Wednesday, April 30, 2008
What's kind of gotten lost, folks (lost in all of this talk about flag-pins, etc.) is the fact that Hillary seems to be flexing HER muscles again. I site, specifically, that last Democratic debate with Obama. She stated that, what, we, the United States, would come to the defense of ANY Arab country attacked by Iran and that we'd in fact "obliterate" Iran if they ever decided to launch a nuclear strike on Israel? I mean, wow, huh? Can you even begin to imagine if Bush had uttered a proclamation such as that? Or McCain? And the fact that she said it during the primary battles....and not during the general election. That seems to indicate to me that she might actually believe it this time (this, I'm saying, as opposed to the Iraq authorization vote, which I still maintain was political). I mean, talk about a trifecta of scary candidates, huh?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
This point I offer specifically to Mr.s O'Reilly and Hannity. "Guys", to say that adventuresome American foreign policies have had a negative effect on world stability and have contributed to our problems at home and abroad IS NOT the same as saying we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 (or at other times, either). No, it WASN'T our fault (unless, that is, you believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories - I, for one, do not) that a dozen and a half crazed lunatics hijacked some airliners and flew them into U.S. buildings. All that I and some other people (Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, etc.) are saying is that there in fact consequences for doing such things as 1) installing the Shah in Iran, 2) supporting a bevy of other despots in the region, 3) maintaining U.S. troops in Muslim holy lands, 4) occupying an Arab country, stuff like that. And, yes, one of these consequences, unfortunately, is the provoking of "people" who think that martyrdom has its own rewards (72 frigging virgins-worth, for Christ!!).
Monday, April 28, 2008
Yes, perhaps because McCain was an officer, it wasn't quite as bad for him in 'Nam. But, come on, referring to HIS situation as an "upscale" one, that is just pure lunacy, folks. And, besides, it's not like he cut a deal with the North Vietnamese....to get this slightly less barbaric treatment. In fact, from what I've heard, McCain actually REFUSED an early release - this, as to NOT get special treatment. But, no, denigrate the man/his service REPEATEDLY! INcredible.
And neither, of course, is the media totally in the tank for McCain, either. I mean, seriously, if you listen only to these far-left bloggers, McCain is getting what amounts to a free-ride. It's like, I feel like asking them, "what, you don't watch Keith Olbermann, listen to Air America, read the New York Times, log on to the Huffington Post, etc."? And on Dan Abrams' show, too, folks, he actually has a segment "Teflon John", a slot where he enumerates ALL of the Senator's missteps (and, yes, folks, he has had plenty, hasn't he?). But I guess that that's not enough for these hucksters - in that, apparently, they want nothing less than Mr. McCain's carcass served on a platter..................................There's this one lunatic (1138, he goes by), for example, who actually had the audacity to say that McCain had the privilege of staying in an "upscale" POW camp. An upscale POW camp, what does that mean, they torture the people in it every other day? I mean, I don't know, folks, but to have that much bile in your system for a political opponent, that's pretty scary. And, please, don't get me wrong here. I am more than willing to debate this (or any) Senator on the issues. But to impugn the guy's courage/commitment to his country, that, my friends, is proof enough to say that, yes, it is in fact getting a little TOO hellish out there; the Internet, etc..
Sunday, April 27, 2008
While, yes, it may be true that Keith Olbermann is on the Obama band-wagon, one could also get the impression that the rest of MSNBC is souring a bit. Just on "Hardball" (4/24) alone, I'm saying, Matthews (supposedly in Obama's pocket) and his panel of "experts" were essentially using the Senator as a pinata; enumerating ALL of his weaknesses, listing his mistakes on the campaign trail, etc.. Ha, not that O'Reilly is going to change his mantra (the media is in the tank for Obama), of course. As we've chronicled well around here, this bastard doesn't change HIS tune for shit - EVER!!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Let me comment, briefly, folks, on this whole Obama "bitter (the small town folks are clinging to their religion, guns, fear of immigrants, etc.) comment. First of all, as a person who has written a spate of anti-Christian diatribes himself (no, I'm not saying that Obama is anti-Christian), I fully concur that a lot of people do cling to religion out of fear (of death, of anomie, etc.) and other baser instincts. Discombobulation over a shaky economy, hmm, that probably isn't one of them, though....or at least not the best example. But the thing is, folks, Obama, he wasn't speaking to me. I could care less what he said. His problem is with the people he's (off the record, evidently - will these people EVER learn?) supposedly trying to describe. They are not going to like those words AT ALL or the condescending way he said them OR (and, yes, perhaps especially) the fact that he said them in San Francisco. Not that the Obama worshippers (and let's face it here, folks, that's what they are) will ever acknowledge this AS a mistake, mind you. This, I'm saying, in that, in their minds, he just hasn't made any.
