I
admire Lance Armstrong almost beyond measure. Even
more so now:
Lance Armstrong and Sheryl Crow have split, the couple announced in a joint statement Friday night. The seven-time Tour de France champion and the rock star announced their engagement in September. It would have been her first marriage and his second. He has three children from a previous marriage.
"After much thought and consideration we have made a very tough decision to split up. We both have a deep love and respect for each other and we ask that everyone respect our privacy during this very difficult time," the statement said.
Compare fortuitously
the 2003 Grammys,
remarks by Sheryl Crow:
I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.
Proof some problems don't require enemies.
7 comments:
Proof some problems don't require enemies.
irrelevant sardonicism proves nothing not against the slinger of it. "Here's a good idea: Have a point. It makes it so much more interesting for the listener!"
Lance's work means a lot to me on various personal levels. I hope he really is ok.
But this might just be one of the best moves he has taken in life since he rode his very first bicycle.
Crow's comments seem to have turned out prophetic about herself, instead of America.
She strikes me as more Romulan than Klingon... Just because she has no idea of the meaning of the word "irony" doesn't mean she's totally unthinking...
Isn't Lance a Democrat, though?
Only relevant insofar as Crow seems to be criticized for her liberal-aligned opinion on war.
Wordsmith - I don't agree that Crowe's opinion on war is liberal-aligned. I think it is pure fatuous idiocy. Classic liberals have long understood that some regimes or groups make war on liberal principles themselves. Crowe's statement ignores the death camps of the 20th century.
If you live in a la-la universe in which the Rwandan massacres did not happen, Auschwitz never existed and the Cambodian killing fields were little enclaves of New Age encounter-groupism, then Crowe's statements could be called "liberal-aligned".
If you live in a world in which at least 80 million people did die by such methods in the last century, then Crowe's statements are violently and absolutely illiberal.
Agreed, M_O_M. If there's ever to be a "NOfP's law," let it be this:
The number of human rights violations in a country is inversely proportional to the number of human rights complaints about that country.
Post a Comment