Saturday, March 31, 2012
Did any of you catch this clown (he simply goes by the name of Toure') last night? He goes on Piers Morgan's show and just denigrates the poor Brit, questions his professionalism, integrity, etc. (even going as far as to disqualify him because he's British!). And all because he a) interviewed George Zimmerman's brother and b) didn't do it nastily enough. Unbelievable..................................................................................... And, yes, I DID see the frigging interview. It was a good interview. I mean, no, he didn't attack the guy or anything but he challenged him and challenged him repeatedly. For this douche-bag, MTV caliber malcontent of a guy to shit on somebody for acting professionally is sickening, in my opinion. Maybe Mr. Toure' needs to go back and spin some videos or something....Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, MTV doesn't play videos anymore.
Friday, March 30, 2012
1) If the roles were reversed and the shooter had been black and the victim white, there probably would have been an arrest. True.............2) If both of the individuals had been black, the media more than likely would have ignored the story. True.............3) The video of George Zimmerman 34 minutes after the tragedy (at the police station) is proof-positive that he did NOT sustain any significant injuries. False. I have personally sustained a broken nose and it didn't bleed and was difficult to ascertain at a distance.............4) We know beyond a shadow of a doubt who cried for help during the confrontation. False (hopefully technology will eventually help us along in this regard).............5) George Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after the police told him not to. Unclear. On this fact we need to know the precise time of the 911 call and whether or not Mr. Zimmerman made the call from his vehicle (this, in that the event took place a pretty fair distance from the vehicle).............6) We know for a fact that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. False. I say this because, even if Mr. Zimmerman WAS following Trayvon Martin, Mr. Martin still could have initiated the altercation. Not, of course, that this excuses Zimmerman or says that he's completely innocent of everything, just that it would probably be more of reckless endangerment or manslaughter offense.............7) We know for a fact that the Sanford Police Department falsified the documents. False.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite quarterback to wide-receiver combo?".....................................................................................................P.S. For those of you who aren't aware, John Hadl was also a magnificent college football player. The dude was a 2-time all-American at the University of Kansas and, get this, he was actually a 3-way player! Yeah, that's right, the fellow played offense (quarterback and halfback), defense (safety), AND special teams (punter AND punt returner!)!! Talk about some serious earning of your letter/college scholarship.
Note to Spike Lee (This, In Reference to His Tweeting the Address of George Zimmerman and Getting it WRONG)
Excellent going, Clyde/smooth, real smooth/the right thing - I don't think so!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
I can't prove it, folks, and I probably shouldn't assert it, either. But, in my opinion, if Al Smith (a pro-business, non-Keynesian, free-trading, anti-prohibition Democrat) had been elected President in 1928, and reelected in 1932, we probably wouldn't have had a Great Depression. Yes, perhaps we still would have had a downturn and a significant correction in the stock market, but NOTHING like we ended up with during the Hoover and Roosevelt years.......I'm telling you here, people, this man was just too smart to have made the same mistakes that those two fellows did; idiotic levels of deficit spending, monstrously high tax increases, one experiment upon another into the private sector.......Gee willikers, I wonder if there's any of his DNA left.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
You're not helping, so stop trying to. Listen to the family, for Christ!
I really and truly thought that Lawrence O'Donnell was different (i.e., from the rest of the cable-news partisans). Apparently not, folks. I mean, I don't know if you saw it or not, but on last night's program, Mr. O'Donnell treated Orlando Sentinal crime reporter, Rene Stutzman, with both treachery and disrespect. He specifically accused Ms. Stutzman of not attributing key information to a source. And, yes, folks, he did it in the same stupid-assed way that Sean Hannity and Rachel Maddow have been doing it; by selectively leaving out key phrasing..............................................................................................Exhibit A: O'Donnell reads from the transcript; "He was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community." Of course, what Rene Stutzman actually said was, "HE SAID (he, of course, being Zimmerman) he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community." Clearly, the woman in fact WAS providing context here...............................................................................................Exhibit B: O'Donnell again reads from the transcript; "With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered." Contrast this with the entire text: "With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel. That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say." YET AGAIN, the information IS referenced - in this case, law enforcement officials AND Mr. Zimmerman..........................................................................................I don't know, folks, it looks to me as if Lawrence O'Donnell owes this Stutzman lady an apology. Not that I'll be holding my breath for it, obviously.
