Shoeless Joe Blowdulah

I don't know, folks, I guess that George Bush getting a couple of shoes thrown at him is funny, the fact that the whole episode had a cartoon-like quality to it, especially. And, yes, the mere fact that it involved President Bush, that alone, me-buckos, is probably sufficient/ripe. I mean, seriously, everyone knows just how much we love to laugh at the fellow, don't you think? And I certainly don't begrudge the late-night talk show hosts, either. That's their frigging livelihood, for Christ!! .......................................................This, and yet, I do have to admit that there is in fact a part of me that sees it differently. This, I'm saying, in that while, yes, George Bush indeed has been a bad president, I'm not exactly sure I want some Iraqi stooge throwing foot-gear at him (especially knowing what an act such as that means in that culture), either. First of all, if he had done such a thing to Saddam Hussein, the son of a bitch would have been tortured, maimed, and killed. And, secondly, that frigging stinking shoe of his hit the American flag. Not a good thing, me-buckos. Not a good thing at all. In fact, if I was there and saw it, I might have done a little tap-dancing of my own - and, no, not on the press-room floor, either.

Telegraphing You Hunches

O'Reilly's up to something, folks. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but those wheels of his (such that they are) are definitely turning. First of all, he seems to now be a full-fledged member of the George W. Bush revisionary tour, arguing in his "Talking Points" many of those same lines that the administration itself has been uttering; "we haven't had a terrorist attack in the last seven years", etc......................................................He also seems to have made the leap that it was Bush's harsh interrogation techniques that have, more than anything, made us safer. It has been through these coercive measures, he continues, that we've been able to get the necessary intelligence to thwart any and all terrorist attacks.......................................................And, yes, folks, here's where Obama enters the equation. This, I'm saying, in that O'Reilly fears that Mr. Obama will ultimately end these coercive measures and, hence, leave us vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. It will be Obama's fault if we get hit again, in other words...................................................Wow, huh, talk about laying the groundwork? I mean, seriously, the guy's decided a priori that the next American tragedy should be a God-Damned partisan thing. And he does it over the issue of torture (something that most experts say is useless, that the actual people who did it to KSM said didn't give us anything useful), too. Oy Vey!..........................................................P.S., Maybe Bush does deserve some credit for us not getting hit (I kinda credit luck and the Atlantic Ocean, myself). I'm not necessarily disputing that point. I'm just saying that torture wasn't the main factor here. That's all.

Name Regurgitation

Folks, I just caught a little snippet (the audio version) of Caroline Kennedy's interview with the New York Times. One word - ouch!! This, I'm saying, in that, while it may not have been as tortured as some of Governor Palin's early outings were, still, the feeling that I get is that this lady (who, yes, is a wonderful person, no doubt) is no where near ready for prime-time. Couple that, I'm saying, with the fact that New York has, what, a couple dozen Democratic Congressmen/women who actually might be qualified already. Doesn't seem fair, me-buckos. Doesn't seem the least bit fair at all, her getting the attention like this.

A "Method" To Behold

In my opinion, folks, a lot of Montgomery Clift's finer screen moments have also been his quieter ones; his muted Taps in "From Here to Eternity", the angst on his face just prior to Shelly Winters's "mishap" in "A Place in the Sun", his flicking of a cigarette butt from the back of a pick-up (this while he scans the overall situation) in "The Misfits", etc..................................................Of course, being the romantic that I am, I was particularly blown away by that kiss in the rain between him and Olivia de Havilland in "The Heiress". And, yes, folks, believing that Monty was a homosexual, too! I mean, seriously, I think it was in fact THAT scene that made me almost reflectively spout at times, "Wow, now that guy is kick-ass actor!".....................................................Fast forward a little bit from those times, folks. I've since learned that Clift was actually a bisexual and that he literally had sex (most of it indiscriminate and, yes, a lot of it drunken) with scores and scores of women. BUT, if you think that that makes the de Havilland kiss any less amazing, think again. I've also since learned that he literally couldn't stand the sight of Miss de Havilland. He was jealous of her and, worse still, couldn't stand her approach to acting (want to get on Monty's shit-list, disagree with him on the "craft" - even worse, do it on the set). Talk about a skilled practitioner, huh?

