Just Relax, Lloyd
In one of the silliest columns I've read in a long time, some columnist for CSB.com named Lloyd Garver is upset that the President's resting pulse rate is an excellent 47 beats per minute.
Lloyd is worried that because the President is fit and collected, he's not worried enough about world affairs. And that's worrying poor Lloyd. It's a little bit of the same mindset that thought President Clinton was a hard worker because he and his staff stayed in the West Wing until 1 am, eating pizza and holding bull sessions.
Guess what, Lloyd? Belief in a "higher power" can offer quite a sense of calm even in the midst of turmoil. Look into it.
Lloyd is worried that because the President is fit and collected, he's not worried enough about world affairs. And that's worrying poor Lloyd. It's a little bit of the same mindset that thought President Clinton was a hard worker because he and his staff stayed in the West Wing until 1 am, eating pizza and holding bull sessions.
Guess what, Lloyd? Belief in a "higher power" can offer quite a sense of calm even in the midst of turmoil. Look into it.
posted by LadybugUSA at 4:57 PM
8 Comments:
And he just won't apologize for a mistake while he's still in office. I wonder how high Lloyd's BP got as he was writing that.
Lloyd won't be happy till Bush's pulse is 0!!
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard........
The media used to applaud Bubba for his daily runs.......Then he'd go get one of them "special workouts" in the Oval Office.
But I'm sure his heart rate was much higher than 47 while sitting for these sessions.
Talking about silly things, have you heard Pat Robertson say we should assassinate the President of Venezuela? I figure you must have missed it, since complaining about Lloyd's ludicrous column would be called filler anywhere else.
Where is the outrage, Carol? Where were the statements from the right wing denouncing Pat Robertson?
I guess it's OK for Pat to say any ole thing he wants as long as he keeps pushing his viewers to vote Republican.
This may be one of the silliest posts I'll make, but on with it. My resting pulse is 45. (I'm 36 fyi.)
The idea of a low pulse to mean detached bliss is insane. I worry plenty. As a dad of two small children, I find culture gives me plenty to worry about.
A low pulse means efficiency. I would say it suggests a healthy routine. We know the president is a creature of health and routine (and so am I), so at best the pulse just quantifies what has been known for some time.
Since CBS evidently didn't ask: Being at peace (and in shape) and having a high pulse would be rare. But I often have both a low pulse and a high anxiety.
The kinds of worries that don't work their way into the pulse (for me) are long term: The culture. Our own finances several years hence. Relationship matters.
I would expect that a president's concerns as well would pertain to long-term matters: At once worrisome and not urgent, and therefore not being realized in the pulse.
Did CBS ask anyone about this? Not that I can tell. Would CBS just come out and declare its biases already? It would simplify a lot.
But then, I've known about CBS for some time. It's nothing to get my heart racing about.
Mr. Twister,
“ . . . have you heard Pat Robertson say we should assassinate the President of Venezuela? I figure you must have missed it, since complaining about Lloyd's ludicrous column would be called filler anywhere else.”
Oh, yes, we’ve sure heard about Robertson’s comments. Over here in Korea, it’s been on CNN International, every hour, hour after hour after hour after hour, over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. No problem there . . . CNN has made absolutely sure that we’ve got the complete, well-covered story of Robertson’s comments. Rest assured, we’re adequately informed on this story of major international interest and import regarding the comments of a washed-up figure whose most influential days are decades in the past. You can relax – the story is, in fact, getting out to the world international audience.
Shame on Carol for having the gall to make a few comments on one particular story of interest to her at the SAME TIME the completely unrelated (but far more important to YOU) Pat Robertson story is ongoing. What in the world can she be thinking?!! Geez, she must think that this is her blog or something.
“Where is the outrage, Carol? Where were the statements from the right wing denouncing Pat Robertson? I guess it's OK for Pat to say any ole thing he wants as long as he keeps pushing his viewers to vote Republican.”
For your reading pleasure, here’s a small sample of some comments from the “right wing” regarding Mr. Robertson. And, they appear to be . . . can this be? . . . denouncing him!! If you can imagine!
"It's ludicrous, ridiculous, irresponsible . . . . I mean, whenever somebody makes such a stupid statement as Pat Robertson made, it's probably going to benefit, in this case, Chavez."
Bob Dole, former Repub Senator & Pres Candidate
"It was an incredibly stupid statement and has no reflection on reality,"
Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee.
"I think what he did is a terrible thing. I think it's a disgrace. And there's no way I can support what he said. I don't think any rational person can support that."
Blanquite Cullum, conservative radio host
“The blurt by Pat Robertson on the matter of Hugo Chavez received the kind of spastic disavowal it deserved, and also warranted . . . . Pat Robertson cannot be conceived by a jury of halfwits as representing U.S. policy, what he said will be quoted by generations of communicants in the religion of anti-yanquiism to throw doubt on U.S. bona fides”.
William Buckley, National Review Online
“To many on the right, Robertson's most important role today seems to be as the maker of . . . . crackpot comments, which give liberals the opportunity to hang the offending words — and Robertson himself — around conservatives' necks. . . . these days, Robertson makes news only when he says something outrageous. . . . ”
Byron York, National Review Online
Pat Robertson’s “fantasy moment as an international assassin” . . . [is] “lending credibility to those who insist the U.S. is conducting a religious crusade against the Muslim world . . . [and] . . . is a problem on the world's stage where some audiences may be less sophisticated and where politicians (or dictators) are happy to embrace useful idiots.”