Monday, March 26, 2012
In an era when media criticism has basically become yet another partisan cesspool (i.e., the Media Research Center, Newsbusters, Media Matters for America, etc.), it's good to see that we have at least a couple of straight-shooters still working in that genre. Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to the Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik and CNNs'/the Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz. They're the two best in the business, in my opinion. And if you don't believe me, just ask Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly. They don't like 'em.
Look, folks, I fully understand the frustration and anger that Mr. Sharpton feels over the shooting of that young kid down in Florida. But I also understand that this same Mr. Sharpton also needs to make a decision, and soon. Namely, Sharpton needs to ask himself, is he an activist, or is he a journalist? I mean, right now, you've got the fellow rabble-rousing at these rallies during the day and then covering these very same rallies at night. That cannot continue. He either has to be the story or the story-teller (a little something called journalistic ethics). He can't be both. Hopefully, there are still at least a few honorable people over there at NBC and they can rectify this - SOON.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
1) Burt Lancaster's two best performances are no doubt those from "Elmer Gantry" (as the charlatan preacher-man wannabe who all too often succumbs to the flesh/bottle) and "Atlantic City" (as the aging two-bit hood who finally gets the chance to be the "tough guy" and bed Susan Sarandon) . But I would personally like to add a third performance to that list; namely, his turn as J.J. Hunsecker (a vile and devious gossip-columnist) in the hugely under-appreciated now cult-classic, "Sweet Smell of Success". The way, folks, that Mr. Lancaster literally toys with the weaselly Sidney Falco (deftly portrayed by Tony Curtis in one of HIS finest acting jobs) is pure, unadulterated "Burt"; the undercurrent of bald, sinister bile, the teetering of a man on the verge of what, we're not entirely sure, etc.. And the fact that the movie itself was so significantly ahead of its time as well. Great, GREAT.............2) I'll admit it here. I really don't like it when people make fun of Rush Limbaugh's drug addiction. Not that I ever really give a rat's ass about him, mind you (the guy's a douche-bag). I just don't think that we should be making fun of chemical dependency, as a rule. I mean, yeah, I understand the whole hypocrisy thing; Limbaugh standing in righteous judgment of others, yada yada. But when you start to make fun of something like drug addiction, you aren't just hurting Mr. Limbaugh. You're hurting a lot of other people, too (same when we constantly make fun of his poundage). You just might want to call him an idiot and be done with it.............3) Jan Garbarek and Gato Barbieri were two of the finest jazz saxophonists of the late '60s and early '70s . But, to steal a phrase from the late, great Mae West (this, when she said that she USED TO BE Snow White), they drifted; Barbieri into pop, Garbarek into weirdness (some have referred to it as new-age, I would not). Now, this isn't to say that the two men haven't shown flashes of their former brilliance (Garbarek, especially, as a sideman for Keith Jarrett, Ralph Towner, Kenny Wheeler, Egberto Gismonti, etc.) from time to time. Not at all. I just wish that Barbieri had been a little less motivated by money and Garbarek a little less motivated by whatever (Scandinavian eccentricities?)....Oh well, at least there's still "Bolivia" and "Witchi Tai To".
Saturday, March 24, 2012
1) I'm still not entirely certain why Bill O'Reilly has guests on his program. a) He doesn't let them talk and b) he always seems to think that he knows more than them. Now, granted, some of those altercations (that classic blow-up with Geraldo Rivera, for example) that he's had over the years have made for some compelling television at times. But, really, folks, has that in fact become the standard for cable-news this era? I sure as hell hope not, for Christ. We have more than enough of that already on "Jersey Shore" and "Mob Wives".............2) Yeah, I'd say that it's well past time that they took another look at that "Stand Your Ground" law down there in Florida (this, in obvious response to the gunning down of that poor unfortunate black kid down there). I mean, the way that the frigging law is now, it sounds like you can basically murder a person and, if there isn't another individual to witness it, you're either not going to get arrested, or get arrested and ultimately acquitted. It's like, yes, I can understand if somebody has broken into your dwelling, or if they're trying to stab you or something but in the vast, VAST, percentage of other scenarios, it would seem to me that the person should at least try and extricate themselves - this, as opposed to channeling Marshall Matt Dillon, Duke Wayne, etc..............3) I had a spate of correspondences lately with a retired physician. Here is how the woman reacted when I told her that I was probably going to vote for Obama again; "Are you on something? Booze? Pain meds? BOTH? Obama-care is a disaster. Do you know how much bullshit is in that bill? It is killing medicine in this country. Docs are leaving left and right (this area is really starting to suffer), and we’re not talking rich docs...docs who like to go one-to-one with their patients; doc who can’t keep up with the outrageous paper work with their current staff; docs who can’t afford yet another cutback in reimbursement. We will soon be divided into 2 camps of health receivers: Most of the population will be left with: the idiot docs who stay and take DC healthcare. And the GOOD healthcare, in good hospitals with good equipment and staff, will be, by default, reserved for those who can pay out of pocket, like Rush did. I don’t care for him or listen, but I do know that he paid for his last hospital procedure at about 1/3 of what it would have cost through insurance."...The fact that the lady sounds like a bitch aside, something perhaps to consider moving forward.
