Monday, June 30, 2008
As for the way she looked ON THAT DAY, let's just say that the immediacy of it was itself extremely fragrant indeed. I mean, just take to looking at the 1) pristine manner, the way that she, the beauty, had in fact "happened"....from that driver's driver's side, kerplunkingly!! That, I'm saying, and, yes, me-buckos, damned if there wasn't for that moment HER smile - the migratory pattern of it, notwithstanding - understanding, of course!
Sunday, June 29, 2008
I could get Obama elected in a landslide, folks. Hear me out, O.K.? First of all, he needs to announce his running mate, A.S.A.P.. And, yes, it needs to be somebody with gravitas. He then then needs to start dropping some serious names for his cabinet - especially in terms of his foreign-policy team. But, even more importantly, folks, he's got to continue his move to the center (not on every issue, mind you, but on enough of them to pilfer independents from McCain).......................................As for some specific choices, here's a sampling of individuals that I personally think would help him greatly; Jim Webb, Joe Biden, Sam Nunn, and Republicans Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar. These five people (white men, one and all - sorry!) could divvy up V.P., Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, U.N. Ambassador, and National Security Advisor. I mean, talk about an impressive foreign-policy team, huh?.......................................As for what to do with Hillary (boy, is she ever starting to look good in retrospect, huh?), you could always offer her the A.G. post. This, I'm saying, in that I've always heard that it was one of her dream jobs (being President, obviously numero uno). Not that she'd necessarily want to ever leave the Senate, of course - "it" being a pretty damn good job in its own right.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
As for Slade Leeds's formal combustion (this, I'm saying, as opposed to his far more spontaneous/metaphysical crap), couldn't that just as easily have come from the thunder-bolt alone? I mean, just look to the fact that his princely nature, prior to the laying on of hands at Sassy's (yes, specifically, that first time), was itself a superficial thing. Of course, the fact that Leeds is currently spouting a newer form of gibberish in Wellesley, couldn't it also be stated that "lightning", once in fact it's in the bottle, folks, has its OWN tendency to dissipate? I'm asking.
Friday, June 27, 2008
My God, if you listen to these far-left bloggers, you'd think that Obama's decision to forgo public financing was some sort of principled decision - a principled decision by a statesman, no less. I mean, don't get me wrong here. It probably WAS a wise decision (the breaking of his promise, not excepted), a prudent decision, given the fact that he'll no doubt be able to raise three times that amount on his own. But, folks, to try and spin it into something that's noble, I'm telling you, that's when the shit starts to plump up accordingly. Seriously, though, how 'bout we just keep it simple here. The guy frigging changed his mind!! And, yes, me-buckos, it would in fact be refreshing/liberating just to hear the fellow admit to it. Hell, he might even get a vote or two for it, for Christ!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
To Mr.s O'Reilly, Hannity, McCain, and Bush Jr. - we can't even stop the violence in the south-side of Chicago, fellows. We can't stop it in north Philly, either. What in the hell makes you think that we can stop it in Iraq, for Christ?.....................................Granted, we've suppressed it (to a degree)....but to think that we can continue/afford to do so indefinitely, I don't know. And, besides, all that I've been hearing from you guys of late (you administration guys/your lackeys over there at Fox) is how incredibly well the Iraqi army has been doing, especially in Basra. Why can't they frigging take over? Hm, is it because you know that once in fact we do leave, a lot of those Shiite militia members presently in the army are going to go AWOL, start their own little war against the government/those miserable Sunni rebels in other parts of the country, etc.?.....................................I mean, seriously, guys, haven't we pretty much done all that we can do (train the military, sponsor elections, capture Saddam, kill the God-damned son-of-a-bitch, etc.) over there - short of us being an actual occupying power, I'm saying? Oh well, at least we've got Obama in the batters box......................................P.S. My sincerity pertaining to that last line, I think I'll leave that determination to the reader.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