Let's just say, though, that the fever itself had had a ruinous effect. That, and be done with it, I'm saying. Of course, to have been on the receiving-end of such a cavernous UNresponsiveness (the type that only Sully herself could have mustered, frankly), a little bit in terms of an over-arching drawl had to have been expected, no? I mean, just look to those factors other than heat - as for example, me-buckos!!
Friday, April 25, 2008
I'm sorry, folks, but I just can't get too bent out of shape over all this "guilt-by-association" stuff. I mean, seriously, does it TRULY matter that Barack Obama's preacher is a total fruit....or that John McCain now has a staffer who apparently worships the Confederate flag? In the larger scheme of things, I ask you. In fact, one could even argue that Marc Rich's association with the Clintons isn't as important as it used to be (oh, alright, I lied, that one still DOES irritate me). The only thing that interests me at this point is what these candidates have to say, their proposed solutions to the country's ills, etc.. Well, that, and the fact that they wear a flag-pin on their lapel or not, of course!...................................P.S. As for, specifically, Barack Obama going to that pastor's church for twenty years, I think it's patently/rather obvious what was at work there. The frigging guy was trying to ingratiate himself to a constituency. That's all. Not exactly a profile in courage, granted, but it's not exactly something that the devil ordered up a la carte, either. Politics as usual, that's the way that I see it - nothing more, nothing less.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I don't know, folks, the thing that most infuriates me about the whole labeling process, regarding politics, is how the criteria for what defines these labels changes - conveniently so. I mean, I can personally remember a time when conservatism meant such things as staying out of foreign entanglements, balancing the budget, keeping a distance from people's personal lives, etc.. But, no, all because it's a Republican President who this time gets us into a quagmire, everything, damn it, has to change. Conservatives now believe in nation-building, don't give a rat's ass about deficit-spending (feeding at the trough to "bridges to nowhere", etc.), and, yes, worst of all, think it's a cool thing to go AROUND the law to spy on people. I mean, I don't know about you, folks, but, Bush, he ain't anything resembling a conservative in my book.................................P.S. You all remember the 1964 Republican nominating process; Goldwater versus Rockefeller - Goldwater, the conservative/libertarian candidate, Rockefeller, the northeastern liberal who, despite this, still believed in tight money budgets. Well, let me tell you something, folks. I just can't conceive of either one of these fellows having a contentment with what's been happening of late; current Republican positions, policy trends, etc.. Not, I'm saying, that they'd necessarily want to be Democrats, either (that party having its own warts and inconsistencies to deal with, obviously), but, come on, guys, Goldwater, Rockefeller, Bush Jr., that doesn't even sound right, for Christ! I mean, seriously, does it to you?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Actually, there are other reasons why I'm not going to be voting for McCain this time. 1) The war. 2) The War. And 3) THE WAR!!!! Yeah that's right, folks, I just don't buy into this notion that by force (U.S. military force, especially) we can somehow rid that (pseudo)country, Iraq, of Al Qaeda. Even less likely, me-buckos, is an end-result where a "new" Iraq will ever be free of Iranian influence. I mean, even Maliki has been showning a disturbing tendency to kiss Ahmadinejad's pinky. Can you even begin to imagine what a government under Al Sadr (more than a distict possibility down the road) will do? Wow, pretty God-damned scary, huh?......................................P.S. Is it too late to bring Saddam back? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, they killed him, huh? Never mind.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
The disintegration of John McCain as a "maverick", folks, that has got to be one of the saddest political narratives ever (at least it is for me). He's gone from a guy who once said, "I'm not afraid to lose (picture Bill Clinton saying that - you can't)" and who, from 2000-2002, was constantly referred to as "Bush nemesis, John McCain" to THIS, a person taking abuse from the likes of us. I don't know, me-buckos, I guess he really wanted/wants to be President badly.....and knew that the only way he could get his party's nomination was to do all this bellying up on certain issues. I mean, he's even playing up his pro-life credentials (an issue he had to be dragged and kicked into talking about in 2000), for Christ! Of course the hardest "switch" of all to take was that "reconciliation" with Falwell. I mean, damn it, I was so proud of him for standing up to that segment of his party in 2000. And the fact that he did it in Falwell's back-yard, too, I'm saying. That to me was proof-positive that, yes, he really and truly WAS a maverick back then. Proof-positive enough for me, at least.