Friday, March 23, 2012
1) Chomsky has said that crimes of Democratic Capitalism are "monstrously worse than those of Communism" ("Power and Terror" 2003).......2) He has consistently referred to the United States as a "police state" and himself as an "American dissident" (this, despite the fact that the dude is basically ignored by official Washington).......3) He has consistently referred to the pentagon as "the most hideous institution on earth" - this despite the fact that he's been cashing checks from them AND several multinational corporations (this, for his "work" LOL for the research laboratory at MIT.......4) He wrote his first book, "Syntactic Structures", with grants from the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), Air Force (Office of Scientific Research, Air Research, and Development Command), and the Office of Naval Research.......5) He could have resigned (from MIT) AT ANY MOMENT on principle but he DID NOT and has made a handsome fortune courtesy of the military industrial complex.......6) He moved his family out of Cambridge and relocated in the suburban community of Lexington, a town with a minority population of 1.1% and he did so at around the same time that Boston was desegregating its schools. Gee, HOW FRIGGING CONVENIENT!......7) He set up a trust fund for his daughter, the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust, to protect his assets from Uncle Sam (this, despite the fact that he's been highly critical of others for sheltering THEIR money).......8) Not only did Mr. Chomsky defend the crackpot Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's right to free speech, he also defended his "findings" (which have proven to be fake, btw - the "Village Voice"), praised his extensive historical research", and defended him against charges of anti-Semitism.......9) He charges people to download his earlier speeches. And you want to hear some irony here. If you want to hear Mr. Chomsky talk about "Property Right", it'll cost you 79 cents a minute.......10) Shortly after 9/11, Mr. Chomsky raised his speaking fees from $9,000 a pop to $12,000 a pop - this, while criticizing others for "war profiteering".......11) Instead of selecting a money market fund for his retirement option, Mr. Chomsky chose blue-chip stock options. And, get this, one of those funds, the TIAA-CREF stock fund, heavily invests in many of the businesses that Chomsky spposedly despises; oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, etc........12) Practically every person that Mr. Chomsky has hired for a critical position at MIT has been a white male.......13) There is no record of Mr. Chomsky EVER criticizing Communist Vietnam for its many crackdown on free speech.......14) There is no record of Mr. Chomsky EVER criticizing Communist Cuba for its transgressions; its keeping of thousands of political prisoners in a gulag, for example.......15) In the years after 9/11, in order to get into one of his lectures, you had to submit a photo ID in advance, go through a security checkpoint, and be frisked at the door - this, while, at the same time, saying that America was a police state and that Islamic terrorism "wasn't really a threat".......16) If Chomsky lived in China and said even half the things about that country that he's said about our country, he'd be shot. He'd be shot and he knows it.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
What would be my answer to the question, "So, what Presidents would you like added to Mount Rushmore?"
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Seriously, though, have you ever witnessed two bigger dirt-bags than these two frigging imbeciles, two people who are more responsible for the coarsening of the discourse/the culture? I'm telling you here, folks, if it were totally up to me......No, I can't say it. I DO believe in free speech. At the very least, though, we should probably shame them, no?
Monday, March 19, 2012
What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's the closest thing that you've ever seen to a riot breaking out at a sporting event?"