In 1997, folks, "Entertainment Weekly" came out with their list (perhaps it's been updated since) of the top 100 movie stars of all time. And, yes, they did in fact rank them, 1-100........................................Of course/needless to say, whenever you endeavor to make such a list, you know you're going to be second-guessed by basically everybody - not just on the order in which you've ranked them but also in terms of the people you've left off completely. In the case of this list, one could point to such omissions as Orson Welles, Claudette Colbert, Ray Milland, Lana Turner, and Lauren Bacall.......................................As for my reaction to this list, let's just say that there was this one placement, in particular, that really perturbed me. It had to do with the fact that these "experts" placed Gregory Peck at number 58. Yeah, that's right, 58. They actually came up with 57 people that they thought were more deserving than Gregory Peck. Oh, and if you think that I might be over-reaching here, here's a sample of some of those 57; Arnold Schwarzenegger (53), Mel Gibson (48), Robin Williams (50). I mean, they even had Jean Harlow (49) ahead of him, for Christ!!......................................Damn it, I don't know about you, folks, but any career that takes you from "Spellbound" (1946) and "Gentleman's Agreement" (1947) to "Old Gringo" (where he hypnotically portrayed writer, Ambrose Bierce) in 1989, has to be seen as one of the best in Hollywood history. And the range of his roles, too, I'm saying; from the conscience-bound lawyer in "To Kill a Mockingbird" to the darker , more sinister men of "Duel in the Sun" and "Twelve O'clock High". From the epitome of what constitutes a leading-man in "Roman Holiday" to that respected gentry-man turned rancher in "The Big Country". Of course, for me, it was his turn as a man on marked-time in "The Gunfighter" that really brought it home. This, I'm saying, in that during this 1950 film, Gregory Peck puts forth HIS "Eastwood" even before Eastwood does. Talk about a "good guy" going "south", huh? Gregory Peck, ladies and gentlemen, one of the best there ever will be.
Monday, June 23, 2008
I was watching MSNBC the other day, folks, and, of course, they were talking about their colleague, Tim Russert. But on this occasion, they were actually speculating as to who the possible replacement for Mr. Russert would be; Chris Matthews, Dan Abrams, etc.. And then they mentioned (with straight faces, I swear) the name of Keith Olbermann. Keith Olbermann!!....................................I mean, seriously, folks, how preposterous is that? You're going to entrust to the public air-waves (not cable, mind you, but network news) a man who's biases of late have almost become cartoon-like. And the fact that he's actually going to have to talk to people with views that are different than his (seriously, when was the last adversarial opinion he's EVER allowed on "Countdown"?). Seriously, what's he going to do/how's he going to act when that ventriloquist act of his nose-dives, the first time, the second time, the third time?.....................................Look, folks, I'll admit it, he's an extremely interesting fellow, a bright fellow. Hell, you could even say that his show is entertaining at times ("Bill Orally, the the worst person in the world!!" - some of those skits are actually classics). But in terms of being an impartial arbiter of political matters, he has lost ALL credibility in that regard. I mean, I'd have a lot of trouble with him in that role. And I have a tendency to frequently agree with him. Can you imagine how members of the right would react to him, the frigging hay that they'd be apt to generate? It's downright scary, I'm telling you.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
To so acquiesce to the "swift-boating" of John McCain, though (as many on the far-left have been willing to do these days), to engage in such hyperbole that one will even compare him to Hitler, for Christ, that, my friends, has nothing to do with being "fair and balanced". This, I'm saying, in that it really seems to go BEYOND politics, this idiocy of sorts (though, yes, I will admit it, politics can in fact be pure filth at times). To me, it's more about decency - basic human decency. And so, yeah, one could say that it's a different ball-game altogether - this, given the cast of characters, I'm saying.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
I don't know, folks, I guess that selective outrage is something that the extremes of politics are always going to engage in. Take the "far-right", for example. When Thesea Heinz-Kerry stone-walled on whether to release her taxes or not, those from that side of the spectrum went into convulsions. They frigging wanted to lynch the lady, for Christ (this, I'm saying, as opposed to their rather tepid response when Cindy McCain did basically the same thing)! OR, me-buckos, when the "far-left", after being truly outraged (legitimately so) at the "swift-boating" of John Kerry, essentially tolerate the same thing when it's done to John McCain - the perpetrators using some rump organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" as their primary source, for Christ!! Incredible. Bottom-line, folks, if this is the price that one has to pay to be a partisan these days, I've got three little words for you; 1) count, 2) me, 3) out!