Swing Low Sweet Swing-State Chariot

This Minnesota senate election is fascinating. It has all the feeling of one of those "it can only happen in America" stories, frankly. Of course, more than anything, though, it shows us just how far the Republican Party itself has fallen. The party of Lincoln, T.R., and Eisenhower has been usurped by neocons and far-right religious advocates (I'll refrain from saying fanatics here) - this, I'm saying, to the point where this "brand" can't even hold off an Al Franken, for Christ! Not that this Coleman fellow is necessarily a prototype of these two groups, mind you, but, still, it looks like he may be taken down with them. Oh well, me-buckos, nobody ever said/told Mr. Coleman that political life was fair. I highly doubt it, anyway.

To Those Who Lack Perspective, Proper

If it were up to Retch, me-buckos, he'd have rubbed out Bledsoe years ago. And the fact, I'm saying, that he, Bledsoe, was as part and parcel to Sully's leaving....as EVEN Leeds, that alone would have been sufficient, I'm thinking. Of course, the way that I just see him putzing there (sitting and drooling, coughing up his own blood, etc.), it might not be the worst idea for Retch to leave him, let the much more powerful specimens decide. I mean, you gotta let the chips fall occasionally, right?

Take a Vote on it, Boys

There seems to be a divide on the left when it comes to elections, folks. On the one hand, you have this bevy of simpletonian bloggers. Their consistent message is that Eisenhower's blockage of the Vietnamese elections in 1954 caused the entire Vietnam War (never mind the fact that subsequent presidents lied and/or failed to de-escalate the situation). It is their surmise, evidently, that, whether or not the institutions usually associated with Democratic societies are present (free press, etc.), free elections must always be allowed/honored, encouraged even. Kind of an interesting take, huh?...................................................And, yes, I ask you to contrast this position with that of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Both of these fellows are clearly on the record as saying that President Bush committed a grave error in allowing the Palestinian elections to happen. They say that Bush should have realized that the terrorist group, Hamas, would indeed have a very good chance to chalk up victory - an eventuality that clearly would hamper any sort of peace process down the road. Elections aren't always the answer. I guess that that's their basic message here. Also, interesting....................................................But you do see what I'm saying about a divide, though, right? Of course, it also might be something as simple as the left not thinking that the other side can do ANYTHING right - situational ethics clearly being one huge aspect of partisanship....with, yes, both sides often having their extra digits in it.

"Major" Inconvenience

As for Leeds himself, though, I'm telling you, that son-of-bitch has sporn practically nothing. And even on the inside at Sassy's first, those two front teeth of his, etc., damned if even those weren't starting to thin a little. Of course, of all those shitty/moronic penchants of his, it'll probably be that stumbling and bumbling at hightower that'll mostly fill the memory bank....high and dry and, yes, be his frigging legacy, for Christ! I mean, it does make sense, right, life itself being the price for being such a loser, kerplunkingly, miserably, etc.? And, no, don't even get me talking about eternity. That, my friends, would be a terrible mistake.