Sunday, March 18, 2012
1) For all of those people (myself included at times) who think that Fox News is blatantly biased, I ask you, compare the Bret Baier interview of Mitt Romney from several months ago to the Keith Olbermann interview of then candidate Obama from 2008 (yes, back when he was with MSNBC). Compare the two and then decide who the real propagandists and boot-lickers are. You just might be surprised, people.............2) Xavier has had one of the most bizarre seasons in NCAA basketball history. They started off the season 8-0 and had some pretty damned impressive victories (amongst their bigger victims were Georgia, Vanderbilt, Purdue, Butler, and Cincinnati) to get there. Then they had that big bench-clearing brawl against crosstown rival, Cincinnati, and, yes sir, right on cue, the wheels came totally off. They lost a bunch of games and it didn't look like they were even going to make the NCAA tournament. But then they went on a little run and proceeded to make the finals of the Atlantic 10 (probably the best of the non-BCS conferences in basketball) tournament, got that bid for the NCAA tournament and now they're in the frigging Sweet 16. I mean, talk about a God damned roller-coaster, people.............3) Boy, did that Alexandra Pelosi ever piss everybody off, huh? She does this one video in which rural white folks from Alabama and Mississippi look like total racists/rednecks. And then she follows that up with another video in which predominantly African-American welfare recipients look like total leechmeres/derelict bums. Not exactly seeking public office, evidently, this young Pelosi gal.............4) Say what you want about Scott Brown, folks. The guy at the very minimum is civil. I've personally seen quite a few of his interviews (the latest tonight on "Piers Morgan Tonight") up to this point and I have NEVER heard him say anything of a disrespectful nature. And the Senator actually wants to work with the other side! I mean, isn't that one fact alone refreshing? I myself don't live in Massachusetts but if in fact I did, I wouldn't any problem voting for the fellow.
I've decided, folks, I'm going to start a new union, and I'm going to call it the "Picketers Union". I'm going to organize all of those poor homeless bastards that the carpenters' unions are currently using (in some instances, paying UNDER the minimum wage) to do their dirty work (essentially walking around in a circle and shouting out spoon-fed epithets and talking-points) and see if I can get them a little bit fairer shake, for Christ....I mean, somebody's got to make sure that they're not taken advantage of, right? RIGHT?
Friday, March 16, 2012
What would be my answer to the question, "So, in a nutshell, how would you characterize tonight's South Florida - Temple NCAA tournament game?"
Harry S. Truman - yes.............JFK - yes.............Al Smith - yes, yes, and triple yes.............Bill Clinton - ultimately yes.............Paul Tsongas - yes.............LBJ - uncertain.............Jimmy Carter - uncertain.............FDR - no.............Ted Kennedy - no.............Woodrow Wilson - no.............Barack Obama - doubtful so far.............I define "IT" as the realization that bad-mouthing, over-regulating, and overtaxing businesses has a deleterious effect on the economy.
First off, I haven't read it. And, so, yes, I AM going against what I preached in a previous post. But I have in fact examined both the assertions made in the book (that more equal societies have better social outcomes, essentially) and the methodology utilized by the authors and, because of that, I feel that I can make at least some commentary. So, where to start?............................................................................................a) The book deals exclusively with correlations, and, as we all should remember from elementary statistics class, correlations do NOT infer causality. These authors posit that egalitarianism in a society causes lesser in terms of social ills. But the opposite in fact could be true. The social problems could be causing the inequality OR there could even be a third, fourth, and/or fifth variable that's causing them both. Even an elemental understanding of statistics would have clearly helped these individuals.............b) The authors also seem to be lacking in basic understanding of the scientific method. For instance, they seem to think that researchers go about trying to "prove" theories true - this, as opposed to what they actually do; i.e., try and DISPROVE them (they call it rejecting the null hypothesis). The fact that these people seemed so hell-bent on trying to buttress their preexisting beliefs is actually quite ANTI-science.............c) The authors totally cherry-picked their subjects (in this instance, countries). They supposedly set out to examine the 50 richest countries in the world and they ended up only examining 23. They tried to justify this by saying that they didn't want to use countries with an under three million population because of their tax-haven status. But even this excuse didn't make any sense in that most of the countries in question WEREN'T tax-havens. The fact that they were so selective in the countries that they examined is excessively troubling, in my opinion.............d) These same authors also cherry-picked the indicators (AKA, the dependent variables). They analyzed drug use but not alcohol consumption. They analyzed imprisonment but not crime rates. They analyzed homicides but not suicides. They analyzed teenage births but not divorce rates. They analyzed foreign aid