Let Ahmadinejad Look

When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, who will be at the United Nations next week, asked for permission to visit Ground Zero, he was denied permission by the New York City Police Department. They cited security concerns, but the White House was less discreet in their response.

"I can understand," President Bush said in a press conference,"why they would not want somebody who is running a country who is a state sponsor of terror down there at the site."

In addition, Ahmadinejad is set to speak at Columbia University, at what Newsday calls "a question and answer session with university faculty and students as part of the school's World Leaders Forum. " This appearance is being protested by the city tabloids (John Podhoretz wrote a particularly inane column about it in the Post) and local politicians such as Christine Quinn, the head of the New York City Council, who claims that for Columbia to provide a forum for Ahmadinejad to spread his "hate-mongering vitriol" is offensive to all New Yorkers.

Well, I'm a New Yorker, and Christine Quinn (with whom I'm usually in agreement) does not speak for me in this regard. Is Ahmadinejad a Holocaust denier? Yes. Is that a sub-moronic thing to be? As they say in Minnesota, you betcha. Does Iran sponsor terrorist groups? Yes -- they sponsor both Hamas and Hezzbollah (neither of whom, it should be said, target the United States). Are either of those valid reasons to keep him from Ground Zero or from speaking at Columbia? I don't think so.

I would let Ahmadinejad go pretty much anywhere in New York he wanted to -- and talk to anyone who would speak to him. If he wants to go down to Ground Zero, let him. If he wants to speak at Columbia, let him. But most of all, I want New Yorkers to speak to him -- I want him to meet as many New Yorkers as possible and hear what they have to say, and take that back to Iran.

Will his mind be changed by what he might hear from the people of this city? Probably not. But I for one would love to have the opportunity to tell him that, in spite of the fact that I think this country should have a far more civilized discourse with his, anyone who thinks the Holocaust didn't happen is a total fucking idiot.

Tom Moran

Sherri Shepherd Sees the Light

On Wednesday's episode of "The View," brand-spankin'-new co-host Sherri Shepherd tried to yank her foot out of her mouth and give an explanation for how she came to say that she didn't know whether or not the earth was flat.

She claimed that she didn't hear the question, which as an excuse ranks right up there with that perennial favorite "My dog ate my homework."

Think I'm exaggerating when I claim that her explanation is disingenuous (and that's a euphemism)? Check out the actual video and see whether you think she didn't hear a question that she repeats twice right after she hears it:



But at least she's acknowledging, however belatedly, that the earth is in fact round. Let's give her credit for that, at least.

Not too much credit, however, because she still believes that the earth -- the whole universe, in fact -- was created by a sky god with a big white beard who sits on a big chair in the sky. And she believes this, by her own words, because there's no proof whatsoever for the assertion.

Tom Moran

Where's Rosie When You Need Her?

When TV actress and stand-up comic Sherri Shepherd was given the job of co-host on ABC's "The View," she viewed it as a "miracle from God." Claiming that prayers from her fans allowed her to fill the chair left vacant by Star Jones, she told those fans on her website:

"Now just keep praying, that every morning I don't put my foot in my mouth – but if you know me, it's bound to happen :O)."

Well, Ms. Shepherd was right about that, because on today's episode of "The View" she said (with a straight face) that not only doesn't she believe in evolution, she does not know whether or not the earth is flat.

Let me repeat that for the benefit of those of you who have not yet picked their jaws up off the floor: she does not know whether or not the earth is flat.

Bear in mind, this woman has a child. Whose mother does not know whether or not the earth is flat.

Was this woman hired to fill the idiot chair? Because the show already has Elisabeth Hasselbeck for that (and she does a dandy job). What demographic is Ms. Shepherd appealing to anyway? Don't tell me African-Americans, because the African-Americans I know are pretty clear on the fact that the earth is round and besides, they have Whoopi Goldberg to appeal to that demographic. So why is Ms. Shepherd there? To make mental defectives feel brilliant by comparison?

I think Ms. Shepherd needs a little adult education in the heliocentric theory of the universe -- and some grounding in evolution might not be a bad idea either. So if you're feeling charitable, please send some books on science to:

Sherri Shepherd
c/o "The View"
ABC TV
320 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023

The sooner you can mail those books off, the better, because this woman's pathetic ignorance reaches millions of impressionable people every day, and the sooner she learns a little science, the better off all of us (not to mention her child) will be.