Monday, April 21, 2008
In addition to calling McCain a traitor (the swift-boating component of their slime), these same ramrods at Lydia Cornell's site have also referred to him as a "money-chaser". They site, specifically, the fact that lobbyist's currently comprise X% of his campaign staff and that, yes, his wife, in addition to being a hottie, folks, is also worth a small fortune. Hmm..................................O.K., first of all, McCain is a politician in Washington - Washington, a place that you can't walk more than two feet in without bumping into a lobbyist. Of course he's going to have lobbyists running his campaign. And as for his marrying his current wife to get her money, it's like, how in the hell could they possibly know that? I mean, it's not like she's a bowser or anything. Maybe he married her, strictly because she's a babe...................................But even if, I'm saying, you take it upon yourself and accept these charges here, don't you also have to levy at least a similar charge at the Clintons? I mean, just the Marc Rich pardon alone is enough to make a person regurgitate. And the fact that they struck it rich on their very first commodities trade (the odds astronomically against that, according to most statistical analyses), for Christ! No, they're money-chasers, the Clintons.......................................P.S. And, besides, at least McCain and Obama haven't taken money from Tyson Chicken. This, I'm saying, in that damned if that frigging outfit isn't one of the worst polluters around. I mean, come on, isn't the environment more important than money, campaign contributions, etc.?
Sunday, April 20, 2008
And then , of course, there are all these "racist" charges that people have been throwing around; Obama's a racist, McCain's a racist, Bill Clinton's a racist, Geraldine Ferraro - she's a frigging whore AND a racist. It's like, I don't know about you but I'm thinking that maybe we need to tone this down a little bit, too. I mean, I'm not even sure that O'Reilly's a racist (ignorance and insensitivity in spades, yes, but a racist in the sense that I grew up knowing the term, not so certain), for Christ!......................................Of course, what I'm really most concerned about here (well, other than, obviously, the fact that decent people may in fact end up getting tarred) is a fear that the word itself, racist, just might be getting devalued in the process. I mean, it's just like anything in that, yeah, if you go around using it in an indiscriminate/border-line manner, it ends up losing a lot of it's punch. And that, me-buckos, unfortunately, just might be the scariest thing, period.
Friday, April 18, 2008
F.Y.I., folks, those ramrods over at Lydia Cornell's site are still, STILL, referring to General Petraeus as General Betrayus (I guess being castigated by 90% of society isn't a deterrant). I mean, sure, I'm pretty pissed off at "W", too, for having the gaul to put Petraeus IN THAT POSITION (on Capital Hill, being grilled by self aggrandizing politicians), using him as a political football, etc.. But why, pray-tell, would anyone want to take out their anger on a fellow who's seemingly only doing his job? That's what I really want to know. It's like, of course he wants to "win", thinks he can "win", and, yes, if given enough time, thinks he will in fact prevail. That's how all soldiers, when in the heat of conflict, "spin" things to civilians (that's why the Commander-in-Chief isn't in the army, for Christ, why we have civilian over-sight, etc.). But, NO, denigrate anyone who even has as his job-description, "service to the President", serves at the pleasure of the President, etc.. I mean, how frigging despicable is THAT, huh?