Kathleen Parker, Converative columnist, Jewish World Review
“Well, Pat Robertson gave every Christian hater a good reason to toss believers into the Christians-are-terrorists-too category. Hey Pat, take a chill pill or two and relax. We all know that Chavez is a very bad man, but c’mon . . . assassination? . . . . What Pat said doesn’t jive with Christ’s teachings . . . . Pat is getting on in his years; and when you get old, you occasionally say things that sound like something Ricky Williams would say. “
Doug Giles, conservative Townhall.com
“When conservatives want to find something juicy to fisk, we turn to the Minneapolis Star Tribune. When liberals want to do the same, they turn to Pat Robertson, who fulfills much the same role as the Strib as a fount of barking idiocy . . . . Having someone use their credentials as a Christian broadcaster to issue this kind of advice takes it past political insanity to a moral disgrace, one at which Robertson's viewers should be appalled.”
Ed Morrissey, right-wing blog Captain’s Quarters
“Pat Robertson last week, on his long-running TV show The 700 Club, seemed more Muslim than Christian when he suggested that U.S. operatives assassinate Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez . . .” Biblical excerpts “do not provide warrant for taking out Hugo Chavez. Nor do any of Christ's words or deeds suggest a WWJA (Who Would Jesus Assassinate).
World Magazine (World News/Christian View)
Other comments about Robertson in general (not specifically related to the Chavez comments):
Robertson should “shut up about politics and stick to preaching. I say that because he has no political instincts and he often smears the issue he supports with his silly comments. In any case, I don't like Robertson, don't care what he has to say, and can't think of a single issue I'm behind that I'd want Robertson to publicly support. Last but not least, I'm tempted to end this post by publicly asking God to convince Pat Robertson ‘that the time has come to retire,’ but I have more class than that...”
John Hawkins, Right Wing News blog
It wasn’t hard to find any of the above – there’s much more out there along the same lines, but that should do for starters. You see, there’s this internet thingy now, with search engines and stuff, that makes it real easy to do research and find things like the comments above, assuming you’re really interested in doing so. But you’re not really interested, now, are you? After all, why waste time doing reasearch that might undercut your untested hypotheses and straw man arguments, and let inconvenient contravening facts, quotes, and statements get in the way of a good rant?
Wascally, I think you've lent far more meaning to my comment than it warranted. Reading the article Carol is referencing, it is a stupid piece of summer piffle, or at least that's what I got out of it. The fact that the guy is worried about the President's resting heartbeat marks him as an idiot. I was making a snarky comment on how pointless it is to even waste time mentioning the column.
If it's war you want, however...
CNN has made absolutely sure that we’ve got the complete, well-covered story of Robertson’s comments.
I'm surprised that CNN was able to tear itself away from is "All missing white girls all the time" format to mention an actual piece of news. To whit, we have a former Republican Presidential candidate claiming that assassinating a foreign leader would be a good thing. Just a week or so back we had 14 Marines killed by an IED in Iraq, and what was CNN's headline story on that fine day? Natalie Holloway and how safe is Aruba anyway. It's amazing that CNN can't even be bothered to cover a war that they helped sell to the public like the media whores they are.
Shame on Carol for having the gall to make a few comments on one particular story of interest to her at the SAME TIME the completely unrelated (but far more important to YOU) Pat Robertson story is ongoing. What in the world can she be thinking?!! Geez, she must think that this is her blog or something.
Seems to me that since 9/11 and more recently the London bombings, all I've heard from the right is "Why won't Islamic leaders distance themselves from terrorism." Tghis despite the fact that many of them have done just that. Once again what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Let's be more specifice--
Why won't Carol distance herself from Pat Robertson's comments?
"Why won't Carol distance herself from Pat Robertson's comments?"
Maybe she's moved on. She's not obligated to obsess over the same things you choose to obsess over, after all.
You've just read a small samaple from a litany of comments from right-wing figures, columnists, and bloggers that have distanced themselves from Robertson's inane statement. But that's apparently not good enough for you, now you require CAROL HERSELF to do so.
Exactly why are you so obsessed with what Carol does or doesn't choose to comment on?
Nice job hijacking the thread.
And now, back to your originially scheduled programming, which was, I believe, generally about the President's physical finess, pulse rate, and commentary pro and con pertaining thereof, piffley though that may be.
If ya don't like it . . . maybe you could go start your own blog or something. You could talk about whatever you want, whenver you want, just like Carol. Think about it.
Off to work. Later.
Wascally, I'm sorry I didn't make it more clear from the beginning, and I'm sorry I wasn't able to do a better job in follow up. My original post was directed to Carol, which is why the second paragraph started with "Where is the outrage, Carol?" (As opposed to "Where is the outrage, generic type right leaning Republican person?")
Exactly why are you so obsessed with what Carol does or doesn't choose to comment on?
Because editorial slant is defined more by what you chose to cover or ignore than it is by what you write on a topic.
In this case, Carol was using a stupid trivial piece of piffle as exemplar or a grander theme--namely the awful horrible no good media and their liberal bias. The fact that Carol chose to waste time on the meanigless jottings of some doofus with a CBS address rather than touch on an actual topic of interest sweeping the blogosphere struck me as noteworthy with respect to Carol's biases.
I commented on my observation and tossed a little gas on the fire to make the whole thing more interesting (much like poison pero tossed in the obligatory Clinton slam). You responded back, with a thought provoking post. I bobbed, weaved, (attempted to clarify,) and chucked the hot potato back to you. IMHO this made a filler post by Carol about a trifle more interesting.
Breaking news...
Apparently Carol does not agree with Pat Robertson.
Nice job hijacking the thread.
Sorry.
If I cared at all, I think I would be happy that the President has a low resting pulse rate.
Post a Comment
<< Home