The "Fence" is in His Head, I'm Thinking

O'Reilly just seems to love those yes-no questions (Matthews ditto, though not quite as moronically), folks. It must have something to do with his brain's unwillingness/incapacity to fathom a scenario's much more nuanced fabric/tenor, his own proclivity to drink that Kool-Aid, etc.. Just a guess, of course..................................................His latest example of this either/or probing of people came last week. He asked this guy who apparently opposed Bush's policies in Iraq, "Is the average Iraqi better off now than he was when Saddam Hussein was in power - yes or no?" I mean, he was obviously trying to goad the guy into saying (and the audience into believing) that Bush's policies weren't entirely negative after all (people who consistently watch O'Reilly are totally capable of reading him). But, come on, typical spinning for the Republican president - that shouldn't be a journalist's motivation here.....................................................And the bullishness of the approach, too. The poor guy didn't even get a chance to clarify a basic premise of the question. What exactly are you talking about when you say, "average Iraqi"? It's like, sure, if you're talking about the average Shiite in a well protected, homogeneous area, he probably is better off (still some problems with the electricity, though, I gather). But, if you're talking about the average Iraqi refugee - a person who was in fact displaced as a by-product of U.S. actions - then that individual would probably say, "Yeah, bring back the frigging madman, for Christ!" And like I've said in other postings, the "average" Iraqi Christian has been far more persecuted under the present regime. Christians either have to worship elsewhere or in deep, deep cover. That person would probably say that he's worse off now. Hell, he'd probably be pissed off by the simple asking of the question........................................................ See what I say, though, about a yes-no question just not cutting it? And the bozo does it all the frigging time, folks. Pathetic, huh?

The Deepest Well in All of Wellesley, Neko Case

How did I ever live before Neko Case, folks? I'm serious here. And, yes, this is absolutely coming from a guy who's "master list" of favorites (female singer-songwriters, all) rules, is itself massive, legendary, etc.. I don't know, maybe it has to do with the fact that she has this simultaneous capacity to transport....and render, too. I mean, seriously, I can't even remember the last time that "Deep Red Bells" or "Maybe Sparrow" didn't make me want to rush toward it; something, a dream-like state at Sassy's, etc.. And, yes, folks, all along the wretched banks, those cheers and cheers for Neko. Talk about having your own cake and tripping on it later, huh? - something special, indeed!

Waterboard This, Bill

Bill O'Reilly, folks, he either doesn't read "Vanity Fair" or he does and simply disregards it (part of the liberal brain-trust, perhaps). Either way, he clearly hasn't mentioned a recent piece from that publication which unequivocally states that torture doesn't work. It gives crappy intelligence in fact. And, yes, it especially didn't work, the article goes on to say, when it was used on Khalid Sheik Muhammad - the mastermind (this, in direct opposition to what O'Reilly's been spouting).....................................................Of course, the reason that O'Reilly hasn't mentioned the article is probably because it quotes the actual practitioners of the policy. Yeah, that's right, folks, the people who actually carried out these "coercive" measures on Muhammad said that they didn't work on him (i.e., give us any actionable intelligence) . In fact, one of the guys went as far as to say that 90% of what Muhammad ultimately "gave up" was worthless (actually, I think they used a stronger term for it but, whatever).......................................................It's like, folks, I get it. I'd like to smack these guys around as much as anybody. But that's just because I can be an impudent SOB at times, not because I know what the hell I'm talking about. Leave that to the experts, I'm thinking. There. Now if only Mr. O'Reilly would show a similar level of self awareness, allow the interrogation experts to determine strategy, etc...........................................................P.S. I just thought of a good Christmas present for O'Reilly: a tackling dummy. Let him get his frustrations out on that. Hell, you could even spice it up and tell him it's a member of Al Qaeda. Youza, huh? What do you think?