Thursday, April 17, 2008
One of the things that really irritates me, folks, is when certain people try and draw comparisons between George W. Bush and Reagan. Not that I'm saying that Reagan was a great president, mind you. He did in fact preside over a mushrooming debt, the largest deficits in history (prior to George W., anyway), the savings and loan fiasco, the Lebanon marine-barracks fiasco, and, yes, the entire Iran-Contra mess (Ollie North, I still can't look at that guy). But when it came to foreign-policy, I'm saying, and the utilization of American military power, Reagan consistently showed a level of restraint (he never invaded Noriega's Panama, for instance) that our current president hasn't even begun to approach. And when Reagan did use the military, folks, he utilized the Powell Doctrine (overwhelming military force) before the Powell Doctrine WAS the Powell Doctrine (i.e., in Grenada).......................................As to what Reagan would have done had he been President on 9/11, one can only speculate. It is my firm belief, though, that, while, yes, he would have retaliated against Al Qaeda and the Taliban for harboring them, it is very doubtful that he would have stranded 130-160,000 American troops in the middle of Arabia for this long a period. He had way, way, too much sense for that, I think....................................P.S. While I stated that Reagan did preside over the Lebanon fiasco, let it also be stated that he had the good sense to leave that shit-hole promptly - WHETHER OR NOT IT EMBOLDENED THE TERRORISTS!
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
It came courtesy of Robbie Robertson at the 2001 Grammy Awards. He comes on stage with this other guy to present Best Native-American album. As part of their chit-chat lead-up to the award, they start lamenting the fact that Leonard Pelitier was not one of the people that Bill Clinton had pardoned. Robertson, after a nice, strategically place pause, ultimately concludes, "Maybe he wasn't Marc....Rich enough." Pretty cool, huh?
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
To say that this woman is a loathsome "creature", that, my friends, would be an insult to all the living, breathing, pantin' ones. And the fact, too, I'm saying, that, even if those of a different persuasion (leopards, etc.) had had as well their fair-share of misery, it still would have been a disaster, folks - FLAT OUT!! Of course, the fact that I myself had been on that roster (yep, you got it, the one WITH the view), part of the well-intentioned few, etc., one could even say that I had had it coming - shit betwixt the brains, especially.
Monday, April 14, 2008
As for my own, sometimes bawdy, presentations, the fact that I as well have been known to throw some insults around, let's see, how best to explain (O.K., rationalize) this? I don't know, I guess that there's a part of me that does it for comic effect (the juxtaposing of serious discourse with what I hope is a unique slap-stick lingo of my own). Kind of like a "Three Stooges" meets Mort Sahl gig, in other words. As for the rest of me, let's just call it, purely and simply, venting. Should I do less of it? Yeah, probably...................................Of course, having said that, I don't think that it would be out of line for me to point out this fact as well. Namely, folks, while, yes, I do engage from time to time in language unbecoming, at least I try and refrain from pigeon-holing people into simplistic/hackneyed demarcations, politically. In fact, I've been a consistent critic of people whose tendency IS to do that; Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter, etc.. So, yeah, me-buckos, when I take these clowns (oops!!) from Lydia's site to task for doing essentially what O'Reilly does (granted, from a different political mindset), damn it, I think I do have a little bit of credibility here. I mean, they sure as hell labeled me, right?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
As to those of you whose major frustration lies with Fox News and talk-radio, believe me, I FEEL YOUR PAIN IN SPADES! I mean, just that stuff out of Micheal Savage's mouth alone is enough to turn one's belly sour/bad, shiver ye timbers, etc.. But, I don't know, though, folks, I guess that, after having walked into a hornet's nest such as Lydia's, a cautionary-tale may in fact be in order. And, yes, it is, I'm saying, this, me-buckos - when looking to rid yourself of 1) sin or, worse than that, decadence, sometimes it's best to turn the wheel slowly, keep it steady, and THEN accelerate. This, of course, as opposed to pulling a U-ey and shit.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
I don't know about you, folks, but Montgomery Clift's performance in "The Misfits", that was almost too painful (as in heartbreaking) to watch. I mean, just those drunken rodeo scenes (his head bandaged as the result of two drunken falls) alone were enough to make me shiver. And THEN, I'm saying, the fact that you're almost forced into seeing how this movie paralleled his own tragic life (alcohol, sexual confusion, physical harm, etc.), you kind of have to get the picture, right? Montgomery Clift, ladies and gentlemen, there will never, EVER, be anybody quite like him.