Friday, June 20, 2008
I tried to comfort the son-of-a-bitch, I swear. And look what happened, folks. I get the shit thrown back in my face by her, the genuine shit. Oh well, I guess it just goes to show what I've always kind of known - namely, that those very same people who are THE most circle-the-buzzards sensitive, insecure, etc., are at the same time damned insensitive to others. Of course, the fact that this SOB was also a drunkard and crazy, staggered like a fool on her inner-tube period, I probably shouldn't have expected much in terms of pure etiquette, huh?
The latest swipe against McCain apparently has to do with the dissolution of his first marriage. According to a lot of what I've read, while McCain was a POW in Vietnam, his first wife, Carol, became seriously injured in an auto accident. In fact, she was hurt badly enough to the point of her becoming disabled. McCain, upon his arrival back (and, yes, while probably still messed up from his torture/incarceration), allegedly had trouble dealing with the situation; having affairs and ultimately divorcing the woman. And it's in this action, according to McCain's legions of Internet despisers, that reveals his true character. Yeah, that's right, folks, instead of a war-hero who's sacrifices still wreak havoc on his body, McCain is nothing more than a philanderer/opportunist, a man who, in an effort to soothe his own bruised ego, abandoned the woman he supposedly loved. He's a frigging cad, in other words.......................................Well, let me tell you something here, friends. This just happens to be a topic that I know a little something about. This, I'm saying, in that my wife became disabled, too (neurofibromatosis, deafness, ultimately cancer). I had to help take care of her for six years. And, yeah, even though I did in fact stay with her till death did ITS nasty little thing, there is absolutely no way that I am going to cast dispersions on anybody, ANYBODY, who couldn't do what I did. Unless you've been through it yourself, you stupid-assed Internet/partisan stooges out there, you might want to keep your own powder a little dry, keep your judgements to yourself, etc...................................And the thing is, folks, McCain continued to pay her medical bills. It's not like he abandoned her completely. And the fact that she herself forgives the guy (they're still on good terms, from what I can gather) - even going as far as supporting his many runs for office......................................I don't know, folks, is it too much to ask that we simply stick to the issues here? I mean, seriously, McCain's stance on the Iraq War alone, his opposition to the G.I. Bill - all of it, I'm saying. It's not like we're dealing with any empty treasure-chest here - yes, to the point where you don't even have to be gratuitous, for Christ!! Oh well, I guess that people just can't help themselves these days.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I wish that these Internet stooges (on both sides of the political spectrum, I'm saying) would simply recognize one basic reality; namely, the reality of humanity. I mean, seriously, how much more incredibly basic COULD IT BE, the fact that all of these candidates (basically every politician who's ever frigging lived, for Christ!) are quintessentially of a mixed nature (a mixed bag, if you will)? And, yeah, when I say all of them, folks, I literally mean ALL OF THEM; McCain, Obama, even the frigging Clintons, for Christ!....................................Oh, and, yeah, our job, that's relatively simple, too. This, I'm saying, in that 1) you pick the one, the "pol", with the fewest warts and 2) when you do in fact make a mistake, just come frigging clean and be done with it. Stop with the God-damned justifications, in other words.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
What do I see, folks? I see a whole lot of people putting a whole lot of faith in a guy who only 3 1/2 years ago was filling in pot-holes. I mean, let's face it here, people, Barack Obama is essentially a blank-slate (I'll refrain from saying, "empty suit" - this, in that I do think the guy is intelligent). Of course, the fact that his political resume is as thin as it is, this, me-buckos, might actually be helping the fellow. I mean, think about it. We're just coming off an 8-year run of what can only be described as questionable leadership (AT BEST), only to have this bright, articulate, incredibly inspiring new new candidate come along. It's frigging tailor-made for such a fellow. Never mind the fact that we've barely developed a beat on the guy (yes, it has been changing but not necessarily to Obama's benefit).......................................And, no, don't get me wrong here. If Obama does get elected President, rest assured, I'll be rooting for him to be the best President EVER (that's just me, folks, I tend to put the interests of the country ahead of these political parties of ours). I'm just saying that the guy has done and said a number of things (bombing inside of Pakistan, "typical white people", his mediocre performance at the Petraeus hearings, etc.) that have given me some pause. Luckily for him (unluckily for the country), his opponent, Mr. McCain, has himself been a gaffe machine - a gaffe machine whose foreign-policy objectives are probably even more frightening than Obama's. Oh well, there's always prayer/that little audacity called hope, right?