Go Down Moses

It's clear, folks, that Barack Obama had (and, yes, still has, I'm sure) legions of ravenous supporters out there, all of whom no doubt helped him to victory this fall. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I've never seen anything quite like it, EVER! - this support of his. And I've been out there for a while, too. And while, yes, I hate to reduce any phenomena like this to an Ideal-Type analysis, unfortunately, there does seem to be a little something to it that just might warrant such a thing......................................................Take, for instance, the motivation of these folks. I don't know, but it seems to me that there are in fact two major groups among these hard-core Obamaites. Group number one sees (saw) Mr. Obama as a sort of savior of the liberal/progressive movement, a personification of liberalism itself. And, yes, they also see in Mr. Obama THE LEADER (of this movement), the very one that they've always wanted and, yes, through HIM, it ALL will come; justice, liberty, equality, etc. It's just a matter of time...........................................................As for the other group of staunch Obama supporters, they represent a somewhat different breed. While, yes, they obviously see Obama as a Democrat and, hence, probably liberal, they're seemingly driven far less by ideology. It doesn't matter whether Obama is a liberal, a moderate, or even a conservative Democrat. He's Obama....and that, my friends, is sufficient for them. They're not exactly sure how he's going to fix everything. They just have an undying faith that he somehow will. It's just as idealistic a mindset as the other group's, but it's far more directed toward the individual himself, not toward any specific creed he may or may not represent..........................................................Now, like I said, these are clearly ideal-types and, yes, we may in fact be working more toward a continuum here. All I'm saying is that there does seem to be that dichotomy out there and that I personally have witnessed it. Of course, it will be even more interesting to see how these two types end up reacting should Obama continue to deviate from form (i.e., moving to the middle). My hunch is that the first group will have a little more difficulty remaining loyal. I mean, just read a couple of the blogs already posted - a little bit of shit going down as we speak.

An Open and Shut Dead-End to Nowhere

O'Reilly always loves to bring up the fact that, once the war in Vietnam was over/American troops left that country for good, millions of people in that section of the world (Cambodia, southern Vietnam, especially) were slaughtered, forced to flee, etc.. America is a noble nation that tries to do noble things, he goes on to argue - one of which was to deliver freedom to South Vietnam. It was they, the Vietnamese government/people, who screwed it up, ultimately. This appears to be his basic thrust.........................................................Typical O'Reilly, in other words. This, I'm saying, in that whatever you happen to think of Bill's analysis here, his views on America's motivation, whether or not Vietnam was in fact a just war, etc., once again you sense a reticence to dig a little deeper. For instance, what, prey tell, is O'Reilly thinking here - that we SHOULDN'T have left Vietnam? I mean, certainly, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were despicable humans (the former, especially) and all but, what, we stay inside the quagmire indefinitely....just so we can delay what was going to happen inevitably? Oh, and, yes, let's not forget, we'd continue to lose hundreds and hundreds of our own guys EVERY MONTH - again, indefinitely. Yes, Mr. O'Reilly, what happened was a tragedy and the people who were responsible for it were thugs. But so, too, was the Vietnam War an unwinnable war/idiotic enterprise. Perhaps it would be advisable for you, especially, to occasionally come to this conclusion as well.

The Dialogue Was Aborted Long Ago

When it comes to the issue of abortion, folks, yeah, I suppose you'd probably have to call me a "pro-choice" guy. I mean, seriously, I just don't think it's feasible/appropriate (fill in whatever term you want here) for a society to mandate that a woman retain a pregnancy she doesn't want. We CERTAINLY don't want to go back to a time when women were forced to seek back-alley abortions, etc.. And then who do you frigging arrest here? The woman? the doctor? You see what I'm saying?.....................................................Of course, having said all this, I also want it understood that I fully respect those on the other side of the issue (abortion clinic bombers, etc., obviously excluded). This, I'm saying, in that, yes, whenever something that has it's own distinct beating heart is in fact "terminated", you're definitely edging into some difficult territory. To those who've said/implied that there ISN'T a moral argument on the pro-life side of this issue, you really have to wonder about them.........................................................And, yes, folks, it's because of this proclivity of mine to see the other side that I seek to find some compromises here, too. I mean, we all know about the restrictions (parental notification, mandated counseling, waiting periods, bans on partial birth abortion, etc. - some of which appear to be quite reasonable) and all. But what about contraception, too? Don't you think we need to be stressing prevention significantly more so? Not that this isn't a controversial subject in and of itself, mind you, but, come on, isn't it a hell of a lot more preferable than piles and piles of fetal carcases?....................................................And, no, NO, I wouldn't stop there, either. This, I'm saying, in that I would go as far as making RU486 (aka, the morning-after pill) an over the counter medication. I mean, I know that this is an even more controversial subject than birth-control to some - this, in that many on the religious far-right consider RU486 itself a form of abortion. But, clearly, folks, those folks aren't the types that are ever going to be in the mood to compromise anyway. My goal is to compromise with those who are at least in the mood to consider it. And, yes, believe it or not, I actually think that there might be a spate or two of folks out in the community who ARE willing to cooperate. Wishful thinking, perhaps?