I am just getting so tired of these labels, folks; left-right, liberal-conservative, Democrat-Republican - in general. I don't know, maybe George Washington (himself a complex man - slave-owner, Revolutionary War hero) was actually right when he said that political parties would have a ruinous effect on our nation. I mean, just look at the venal state of the political discourse that we, as a people, are enduring....THIS YEAR ALONE (those Internet smear-sites obviously representing the worst of it)!! It's like, how, pray-tell, can anybody, when they've swallowed it all so hook, line, and sinker, ever, EVER, shed such an outer-skin and breathe? They can't, I'm telling you. They just can't do it, period!
Friday, April 11, 2008
I still remember it, folks, just how disgusted I was when those "Swift-Boat Veterans for Truth" started slandering Kerry, how it wreaked of such stench, abject/unadulterated politics, etc.. Well, guess what, I'm just as disgusted now that this fringe-group called "Vietnam Veterans Against McCain" is putting forth what clearly seems to be a commensurate level of vitriol. I mean, come on. What kind of hypocrite/cretin would I be if I, simply because McCain is a Republican and I am not, stood idly by....or, worse yet, endorsed such low-ball jamming? Yeah, that's right, I'd have all the credibility/integrity of those afore-mentioned smear-merchants on line/that kid from "Webster" pitching matzo-balls. Sorry, me-buckos, not an option.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
As for being on the receiving end of insults from these individuals, I don't know, I guess you just kind of get used to it. In those famous words from Al Pacino's character from "Glengarry Glen Ross", "All train compartments....smell vaguely of shit (barely perceptible laugh). It gets so you don't mind."
The thing is, friends, it's not enough on these crazy sites to NOT support John McCain, his policies, etc.. No. You also have to vilify the Senator. I mean, just on the few toxic sites that I've been privy to , he's been called a traitor (that one really got to me), a racist, a senile something or other, a war-monger (O.K., that one perhaps is border-line), and a crazy person (to which he clearly has an excuse, right, five and a half years of torture/captivity). Incredible, huh?..................................Look, folks, everybody who's read this blog for the past 12 months knows how I feel about the Iraq War (hell, I even went as far as to call Saddam Hussein a net-plus, for Christ!!). And, yes, I am willing to debate any neocon any time. But getting in the weeds and calling John McCain unpatriotic, etc., that, me-buckos, is a bridge that's too far for even for this ham and egger (look, I called MYSELF a name, Thu!).
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
O.K., here's another example of delusional/fringe thinking. Lydia Cornell, remember her? Well, guess what, in an effort (I gather) to get back at me for not completely towing HER line, she has unleashed what seems to be a small regiment of henchmen to excoriate me (one actually accuses me of being gay AS A SMEAR - no acceptance of homosexuality with these "progressives", evidently). I mean, sure, most of it is merely hyper-partisan rancor/rank insults (I'm stupid, essentially, one of them says) but get this. They are actually accusing me of faking my role as a somewhat left-of-center media critic (a phony progressive/Republican operative, I think is how they worded it) just so I could sneak on their site and have some some sort of liberal street-cred. Seriously, this is what these lunatics (yes, I know, I insult people, too, but, please, read on) are saying about me......................................I mean, come on, think about it. I start a blog called "Contra O'Reilly", where I lambast not only O'Reilly but a bevy of other right-wing toughies of the media and, yes, criticize George W. Bush's foreign-policy as well AND I DO IT FOR TWELVE MONTHS....just so I can go on a blog that until two weeks ago I didn't know existed. And, what, all because I didn't like John McCain being called a traitor/questioned Obama's resolve? Absolutely certfiable, folks, these people.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Alright, here it is, Bill. As much as I hate to admit it, you are in fact right about one thing. There are a whole shit-load of far-left loons out there (clearly, as you can see, I'm dealing with a couple of them myself right now). And, no (and, yes, here's where you're frigging wrong again), I'm not talking about "Media Matters" (damn those bastards for quoting you verbatim/in total) or even the "Daily Kos", for Christ! I'm talking about these totally marginalized/misguided lunatics, whose postings on politics and society border on the delusional (John McCain was actually a traitor during the Vietnam War, the United States attacked itself on 9/11, etc.) - objectively so, I'm saying!.....................................Of course, having said this, I still reserve the opportunity to lance you with at least a modicum of perspective. The vast, vast, majority of these imbeciles (Existentialist Cowboy, Lydia Cornell/her henchmen, etc.) have little in the way of influence (virtually none, when compared to such double-digit douche-bags as Limbaugh, Savage, Hannity, etc.), regarding the process. So, yes, in that regard, O'Reilly, everything completely returns to form/YOU'RE WRONG!!