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Here's an interesting tidbit, folks. I recently learned that W. Somerset Maugham's classic, "The Razor's Edge", had, in 1946, been adapted by Hollywood into a movie. And get this, too, me-buckos, it stars Gene Tierney and Anne Baxter. Yeah, that's right, Gene Tierney AND Anne Baxter. Talk about some female fire-power (Anne Baxter as Nefertiti in "The Ten Commandments", rrreowww!!), huh? Of course, if I ever go out and rent/buy this movie version, I'm probably going to have to get an X-rated flick to boot. JUST TO FRIGGING COOL DOWN AFTERWARDS, I'M SAYING!! I'm serious.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Boy, folks, is that Fox news roster ever growing or what? They've even gone as far as giving Laura Ingraham a show, for Christ! And all these political analysts they've been adding over the past few months; Rick Santorum, Karl Rove, Mike Huckabee, etc.. It's almost as if they're not even trying to hide it anymore....................................I mean, seriously/think about it, folks, virtually every one of their "stars" over there is a conservative; Hume, Hannity, O'Reilly, Cavuto, Gibson (demoted to the radio but, still), Ollie North, those douche-bags on "Fox and Friends", and, now, Laura Ingraham. Couple that, I'm saying, with the afore-mentioned "analysts", Dick Morris, Newt Gingrich, Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol and, yeah, damned if the whole damn thing doesn't start to unravel itself (at least it will eventually, right?).......................................P.S. As for those so-called liberals of theirs; Mort Kondracke, Juan Williams, and, yeah, my personal favorite, Colmes!, they're essentially either DINOS (Democrats in name only) or ineffectual stooges. Not exactly the stuff of the Hegelian antithesis, in other words.
Here's another example, folks, of why I'm becoming more and more of a "centrist" (labeling myself now, great!) every second. It has to do with bureaucracy/the concentration of power in society.......................................I site specifically here the fact that liberals (the ultra-left, in particular) apparently have this unfettered fear that corporations/the "power elite" who control them will, if unchecked, ruthlessly dominate America. In fact, some of them go as far as to say that this big-business/corporate America paradigm of ours (actually, we're a mixed economy.... but this is them, I'm saying) is almost a personification of evil itself.....................................Of course, they also say that the government (the federal government, specifically) is the only way to control this menacing parasite. And, yeah, folks, it's in this almost unquestioned faith in the goodness of government that I, at least, find an inconsistency. This, I'm saying, in that, while these people are always and, yes, to the hilt totally against a concentration of power in the corporate world, they have absolutely no qualms about giving to the federal government absolute power over ANYTHING! It's like, what, they think that because this power is concentrated in the hands of paper-pushers, civil-servants, deputy-secretaries, etc., it's suddenly going to become beneficent? I don't know, it sounds like a hell of a huge leap of faith to me........................................Of course, on the other side of the spectrum, you have the far-right. These folks, while they absolutely loathe any form of government intervention in/regulation of the economy, they clearly have no trouble with unchecked power in the hands of multi-national corporations (some of which are actually IN BED with the very same government they loathe). I mean, it's almost as if they think that the market-place is itself God (the religious-fundamentalist block excepted, of course).......................................The bottom-line, folks (and, yes, this is the centrist in me coming to the fore here), power is power and when in fact it's concentrated in the hands of those who most cherish it, yeah, it just might be a good idea for all of us to keep a vigil now and then. This, I'm saying, and to recognize that we just might find it in places we never expected before - i.e., smack-dab in the middle of our own little paradigms.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Truth be known, though, even those "lily hammers" at Sassy's were divisive. I mean, just look to the fact that not so much as a carpenter-ant had EVER survived, purchased his/her own set of testicles, parried, or anything, for Christ!! Of course, to have ever debated, full-throttle, ONE fairness doctrine (never mind the one that Slade Leeds himself had carved from bull-shit there), it just might have been a good idea to piss upon 'em anyway, no?