but not charitable contributions. And they analyzed neighborhood trust but not volunteerism. They did these things, folks, because they were trying to validate what they already thought and were willing to jig the data in order to accomplish this. Peter Saunders, in his absolutely blistering refutation of the book,showed that, if in fact the authors had analyzed racial bigotry, suicide rates, fertility rates, alcoholism, and HIV, the results would have been the absolute opposite (i.e., the more equal countries showing up poorly). It kind of tells you something, doesn't it?............e) The authors show massive lack of understanding regarding even elementary statistics. Everybody knows that when you do a statistical comparison (whether it be a t-test, an analysis of variance, a regression analysis, whatever), you don't just do a between group analysis. You also do a within group analysis. And one of the ways that you factor that is to disregard the extreme scores. For instance, when the authors were analyzing gun violence, they didn't remove the major outlier; the United States. They didn't, folks, because when you in fact do do that, the correlation absolutely disappears. The same is true with life expectancy. Remove Japan from the equation on this variable and THAT correlation disappears as well.............f) The authors made virtually no attempt to seek out alternative explanations. They never, for example, considered the fact that a lack of effective gun regulation in America might be more of a factor in that country's high level of violence. OR they never once considered the fact that the diet in Japan might be more of a factor for that country's longer life-expectancy....They never considered anything, essentially.......Final score - 2 stars out of 5.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
"...For the sake of a house on a lake, your laughter, your sighs......And for the Heaven and Hell I have seen in your eyes......For the sake of Love, as strong as Truth, deep as the sea......And for the White Flame in you that reaching out lit me."............Wow, that sure as hell sounds like lovey-dovey time to me.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Try 'cause I'm supposed to (like them).
You think that the "Ginger versus Mary Ann" controversy of the 60s was a smolderingly hot one? You just might want to try on the "Garbo versus Dietrich" one from the 30s. That, me-buckos, was frigging Ginger versus Mary Ann on steroids, for Christ!...And the fact that these two powerhouses were more than likely lovers to boot - youza!...My choice, you ask? Garbo!!
To paraphrase what Jackie Gleason said to Anthony Quinn in David Susskind's classic, "Requiem for a Heavyweight", "You're not a winner anymore, Newtster. All that's left is make some money off the losin'." I guess what I'm trying to say here is that you're frigging toast, a-hole! Live with it!
Monday, March 12, 2012
1) I consider myself a pretty devout non-interventionist (I even opposed the first Iraq War - yeah, I was wrong). Like Mr.s Paul and Kucinich, I only think that we should act militarily when our own national security is at stake. But I'm telling you here, folks, if I were President and I had actionable intelligence, and I could take out that butcher, Bashar al Assad (he's starting to make his father look like a camp counselor), with a single missile, I'd do it. I'd do it and I'd feel about as guilty as I felt when I was a kid drowning ant colonies....with urine.............2) Nor would it bother me to be called a war criminal over it, either. Fuck China and fuck Russia, too.............3) Virtually all of the unions who would stand to benefit from the Keystone pipeline are now supporting it. Only groups like the SEIU and transport workers union are opposing the project (probably because Obama is opposing it). Hm, what do say that we score this sucker Environmental Lobby 1 the Working Stiff of America 0?............4) For a balanced examination of the Keystone XL pipeline, I strongly recommend "Five Myth About the Keystone XL Pipeline" by the Washington Post's Michael Levy. Forewarning - if you're a hard-core partisan on either side here, you're probably not going to like it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/2011/12/19/gIQApUAX8P_story_1.html.............5) It's up to 98 now, the number of major sponsors who've said sayonara to Rush. Wow, huh? I mean, I don't know, if I HAD TO guess right now, I'd sat that the scrimey ends up on satellite, maybe pay-per-view....He's just too toxic for anything else, essentially.
In one of her self-promotional commercials, Rachel Maddow proclaims that, "For the past 10 years, we've only been pursuing policies that benefit the wealthy." This is false, folks. a) 81% of the Bush tax cuts went to the working and middle classes (300 of the 370 per annum billion). d) Non-defense discretionary spending (Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, welfare, education expenditures, housing assistance, food assistance, tax credits for children, etc.) skyrocketed under President Bush. And c) the Medicare Part D drug program (no, it wasn't paid for and, yes, that's a problem) disproportionately helped the lower, working, and middle classes. For Ms. Maddow (Hannity with a twat, basically) to so casually throw around bromides like this is utterly and totally unhelpful (we all of us know by now that George Bush Jr. was a bad President - continuing to demonize him above and beyond this "loses" people). Divisive, too.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite 'Saturday Night Live' skit?"