Tom Moran

Note 9/19: I have been informed by the webmaster of Sherri Shepherd's website (who has refused to pass along my blog item to her) that Ms. Shepherd, unlike what I wrote in my blog item yesterday, has one and not two children. The error has been corrected.

Monday Grab-Bag

There are a lot of things I could conceivably write about today, but I don't feel like being constrained by a single topic, so I'm going to jump around a little if you don't mind (or even if you do -- nyah):

• Newt Gingrich says that the odds that a Democrat will be elected president in 2008 are about 80/20. One can only hope he's right. I would put it at 90/10 if anyone but Hillary is nominated and 50/50 if she is.
• O.J. Simpson is in jail again, arrested for armed robbery. You have to wonder who's going to defend him (he hasn't got the money for a "dream team" this time) or if the jury might be tempted to do a "jury mullification in reverse" (is there such a legal term?) -- where they decide to vote guilty because he got off on the murder rap ten or so years ago. Although from what I hear the whole thing was captured on tape so it might be a moot point.
• Alan Greenspan finally spilled the beans this weekend when he said in his new book: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil." He has since tried to backtrack from that comment, but those attempts have been unsuccessful. President Bush is reported to have been "surprised" by Greenspan's comments, but it reminds me of Washington's definition of a "gaffe": when someone accidentally tells the truth.
• The bathroom stall at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport where Idaho Senator Larry Craig executed his now-notorious "wide stance" (and was arrested by an undercover officer) has become an unexpected tourist attraction. People are asking strangers to take their picture taken in front of the bathroom. So if you're passing through and you spot Inmotion Entertainment (a DVD rental store), ask Kelly (a young lady who works in the store) to take your picture. Maybe you can talk her into coming inside and taking your picture in the actual stall where Craig was busted. It's the second one from the right. Just don't tap your foot while you're inside -- after all, you never know who's in the next stall.

Tom Moran

The Best News of the Year

We haven't had a whole lot of good news this year, have we?

Well, if you take a look to your left you'll see what is arguably the best news we're going to get all year -- the release, in December, of "Ford at Fox," 24 of the films that John Ford made while working for 20th Century-Fox, many of which have never before been available on DVD.

If you look at the length and breadth of Ford's career, it's hard not to come to the conclusion that he was, all things considered, American's greatest filmmaker. And while he worked almost everywhere in his long career, he made many of his best films at Fox -- so it's appropriate that the studio where he had such a long and productive working life should honor him with such a comprehensive DVD collection.

Among the films available in the collection are not just the films that most cinephiles know -- "Young Mr. Lincoln," "My Darling Clementine," "How Green Was My Valley" -- but the rareties and museum pieces that haven't been available before and that deserve to be seen by a wider audience. Films like Ford's 1924 epic "The Iron Horse," or the heavily Murnau-influenced WWI drama "Four Sons." In addition, "Ford at Fox" includes a documentary by 1997 Oscar nominee Nick Redman, as well as several of Ford's own documentaries such as "December 7th" and "The Battle of Midway" (which won a 1943 Oscar for Best Documentary).

It's not cheap (the collection has a suggested retail price of $299.98), but all told these films comprise an important and vital part, not only of American film history, but of American culture. No film fan can afford to ignore this set.

Tom Moran

Vanessa the Undresser

The fetching young lady at left is Vanessa Hudgens. If you don't know who she is, then you haven't seen "High School Musical," Disney's phenomenally popular TV movie-musical.

I've cropped the photo a little, which I'm sure disappoints you, especially if you've seen "High School Musical" and have a penis (or a vagina and the right inclination, now that I think about it).

The fact is that the lovely Miss Hudgens is nude in the photo, which she took privately and has somehow (no one knows exactly how) found its way online.

People were shocked -- shocked! -- that a hot 18-year-old would want to show off her body for a camera. And it would seems that her career (at least with Disney) was imperiled by the existence of this photograph.

Miss Hudgens apologized profusely for the incident:

"I want to apologize to my fans, whose support and trust means the world to me. I am embarrassed over this situation and regret having ever taken these photos."

Disney Channel spokesperson Patti McTeague stated that Miss Hudgens' career with Disney would not be terminated, saying:

"Vanessa has apologized for what was obviously a lapse in judgment. We hope she's learned a valuable lesson."

I can only add one statement to this situation: Are you people fucking kidding me?

Seriously -- just how stupid have we gotten in this country? Just look at the look on that young woman's face as she shows off her gorgeous body. When was the last time you were that happy? Admit it, if you were 18 and had a body like that you would show it to anyone who wanted to look at it --no matter who they were.

