. Professional Liar Scott McClellan called Gore a hypocrite (I'm rubber and you're glue, Scott...). AG Alberto Gonzales basically enforced Gore's position that he could not be trusted to investigate the administration on this, by essentially saying, "our spying IS TOO legal!" The RNC accused Gore of still having sour grapes from the 2000 election.

If this is sour grapes, then my lips won't stop puckering (huh?). Gore, thankfully out of the business of lying for a living, can take on Bush's policies in the blunt terms that they deserve, and it's good that someone does. Bush needs to be hammered on this flagrant breach of Americans' rights and the court system EVERY FREAKIN' DAY, but the response from the Democrats on this has been, like much from them, weak and inconsistent. Probably afraid to be labeled as giving "aid and comfort" to the terrorists, Dems have largely soft-pedaled this issue since the early revelation. And if Al Gore wants expend his waning capital with a harsh broadside against an ineffective and possibly illegal spy program, good for him. B

And I'd like to send a special shout-out to the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights for filing suit against Bush over the domestic spy program. Thanks, folks. Shut 'em down!

Selling Woof Tickets

For those not in the know, this is the practice of making a lot of tough talk that you know that you are unable, or unwilling, to back up. Like the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When dress shirt model John Roberts was confirmed for the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, after mildly... I hesitate to even use the word "contentious", hearings, Democrats promised that the next Justice that George W. Bush nominated would be in for some serious grilling. This seemed strange to me at the time. You would let the Chief Justice pass with some non-commital answers to some limply asked questions, but you're gonna get tough on the next ASSOCIATE Justice that comes through? As they say, WTF?

Yeah, yeah, I understand the principle at work here. Roberts was replacing William Rehnquist, a reliable resident of the Court's right wing. But the next Justice coming in would be taking the place of Sandra Day O'Connor, the crucial "swing" vote on the Court. It would be important for Democrats to keep a right wing ideologue out of that position.

So where's the fight then? Bush, after the Harriet Meiers fiasco, settled on Samuel Alito, a man apparently so ideologically bound over to the right his name is melded with Antonin Scalia's to form the unholy hybrid, "Scalito." Unlike John Roberts, Alito has a paper trail. He has written opinions questioning a woman's right to abortion. He has shown a marked bias to big business in his writings. He belonged to an association named the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group that opposed admission of women and minorities to the University. And then there's that litmus test.

But so far, it appears only token resistance is being put up in Alito's confirmation hearings. Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, and Charles Schumer have thrown some pointed questions Alito's way, but have been weak on follow-ups and seem more concerned with appearing polite that probing this guy's record. Alito seems determined to keep the room temperature low, and to say nothing that he can be held to (He'd keep an "open mind" on abortion? Huh?). Absent an Al-Pacino-style shouting meltdown in the hearings and lacking the votes to reject him, Alito seems likely to be confirmed. And the filibuster against him we were told to expect last week? Won't be happening.

Thus, as the Supreme Court goes firmly the way of Scalia and Clarence Thomas for probably the next twenty years (thanks a lot, 2004 Bush voters and non-voters), I'm left to consider that empty tough talk. Who was that for? The Republicans? The Media? Us citizens? Or maybe themselves?

Facing a Bush administration that was self-destructing last year, with Iraq, Katrina, Plamegate, etc., Democrats showed little sign of being able to capitalize. Instead of speaking with one voice and again making clear exactly what the differences are between them and the Republicans (because voters do need reminding), they have been fairly disorganized and diffuse. And the fact that some of them (Lieberman, Hillary) are still trying to look like Republicans certainly doesn't help.

I would like not to give up on the Supreme Court. But you know that Bush has litmussed and rehearsed Alito until he looks clean enough to eat off of. My hope now is that the Democrats will ease up on the tough talk and finally give those opposed to the administration some tough action. Despite how it looks some days, Republicans cannot be counted on to destroy themselves. Give them some help.

Praying for her downfall...

I realize that tearing down Paris Hilton is one of the skinny, knock-kneed legs upon which the internet is built, but I have been reluctant to put this blog on the anti-Paris bandwagon. Do I hate her? Yes, as all right-thinking people should. Her narrow, scantily-clad, contraceptive- patched ass showing up for everything short of the opening of a can of pork and beans, smiling her same smug little smile and dragging along this week's Greek Shipping Wastrel, you're left wondering, how long can this bullshit go on?

Well, I'd like to think that the end is finally starting to begin. This month, Ms. Hilton is facing two slander and harrassment lawsuits that appear to reveal as much about her character as a casual racist comment on caught on video. In one, a promoter is charging that Hilton harrassed and bad-mouthed him in the media, and threatened his life (?). In the other, the one I'm loving, she is sued for $10 million by Zeta Graff, ex-girlfriend of former fiance' Paris Latsis. She charges Hilton of spreading "vicious lies" about her, specifically concerning an alleged physical attack during which Graff supposedly choked Hilton and tried to steal a diamond necklace of hers.

An attack like that would be pretty frightening, huh? But for the fact that it probably NEVER HAPPENED. Hilton's former publicist has testified in a deposition that he was ordered to plant the story of the fake attack in the New York Post. Um... awwk-warrd.

Strange for someone who never graduated, but Paris Hilton is the most flagrant example of someone bringing high school behavior into supposedly adult life. The world is her cafeteria table, where she holds court with her sycophants and fellow mean girls. She ostracizes former girlfriends ("We're not talking to Nicole anymore."), passes around boyfriends (in her world, I guess Greek shipping scions are analogous to the football team), and uses the Post rather than folded-up notes to spread her nasty rumors. She hasn't gotten around to jumping girls after gym class yet.

Funny as it seems, for someone who has shown no discernible talent or skill, Paris Hilton is the major breadwinner of her immediate family. Which is to say, she isn't totally dependent on the Hilton Family Trough for her survival. However, if she continues to stack up lawsuits as pointless as these, she'll be as subject to the kindness of stockholders as her parents. And maybe then she'll either smarten up or get out of our lives forever.

I know, highly unlikely. I can hope, can't I? Anyway, anybody with a blog has a right to shovel dirt on Paris Hilton, right? Here's mine.