Thursday, June 12, 2008
I used to watch William F. Buckley's "Firing Line" a lot, back in the day. I found it/him fascinating - to say the least. Not that I always agreed with him, of course (matters pertaining to religion, most specifically), but his intellect, I'm saying, his good-natured pomposity, the fact that he could sometimes be unpredictable (his ultimate stance that drugs should be legalized, for example) it all made for some scintillating viewing, I think........................................But there was this one episode, in particular, that has really lingered with me. It was one of the episodes where his friend, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, was the guest. I remember it not just for the high tone of the interview, the fact that both men were putting forth their positions in an eloquent manner, etc.. No, it was more the civility. This, I'm saying, in that while they probably disagreed on 80% of the topics during the interview, the politeness/lack of bellicosity was what was really most evident to me.........................................And, yeah, folks, I am in fact going to ask you to compare THAT to the present level of debate amongst all these bloggers, talking heads on cable, talk-radio lunatics, etc.. Just look, for instance, at this site called Politics Plus (politicsplus.blogspot.com). This character (refers to himself as Tomcat) does a daily screed against McCain (who is, granted, an extremely flawed candidate this time out but, come on!!), accusing him of virtually every unpardonable sin (Ethan Brand, on steroids) imaginable. He also plays this extremely retarded game where he somehow feels the need to consistently bastardize McCain's name, calling him stuff like McConjob, McRacist, McShame, etc.. I mean, talk about a de-evolution of discourse, huh?. And, yeah, he's just the tip of the ice-berg, folks. Unfortunately.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
I'm having trouble, folks, reconciling a couple of the "talking-points" I've been hearing lately. One of these points is that N.A.F.T.A., the North American Free Trade Agreement (for those of you who've been living under a bus), has disproportionately been helping the Mexican economy and hurting, dramatically so, American markets. I mean, I hear it all the frigging time. The fact that I rarely get hard data to substantiate this claim, I guess that that's another topic for discussion....................................The other, seemingly contradictory, point I've been hearing (not necessarily from the same people, mind you, but, still, damned if it, too, hasn't become a drum-beat) is that we're also being over-run by illegal aliens FROM (you guessed it) Mexico!! And, yes, they're coming here, ostensibly, BECAUSE (yep, you guessed it again, folks) THEY CAN'T FIND A FRIGGING JOB IN MEXICO!!......................................You do see what I'm saying here, right? If N.A.F.T.A. is supposedly this boondoggle for the American economy, then why, pray tell, are there so many desperate Mexicans crossing a desert or two, a polluted river, RISKING THEIR LIVES, just so they can get a job here, IN AMERICA? I don't know, folks, the whole thing just doesn't seem to make sense to me........................................Oh, and, yes, for the record, both parties have clearly been demagoging this shit; the Democrats scaring us to death with "trade", the Republicans with "immigration". Not that I'm all-together surprised, of course. It's what they do! It's all they frigging know how to do, for Christ!....................................Of course, if we all didn't buy it..................................P.S. And then there's Lou Dobbs, scaring us with both trade AND immigration. What a piece of work he is, huh?