Johnny One-Fart

As for Slade Leeds, though, that son of a bitch had nothing but a poop-shoot and a zinger. I swear to God! And even though that process of him dragging his own rutabaga through the swamps at Sassy's was itself imbecilic, so, too, was he wary of it, totally, for Christ! I mean, just take a look at his disrespect for the cherry-pickers. That's got to be the most bastardly display of cretinism ever, I'm thinking (not that I'm 100% certain, either - obviously).

Tighten the Belt, Not the Noose

First of all, folks, I have no idea what's going on with this financial crisis. I can barely pronounce some of the terms, for Christ! I mean, sure, I watch Hardball and CNBC, things like that, but all seems kind of murky. Everybody seems to think that they have the pre-eminent option, that they've most astutely connected the dots, etc.. They're all frigging talking Finnish to me.....................................................Actually, there's this one guy I've been seeing who does seem to make some sense. Congressman Pence from Indiana has said (from the start, I might add) that bailing out all of these companies is probably NOT going to help the economy - that to do so is merely to prop up inefficiency. And while everybody else has been debating bankruptcy versus a bailout for the big three auto-makers, Mr. Pence has taken a more sensible approach. His solution would be to mandate a court-ordered restructuring of the company - a process that would necessitate that both management and the workers sit down and make some compromises. I don't know, to me, this sounds like a process that could conceivably save both the company and the union....................................................Of course, it's probably something that isn't going to happen, right? It's not divisive enough. Oh well, here's to hoping that President Obama can make it happen. I think that I'm quoting him correctly when he said that, yes, "Republicans have good ideas, too." Did I mention that Pence is a Republican?

Yes, Folks, I'm FROM Connecticut but, STILL!!

While I hardly consider myself an expert on the subject, I think I've developed at least a rudimentary understanding of how major college athletics work. Take, for instance, all this hype surrounding the 2008 Heisman Trophy race. We're apparently down to three players; Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, and last year's winner, Tim Tebow. And, yes, folks, they're all incredibly worthy recipients. No problem with any of them. I just can't help but notice that they're all from powerhouse programs. And it almost ALWAYS seems to be that way. It's like, wouldn't it be nice if a player or two from outside the power structure got some ink/recognition, too?...........................................................For example, what about UConn's Donald Brown? For those of you who aren't aware of him, Donald Brown led the entire nation in rushing. He finished with 1,822 yards and 17 touchdowns. And he did this on a team that had perhaps one of the worst passing games in college football. He WAS the UConn offense. All you had to do was stop Brown and you stopped UConn. And, yes, folks, he still led the nation in rushing. To put it into some perspective here for you, if Donald Brown was a UConn basketball player, he'd probably be up for the player of the year award. He's been that frigging good. Not that he should necessarily win the Heisman, mind you, but he should have got a mention. That's all I'm saying.

Holy Crap!!