Admittedly, we live in a culture where no young woman can feel comfortable posing nude because some asshole is going to get their hands on the photo and post it on the internet. So you can argue that, for someone whose fan base is predominantly teenage girls (and gay boys who maybe don't know that they're gay quite yet) , Miss Hudgens showed poor judgment.

But come on -- look at that face! Look at the rest of her -- which you can easily find on the internet if you look hard enough. Doesn't that make you renew your faith in humanity? I mean, really.

I can tell you what I would have liked Miss Hudgens to have said when the photo became public:

"Yes, I posed for that photo. I'm young and I'm hot and I like being naked and I posed for a nude photo while I still have a smokin' body. And if anyone doesn't like it, they can just fuck off."

But Miss Hudgens, being an ambitious young actress, knows, as Hugh Grant knew before her when he had a similarly awkward situation (which was not captured on camera, unfortunately), that a mea culpa was in order. So she did what she had to do to save her shapely young ass.

Wouldn't it be nice, though, if she didn't have to? And wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a society that didn't, in effect, punish young women for flaunting their beauty and their sexuality?

Tom Moran

The Tide in the Senate -- and Beyond

The New York Times is reporting that Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel is set to formally announce on Monday that he will not run for reelection in 2008.

That makes three Republican senators who will not be running for reelection next year -- Hagel, Virginia Senator John Warner and, most likely, Idaho Senator Larry ("Wide Stance") Craig.

2008 is looking very good for the Democrats to extend their currently razor-thin majority in the Senate. And given how the Republicans are imploding, both on the executive and legislative level, it's theoretically possible that 2008 is going to be an election year that makes 2006 look like a tea party.

I haven't given much room to the 2008 Democratic candidates here lately, so maybe it's time to do a little ruminating, given the events of today and the past few weeks.

Robert Novak has been saying (or possibly implying would be the better word) that the Democrats are on the verge of shooting themselves in the foot by nominating either a woman (Hillary Clinton) or a black man (Barack Obama) to head the ticket -- something that he thinks is the only hope for the Republican party to hold onto the White House in 2008. It's an antediluvian and arguably racist opinion.

But is he right?

I'm not sure. I think Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as a candidate and would most likely lose in a general election -- and on the off-chance that she won, I think she'd most likely be an awful president. Based on what I've read in books like Carl Bernstein's splendid recent biography, Hillary Clinton, with her band of insane loyalists and her passion for utter secrecy, has more in common with George W. Bush than a lot of people might think at first glance.

If the Republicans had any sense at all (and based on the evidence of the past seven years they have none) they would rally around Mitt Romney as quickly as possible. There's no doubt in my mind that Romney could beat Hillary Clinton. He might be able to beat Barack Obama.

Could Obama get the nomination and actually win the general election? I'm not sure, although I'd like to think so. I'd like to know more about him, but what impression I have of him so far has been favorable. Clinton's people are making a crucial error for slamming Obama for his suposed lack of "experience." As JFK's speechwriter Ted Sorenson (who supports Obama) pointed out not long ago, Cheney and Rumsfeld had lots of experience when they began the Bush Administration -- and what good did it do them?

I've made no secret of the fact that my first choice would be for Al Gore to enter the race. But right now it doesn't look like that's going to happen. Events are going to start unfolding fast in this election cycle, and we could have a presumptive nominee by early February if not sooner. That means that the candidate with the best organization has the best chance of winning -- but it also means that if someone can somehow pull off an upset in Iowa and New Hampshire it could turn the whole race upside down, and lead to the craziest scramble for the nomination that we've seen in generations.

It's going to be an interesting six months, that's all I can say.

Tom Moran

Where's John Mark Karr When You Need Him?

Remember Madeleine McCann? The cute little girl who disappeared in Portugal leaving her parents to appeal for her return and celebrities such as J.K. Rowling to cough up millions for a reward?

Well, now there are two suspects in her disappearance.

Her parents.

The Portugese police (who appear to have botched this case from Day One), are now theorizing that Madeleine's mother, Kate McCann, killed her daughter accidentally and then made up the whole abduction theory to throw suspicion away from them.

Is this good police work? A lucky guess? Or merely a Hail Mary pass on the part of the Portugese police who don't have a clue where the girl is and just want to make this whole sordid story go away because it's bad for tourism, like the mayor in "Jaws"?

Personally, I think it's time for John Mark Karr to make an appearance and confess. That's about all this case is lacking right about now.