Sunday, June 8, 2008
One of the most idiotic utterances ever by a United States President, folks: It comes courtesy of Jimmy Carter in 1979. It seems, folks, that, during the Iranian hostage crisis of that same year, Carter was reminded that this particular action by the Iranians could in fact be pay-back for our overthrow of THEIR government in 1953 (coupled, of course, by our installation of the miserable Shah in its place). Carter's rather terse response to that hypothesis? "1953, that's ancient history."....................................Wow, huh, ancient history, 26 years? Only in America, folks. Only in America could 26 years be considered an eternity. Of course, now that we're 29 years removed from THAT traumatic event (one, in other words, that was devastating to us), we seem to have developed a slightly different perspective.....................................Not that we've learned anything from that experience, mind you. This, I'm saying, in that we're still trying to impose our will on the rest of the world, still ignoring the possibility that these actions may in fact come back to haunt us (as they did in Cuba, as they did in Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc., etc.).....................................It all makes me think back to George Bush, the candidate, folks, his insistence that America put forth a far more humble foreign-policy, specifically. Oh well, at least we have Obama now. Here's to hoping that that fellow, if in fact HE gets elected, has at least some capacity to learn from the mistakes of his predecessors - and NOT, I'm saying, think that William McKinley (a starter of 2 unnecessary wars), for example, is something from the distant past, ancient history, etc..
Saturday, June 7, 2008
This is what I would say, folks, if I were Barack Obama. I'd say, "Folks, the only reason I joined that stupid-assed church/listened to that blithering idiot spout his paranoid rants for 20 years was because I thought it would help me in my political career, purely and simply. I did it, in other words, for the same reason that Hillary has stuck it out this long with Bubba/voted for that idiotic Iraq War authorization, the same reason that John McCain (boy, has that guy ever hit the skids, huh?) now, instead of taking on evangelical lunatics, has decided to seek out endorsements from them. Do I feel good about it? Of course, I don't. But I'm telling you, folks, starting now, I am going to give it to you straight-up. No bull-shit. And, yeah, you have my word on it - guaranteed!!"........................................What do you think? I think it might actually get him a vote or two.
Friday, June 6, 2008
I'm going to put this under the category of things that have been bothering me lately. It has to do with the fact that Hillary is presently taking a boat-load of abuse from her critics for, yeah, you got it, not crying "uncle" Tuesday night. These people feel that she was not sufficiently gracious/conciliatory enough.....................................Of course, what these Obama devotees forget to mention (or maybe they just don't know), is that for Hillary to have done precisely this type of immediate concession, she would have been showing an extremely rare calibre of grace under pressure. Very, VERY, few candidates for the Presidency have graciously and/or immediately accepted their fate...................................,Take, for instance, Ted Kennedy. This individual (a man many have been lionizing of late - Mary Jo's family, clearly excepted), to my knowledge, NEVER conceded defeat in 1980. In fact, he ended up making poor Jimmy Carter chase him around the stage at that convention - snubbing him to the point where he refused even to shake his hand (never mind raise it up in victory). As far as I can recall, Kennedy was never held in the same type of contempt for his actions that Hillary currently is....................................Look, I am not (nor have I ever been) a big fan of the Clintons. But this ridiculously massive level of outrage over what happened Tuesday evening, I'm telling you, folks, it is unprecedented. I mean, even frigging Reagan in'76, for Christ!! He ended up costing Jerry Ford the whole damn thing. But, no, Hillary is once again the ONLY villain here. Way to be fair, folks.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
It was the "uppercutters", apparently, added to which and ergo, etc.. And the nastiness of it, too, I'm saying, the fact that Slade Leeds himself was a bell-ringer at Sassy's - damned if those alone didn't cut the cake just as brutally. Of course, to have had that section to the south of hightower/sandy-bottom....BE such a snake-pit of scoundrels, etc., I guess it probably would be safe to say to the buyer, "beware." I mean, it would only stand to reason, yes?