Saturday, March 10, 2012
And what's with this whole no co-pay bullshit? I have to dish out $15 for all of my prescriptions (save, of course, for the occasional $4 generic from Walmart) and Mr. Obama wants to make contraception coverage totally free....for everybody (regardless of their ability to pay)? Naaadon't think so......................................................................................Look, folks, I've generally been pretty supportive of Mr. Obama (my tweaking of the fellow much more directed at his minions). I voted for him once and probably will again, AND I've defended him against charges of extremism, "weak on defense", etc.. But, on this particular issue, he really IS starting to piss me off some....Free contraception, please!
Friday, March 9, 2012
1) Sandra Fluke does NOT have a God-given right to Georgetown University's cash. She especially doesn't have a right to it if violates Georgetown University's LONG-STANDING moral principles. I mean, I know that this is a difficult concept for those who think that people should basically be given whatever it is that they want and all BUT it is what it is.............2) If Sandra Fluke was smart enough to get into Georgetown University Law School, then she was also smart enough to get into the University of Maryland Law School, the University of Virginia Law School, George Washington University Law School, George Mason University Law School, Wake Forest University Law School, the University of North Carolina Law School, William and Mary University Law School, Duke University Law School, and any number of other institutions in her general area. AND she was also smart enough (or absolutely should have been) to know that the Catholic University that she ultimately DID decide to attend probably wasn't going to cover her contraception expenses.............3) Sandra Fluke is a 30 year-old law student who is currently on the precipice of a six figure salary and a degree from one of the top 15 Law Schools in America. For the left to somehow portray this gal as some sort of victim (aside from Mr. Limbaugh's idiotic commentary, I'm saying) is borderline nauseating. Enough already.............4) If Sandra Fluke is currently unable to afford her contraception expenses, then she can go to any number of clinics in the Washington D.C. area and probably get them free (this, as the result of Title 10). AND, if by chance that she doesn't qualify for that, then she can go to Walmart or another discount pharmacy and get her contraception for $9 a month (I'm assuming that there are Walmarts in the D.C. area). There is no need WHATSOEVER for this Sandra Fluke person to ever have to go without contraception. Bubkis.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
In a free society (and the last time that I checked we were), the strong arm of the Federal government does NOT have the right to dictate to a privately insured faith-based institution what it can and cannot cover in terms of their insurance. It plainly and totally DOES NOT (this, in that if in fact it did, that would represent a form of "soft" fascism). NOW, if the Federal government wanted to more DIRECTLY provide these services to folks (either through clinics, rebates, or whatever), that, yes, would represent an entirely different situation. I mean, it would still be debatable in that a lot of conservatives would probably still object to it and all (perhaps in relation to the government overspending angle), but at least it would be debatable.
Monday, March 5, 2012
It's probably about as sincere as Ed Schultz's was when he called Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut"/Keith Olbermann's was when he called Scott Brown an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees (he later added 'sexist' to the rant)." Not extraordinarily, in other words.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
What would by my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite NFL receiving tandem?"
The way that I see it, folks, most of George W. Bush's major transgressions came in the realm of foreign policy. I mean, certainly, the dude spent exorbitantly domestically (non-defense discretionary and entitlement spending both skyrocketed under Bush), too, and the now infamous tax-cuts may or may not have been the wisest course of action (this, though revenues actually skyrocketed between 2003 and 2007) but, please. These two massive open-ended wars - not only did they not really resolve anything, they also may have been one of the key driving forces (along, of course, with the idiotic interest-rate policies of Greenspan and Bernanke) of our 2008 economic collapse - hundreds of billions, possibly trillions squandered. And the fact that we're STILL not entirely sure how it's all gonna play out. That perhaps more so than anything else.....
Saturday, March 3, 2012
I couldn't believe it, folks. I actually saw Newt Gingrich engaging in some levity. I don't know, I guess that he was speaking to his minions after one of the primaries (AKA, crushing defeats) or something and, I swear to God, the dude was flat-out hilarious. He was especially hilarious when he started doing shtick on Mitt Romney's "the trees are just the right height" comment pertaining to Michigan. I'm telling you here, people, I was all but muttering audibly in response, "Where, pray tell, did this fellow come from?"............Time for a Letterman "Top Ten List" appearance perhaps.