Tom Moran

Death of a Legend

This is a sad day for opera lovers. Luciano Pavarotti has died at the age of 71.

For those of us who were lucky enough to see him in his prime, Pavarotti was as great as any Italian tenor in the second half of the 20th Century -- a great artist in the tradition of Caruso and Gigli. But we're far luckier with Pavarotti than we were with his predecessors, since with Caruso we're only left with arias recorded at a time when you had to sing into a horn, and Gigli, while leaving us with some spendid complete opera recordings (I'm partial to his "La Boheme"), wasn't able to leave behind anything like the body of work that Pavarotti has.

Not only his recordings, but also his opera broadcasts from the Met and other houses around the world will ensure that his artistry will live on for future generations. In an age of ersatz singers who are more the creation of media hype than genuine talent (consider the oaf on "Britain's Got Talent" who became an instant celebrity by mangling Puccini's "Nessun Dorma"), Pavarotti was the real thing.

His career spanned almost my whole life, and I was lucky to have seen him several times at the Met, most notably in one of his greatest roles, as the doomed king in Verdi's "Un Ballo in Maschera." It was one of the great experiences of my opera-going life, and I will never forget it. Neither I suspect, will millions more, both alive and unborn, who will thrill to the many superb performances he left behind.

Tom Moran

Oh, Those Wacky Republicans!

Senator Arlen Specter has said, in an interview on Fox News, that his fellow Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) should, in the words of the Bloomberg report from which I derive this story (since you don't really expect me to watch Fox News, do you?), "try to withdraw his guilty plea to disorderly conduct in connection with an incident in an airport men's room and fight the case."

"I think he could be vindicated,'' Specter, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on the "Fox News Sunday'' program.

Specter, of Pennsylvania, said that Craig "hasn't resigned'' from the Senate, only that he "intends to resign'' as of Sept. 30. That gives Craig a month to fight the case in court, Specter said. If the case went to trial, Specter said Craig "wouldn't be convicted of anything.''

I hate to say it, but I agree with Arlen Specter.

Not so much on the legal front (do we really get "do-overs" in court nowadays?), but on the resignation front. It's not like he was caught in bed with a dead nine-year-old with an ice-pick in her chest or anything -- it was a private (or as private as a men's room stall can be) incident that should be left to Senator Craig and his wife. If I felt that way about President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, then I think I should also feel that way about Senator Craig and the hunky undercover officer he tried to blow.

What happened to Senator Craig was a pretty clear case of entrapment. I really don't care what he does in men's rooms, with or without an undercover office, but I do think that the law should butt out of people's bedrooms.

Or their toilets.

Now, that having been said, I should also point out that this is a relatively easy call for me to make, given that, considered politically, Idaho is about as red as my face would be if I were to be caught in a men's room with an undercover officer -- so it's easy for me to say that Senator Craig should fight to save a seat that would be reliably Republican in any event. I wonder if I would stick to principle if the senator involved was John Warner, in the highly competitive state of Virginia.

But it's not. Idaho will have a Republican senator whether Craig steps down or not, so I say he should stick around and be a living example to the GOP of what family values are about.

Might even do them some good.

Tom Moran

He Put The "Ho" in Idaho

Senator Larry Craig of Idaho is going, if media reports are correct (and when are they not?), to resign his Senate seat later today.

Over tapping his foot in the stall of a men's room.

Okay, we all know that it was more than that. Craig was most likely cruising for some gay sex in a public toilet, which offends some people, particularly Republicans. It's another lovely example of Republican sexual hypocrisy in action.

Part of me (the partisan progressive part of me) wants to gloat about yet another GOP hypocrite brought low. But another part of me, the part that believes in fair play and that thinks that consenual sexual conduct between adults is no one else's fucking business and who dislikes the notion of police entrapment, feels that all this is a wee bit much.

Granted, Craig is against gay marriage on moral grounds but has no qualms about blowing or being blown by another man in a men's room -- on one level he deserves what he gets.

But should someone lose their livelihood over something like this? What is this, the 1950s? Do we really want police officers trying to entrap men in toilets?

So I'm torn. On one level I feel sorry for Senator Craig, who should probably just hold a press conference and tell the world: "Okay. I did it. I wanted the big beefy police officer's mighty schlong down my throat. You got a problem with that? Tough shit. I'm still a U.S. Senator and I'm going to remain a U.S. Senator whether you like it or not."

But on the other hand, since he's clearly too much of a hypocrite to say that, I should probably just give him George Michaels' phone number. That should do it, right?

Tom Moran