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Hey, O'Reilly, this new G.I. bill that you've been championing of late (you know, the one that you criticized co-sponsor, John Kerry, of not pushing forward aggrssively enough), it appears that Senator John McCain has yet to jump on board in favor of it. Yeah, that's right, "Mr.- Support-the-Troops" himself has yet to endorse YOUR BILL. Kind of disappointing, don't you think? I mean, seriously, you are going to call him on it, right? Bill? RIGHT?
Friday, April 4, 2008
To all of you who intend to vote Democratic in this year's Presidential election AND whose main issue is ending the war in Iraq (yes, myself included), a word or two of caution. JUST BECAUSE Obama and Clinton are saying that they will end the war in Iraq/withdraw our troops from that country, doesn't necessarily mean that they will. I mean, just harken back to Nixon in 1968. That son-of-a-bitch said that he was going to "honorably" (his "out" word, I guess) conclude our involvement in south-east Asia. "Honorably conclude", he said and look what frigging happened. He ended up escalating the "situation". It wasn't until after Gerry Ford took over that the whole damned nightmare was over - mercifully (yes, albeit shamefully). Couple this, I'm saying, with the fact that Hillary herself is as Nixonesque as any politician of recent memory and, yeah, you kind of get the picture here..................................P.S. As for Obama (at this point, the much more likely nominee), the harsh reality is that even he may in fact find it significantly harder to leave Iraq....than it was for frigging W. to enter. I mean, even he himself has said that it may be entirely necessary to "go back in" - this, to prevent genocide, the all-out carnage from a full-blown civil-war, etc.. I don't know, bottom-line, folks, the nightmare in which we currently find ourselves, there's a possibility that, no, it might not be over for a while.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
So, Bill, where's all this negative press-coverage that's supposed to be befalling McCain - you know, now that he's got the nomination locked and all. I haven't heard you talk about it lately. I mean, it's not like the fellow hasn't been providing fodder or anything; seeking out endorsements from fundamentalist nimrods, constantly confusing Sunni Al Qaeda with Shiite insurgents, comparing a sombre Jewish holiday to our Halloween, etc.. It's like, I don't know, Bill, maybe you need to start pumping out those memos of yours a little more faithfully, flow them through the proper channels and shit. This or, hell, maybe just get out of the frigging prediction business, period! Oh, but then you'd have to admit that you do in fact speculate. Never mind!
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Bill, have you heard that Bill Kristol (yeah, your colleague over there at Fox) is actually writing editorials for the New York Times. I mean, I was just wondering in that, nada, I haven't heard you mention it at all. Of course, neither have I heard you mention, either, the fact that the son-of-a-bitch has evidently botched a story already. Yeah, that's right, Bill, Mr. Kristol apparently wrote a piece that accused Barack Obama of being present/in the church when his pastor did that highly publicized tirade - a piece that damned if he didn't have to retract, me-bucko.................................Oh well and, yet, it's kind of too bad you missed it, huh? I mean, I know how you totally enjoy "catching" those bastards (i.e., the New York Times) and all. Of course, on the plus-side, I think it's fair to to say he'll probably screw up again. We're only human, right?...................................P.S. And what about Jonah Goldberg....and the fact that that retarded fool is writing for the L.A. Times? You probably haven't heard about that, either, huh?