It's only rock 'n' roll, but John Kerry likes it.
In a couple of weeks, a bunch of rockers led by Bruce Springsteen (search) will launch an extended concert tour designed to help Senator Kerry. "Talking Points" has no problem with this at all. If big business guys can raise money for President Bush, then fat cat rockers can do the same for their guy.
Writing in today's New York Times, Springsteen tried to explain his motivation. And the article is instructive. He begins by saying why he has always stayed away from partisan politics, but that may be disingenuous. Springsteen has consistently pushed left wing defamation books at his concert and associated with radical elements of the Democratic Party.
As far back as 1984, Springsteen was quoted as attacking Ronald Reagan's policies. In '91, he raised money for the radical left Christic Institute. And last September, Springsteen actually called for the impeachment of President Bush.
If Springsteen isn't a partisan, then I'm Whoopi Goldberg (search). The singer goes on to ask, "Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens?"
What exactly does that mean? The USA spends approximately $315 billion a year on entitlements to help the poorest Americans. Education spending is at record levels and so is medical spending. What is Springsteen talking about?
Perhaps his next words give us a clue. "We granted tax cuts to the richest one percent ... increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of 'one nation indivisible.'"
Notice Bruce baby left out "under God" from that quotation from the pledge. But his message is clear. Springsteen apparently believes the government has a right to divide wealth.
This of course is nuts. Wealth is obtained in a free marketplace or by inheritance. Under our capitalistic system, the government has no right to divide any private holdings, be they property or income. Socialistic governments divide wealth. Capitalistic governments do not.
Bruce Springsteen could, of course, divide his own wealth, estimated to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. That would fund a lot of social programs there, Bruce. He should think about that while relaxing in his $14 million Beverly Hills home or in his lavish New Jersey estate. Give it up, Bruce. You can bring the deficit down all by yourself, boss.
Again, I don't have any trouble with Springsteen campaigning for anybody or raising money for a political candidate. I actually applaud his interest. But don't be telling me you're not a partisan and don't be suggesting the government divide up anybody's wealth while sitting there in the Beverly Hills. You may have been born in the USA, Bruce, but I wasn't born yesterday.
And that's the memo.
The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day
Our pal Sharon Stone (search) — well, that might be wishful thinking — is mad at President Bush, and here's why. Speaking to a Web site in Ireland, Ms. Stone claims that she was prevented from filming a lesbian scene in the movie "Catwoman" with Halle Berry because, "The current conservative climate in the country just wouldn't allow it."
Ms. Stone went on to say that Halle's "so beautiful, I just wanted to kiss her. That's what you get for having George Bush (search) as president." So let me get this straight. President Bush stopped Sharon Stone from cavorting with Halle Berry? I am outraged. This could be ridiculous.