) Every once in a while Chris Matthews will say something that is totally brilliant. Take, for example, what the dude said about Romney recently. He asserted that all of Romney's flip-flopping could actually work to his ADVANTAGE in the "general". People will think (Mr. Matthews further argues) that Romney probably doesn't really believe all of the garbage (that he's so "severely conservative", for example) that's he's been uttering the past four years or so, and that, once in office, he'll probably revert to being the reasonable guy that he was in Massachusetts. Me - I'm personally not going to vote for Mr. Romney (I just don't like phonies) but I kind of DO agree with both Matthews and the voters on this one.............2) I have a question for my liberal colleagues. Would you, if by chance a miracle happened and the Mitt Romney of 1994 and 2002 (pro-choice, pro-gay-rights, reasonable on the economy and heath-care, etc.) were able to secure the Republican nomination, even CONSIDER voting for him over President Obama (a person, mind you, who a) has some competency issues and b) has frequently disappointed his base)? OR, would you de facto not vote for him or anybody else who has an R in front of his name? I'm just curious.............3) The way that I see it here, short of the fellow going all neocon on us, Mr. Romney probably won't be all that different than President Obama (whether or not that's a good thing, I'll leave that discussion to others for now). I mean, I obviously could be wrong about it. But I just think that once in fact he actually does get elected (if, that is, that does happen), reality will probably set in and he'll govern more or less accordingly. Wishful thinking, maybe.
You don't kill people....for burning a book. OK? YOU JUST DON'T DO IT. Yes, burning a holy book is an extremely disrespectful thing, and the people who do it should be criticized. But you DON'T KILL THEM. And you especially don't kill a bunch of innocent people who had absolutely nothing to do with the original action. I mean, yes, I understand the fact that mobs/anomie can sometimes make people do things that they normally wouldn't do on their own. But, come on, some of you frigging assholes are college educated and could possibly talk some reason to these people (running around acting like stark-raving lunatics). That, and you eventually DO want to join modernity, no? NO?
Friday, March 2, 2012
10) "Duel in the Sun".............9) "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid".............8) "The Wild Bunch".............7) "Once Upon a Time in the West" (Claudia Cardinale - reeoow!).............6) "The Big Country" (Jean Simmons - reeoow!).............5) "Red River" (1, if not for the cheesy ending).............4) "The Searchers".............3) "High Noon".............2) "Unforgiven" ("We all got it coming, kid", "Deserves got nothing to do with it" - great lines!).............1) "Shane" (the scenes with frigging Jack Palance alone)........................................................................................I know, I know, I left out "The Magnificent Seven", "Dances with Wolves", "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", "Little Big Man", "Stagecoach", "True Grit", etc., etc.. YOU TRY LIMITING IT TO 10!
I haven't read Bill O'Reilly's new book, "Killing Lincoln", and I probably never will (nothing against Mr. O'Reilly but, if I want to read an historical book, I'd probably want to read one by an, you know, ACTUAL historian; David McCullough, Douglas Brinkley, etc.). But you know what else that I'm probably not going to do? I'm probably not going to waste valuable moments of my life writing a negative review of it on Amazon just because I happen to think that Mr. O'Reilly is a dick. Nope, folks, THAT I'm going to save for the multi-handled stooges and miscreants of the world. I mean, it is in fact their frigging freak-show/domain, correct?
I knew that there would ultimately be some conspiracy theories. I just didn't think that they'd come out prior to his damned carcass cooling........................................................................................P.S. I'm sure as hell glad that the SOB didn't have any footage of me in MY college days (correctomundo, Marcus?).
Thursday, March 1, 2012
I have no use for Rick Santorum. I find him to be a jerk, an anti-intellectual, a homophobe, and a borderline zealot. But I will not drink the hate-filled elixir of the far-left and compare the fellow to Hitler, the Taliban, etc.. I won't, and I will continue to ridicule the people who do. Period.
What would be my answer to the question, "So, who are the three main people (well, other than, of course, Bill Clinton himself - nobody held a gun to his head and made him "cheat" and then lie about it later under oath) who prevented Bill Clinton from being not a good President but a great one?"