I know I'm a little late on this one, folks, but, yeah, it still kind of ticks me off some. Remember when everybody bitched and moaned about Phil Rizzuto not being in the Hall of Fame....and how the Veteran's Committee eventually caved in and put him there? Well, guess what, everybody, Phil Rizzuto doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. And he especially doesn't belong there if Maury Wills isn't in it. I mean, look at the most important stats between the two players. Wills had way more hits (2,134 to 1,588), way more runs scored 1,067 to 877), way more stolen bases (586 to 149), and a solidly better lifetime batting average (.281 to .273). Granted, Rizzuto had a few more homers (38 to 20) and R.B.I.s (563 to 458) but, being that neither one of these guys was built for power, these seem like minor differences. And, while, yes, "the scooter" did have a better lifetime fielding percentage (.968 to .963) than Wills, Wills covered way more ground and was clearly able to get to balls that Rizzuto couldn't. I don't know, folks, maybe Mr. Wills needs a legend or two from HIS era to step up and support him. This, I'm saying, in that that's what Mr. Rizzuto needed in order to get his overdue (supposedly) due, etc..

A Tax Simplification Plan

I've noticed, folks, that most conservatives tend to favor a flat income-tax. They feel that the more "successful" people in a society shouldn't be singled out in such a manner. They also feel that to do so acts as a major disincentive for economic growth - 1) in that it stifles an individual's motivation to succeed and 2) in that it feeds the growth of the federal government...................................................Liberals, they, on the other hand, tend to argue for a more graduated form of taxation (those on the higher end of the income spectrum having to pay a higher percentage of their income - in the form of taxes - to the government). They feel that these people, because they MAKE and Have more money, CAN and SHOULD pay a higher percentage. Some in fact have gone as far as to say that their doing so is a "patriotic" duty..................................................How 'bout this for a compromise, folks? We agree, conceptually, to the idea of a flat tax (20-30%, whatever the rate that would be revenue neutral). But, BUT, we make the first $30-50,000 of income that a person makes tax free. And then we make for no deductions/exemptions - zero, nada. You just pay a certain percentage of your income in taxes, and that's it. As for capital gains, interest, and dividends, you pay the same rate for those, as well (though, yes, I'd advocate that these be adjusted for inflation).........................................................You see what I'm saying about a compromise here? It's a flat tax, yes, but it has a liberal exemption for those on the lower end of the income scale. And so, too, it gets rid of all those nasty exemptions that have a tendency to benefit the richest amongst us. Add to that, it totally simplifies the tax code big time. What do you think?

A Little Non-Partisan Humor (And, Boy, Is it Ever Needed)

Look, folks, I know that a lot of you are angry with Dennis Miller (my liberal friends, especially); the fact that he's gone from being a liberal to a conservative, the fact that he apparently admires George W. Bush, etc.. But, I'm serious here, this guy, in my opinion, has come out with some of the best punch-lines in the history of "stand-up". Allow me the indulgence here of putting forth a couple of my personal favorites. 1) "The only thing I learned throughout the entire impeachment process is that CNN's Greta Van Susteran moves her mouth like Clutch Cargo." 2) (on the lengthy appeal process for death penalty cases) "It takes longer than it would take Porky Pig to sing 'Hey Jude'." 3) (regarding Shane Stant, the alleged "hit man" in the Nancy Kerrigan fiasco) "He had an alibi. He was spotted climbing out of some primordial morass, learning how to stand upright." 4) (on the Iranian President/madman, Ahmadinejad) "He's as unstable as Gary Busey with a clogged Eustachian tube." 5) (on the mostly tourist comprised audience of his doomed CNBC show) "The highlight of their day, prior to my show, was gazing at a chalk-outline of Sal Mineo." I guess that those are my top five picks, folks.

Magnets/Maggots

I'm telling you, though, Bradley Hadley - damned if he, too, wasn't just as big a stooge, for Christ! And, while, yes, indeed, it was just as clear that that penchant of his FOR RUTHLESSNESS was itself just as bold, absolutely, FOLKS!, it was his brain fartin' hard that ruled. I mean, just take a look at the way that that bastard, Leeds, Slade Leeds, had in fact taken to him, the way that he frothed so, at the mouth, inarticulately, etc.. THAT, to me at least, makes it an open and shut case - no pun being intended, of course.