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Saw your interview with Scott McClellan, Bill. Wow! All I can say is "where do I start?" First of all, I find it very curious that the easiest way to get you in a lather is to criticize President Bush. I mean, seriously, is this guy your brother or something? And the fact that you were so dismissive of Mr. McClellan - saying that he sounded "rehearsed", saying that he was staying on message. STAYING ON MESSAGE!! I mean, come on, YOU, Bill O'Reilly, actually had the audacity to accuse another human-being of acting predictably so. Talk about a ballsy maneuver, huh?........................................And, really, Bill those talking points of YOURS are really starting to wear thin; "Bill Clinton believed he had weapons of mass-destruction", "you're being used by the left-wing media", and, yes, my personal favorite, "we're winning in Iraq". In fact, why don't I take a few minutes and rip you a new one here.......................................1) Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is an ass-hole, Bill. But even he, upon closer examination, I'm sure that even he would have seen that a lot of this pre-war intelligence (a humongous chunk of it coming from disgruntled/cowardly Iraqi exiles) was bogus. And, yes, a closer examination is in fact needed, Bill, when you're taking an entire nation to war.........................................2) The left-wing media. On this one, Bill, either you're flat-out wrong or a liar. I cite, specifically, Anderson Cooper's interview with Mr. McClellan. To say that that was an easy interview (I mean, granted, he didn't mug him like you did) is ridiculous. And neither was Wolf Blitzer's interview easy. I mean, granted, Keith Olbermann's interview of McClellan was as form-fitting as it gets. But, being that you don't have the courage to even mention Olbermann by name (and you accuse McClellan of not having testicles), I don't really feel the need to count that interview......................................3) Progress in Iraq. Bill, I hate to sound like a broken-record but anytime, ANYTIME, a police-state is instituted (an increase in the number of check-points, etc.) violence in that jurisdiction WILL BE SUPPRESSED. And, yes, when you add to that the fact that 1) militias have clearly been bought off and 2) many of the regions have already been ethnically-cleansed, of course there's going to be a cork-in-the-bottle effect. How much longer, though, Bill, can we afford to be that frigging stopper - bleeding and bleeding while we keep what is essentially a rancid brew in it's place? Not a hell of a lot longer, right?.......................................Bottom-line, Bill, I don't have any idea where this McClellan fellow is coming from. Therefore, I'm neither going to reflexively denigrate him, like you did (lambasting him in "Talking Points" memos before you even crack the book), OR take what he says as gospel. Nope, I'm going to keep my powder dry. Well, that and obviously keep my eye on you, too.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
On a lighter note, folks, I was just wondering. Where did all these people, currently spewing their hatred (from all sides of the political spectrum, I'm saying) on the Internet, blow off all this venom of theirs....before, I'm saying, there was a frigging Internet? I mean, did they do stuff like animal cruelty, destroy people's property? Seriously, what did they do? And, yes, I was thinking that maybe Barak Obama was right. But instead of all this bitterness that people have being pacified by guns and churches and shit, they're all turning to the Internet and blogging. This, I'm saying, in that damned if it doesn't accomplish a couple of things......................................First of all, yes, it allows an individual to "unload" on whoever/whatever it is that's bugging him or her (not that a lot of this anger isn't displaced, of course - people looking for easy marks, convenient targets, etc.). But it also gives people a sense that, "hell, maybe I'm not just an insignificant slug/rummy-dumb/malcontent. I mean, look at me, folks, I'm a big-time blogger, damn it!!"..........................................Of course, there is in fact a potential danger here. This, I'm saying, in that whenever you combine said anger/bitterness with an elevated sense of self-importance (some of it that actually goes beyond delusional - let's be frank here), there's always the risk that one of these miscreants (blankety blank is one that quickly comes to mind) will go off the deep-end. Oh well, here's to hoping that it's only themselves that they "off".......................................P.S. Did I actually start this by saying, "on a lighter note"? LOL