Just Make 'Em Watch the Factor, For Christ!

Oh my God, he's at it again - O'Reilly. And, no, folks, I'm not even referring to that annual "there's a war on Christmas" crap he's been spewing again (I'm more than happy to let Olbermann waste his time with that one). I'm talking about this incredibly weird fixation of his on torture (oh, excuse me, coercive techniques)..................................................He continues, specifically, to peddle this highly dubious notion that torture in fact works - i.e., that it somehow yields consistently valuable/actionable intelligence, yada-yada. And, yes, he continues to use the highly discredited former C.I.A. director, George Tenet, as his main "source". "Coercive techniques have saved thousands of lives", O'Reilly continues to tell his audience...................................................Well, guess what, Mr. O'Reilly/Mr. O'Reilly's viewers. Torture (and, yes, this in fact WAS torture) at Abu Garib may in fact (hello!!) have COST AMERICAN LIVES!! Al Qaeda in Iraq (which, let's face it, was a tiny population prior to our invasion/occupation) was clearly able to utilize this event to swell its population dramatically. And correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've been thinking that those new recruits for Al Qaeda were doing a hell of a lot more than twiddling their thumbs in Baghdad, preening for the camera, etc..................................................I don't know, maybe O'Reilly just needs to talk to Matthew Alexander (an alias), a former interrogator (yes, he actually did the job, Mr. O'Reilly) who's written a book on the subject (yes, it's a fictional account but it clearly offers his insights). Alexander clearly explains how non-coercive measures have been far more effective than torture in garnering useful intelligence. He'd probably also be better at explaining to O'Reilly the long and short-term dangers of acting in manners commensurate with our enemies, and of how it reduces us to THEIR level, in particular. I don't know, folks, maybe O'Reilly just likes the concept of inflicting pain on people. I mean, seriously, that could actually be it, for Christ. Maybe? P.S. He also might want to talk to Generals Haynes and Eaton (a couple of heavyweights). They don't seem to be too enamored with torture, either.

Ambushes, Murders, and Lies About it Later....With Wolves

Leonard Peltier screwed up, folks. He participated in (along with Dino Butler and Bob Robideau) the execution-style killings of two defenseless/wounded men. And then he frigging lied about it. I mean, sure, that was a volatile time (1975) and place (Pine Ridge Indian Reservation) and all (atrocities committed on both sides) but, clearly, Peltier and his cohorts over-reacted, panicked, and eventually fled......................................................For those of you who don't know the narrative, two young F.B.I. agents (Jack Coler and Ronald Williams), in pursuit of a vehicle that they thought carried the fugitive, Jimmy Eagle, entered the Jumping Bull compound on the Pine Ridge Reservation. As they continued the pursuit, they met with a gauntlet/intensive gun-fire from a group of A.I.M. (American Indian Movement) activists. These agents were wounded immediately and, yes, because of this, were only able to return several rounds in return. At some point after this, Peltier, Butler, and Robideau approached the vehicles and, no doubt fearing that these men would live to tell their story, unloaded point-blank several rounds into their heads. They then, of course, fled and one of the great man-hunts of the 20th century occurred. Butler and Robideau were arrested and tried first (they were ultimately acquitted on grounds of self-defense). Peltier was ultimately extradited from from Canada where he faced a separate trial. Not content to beat the rap simply on a self-defense plea, Peltier and his defense team instead put up a bunch of smoke-screens. Among them was the creation of a fictional character (the supposed real killer), Mr. X. Needless to say, the jury didn't buy it and Peltier was convicted of murder and sentenced to consecutive life terms in prison (life sucks, huh, Mr Peltier?).........................................................And like I said, folks, so, too, has this fellow lied and lied repeatedly. He claimed that this whole episode was part and parcel to a larger gun-fight between the F.B.I. and A.I.M.. Wrong!! It was an ambush. The other F.B.I. agents arrived on the scene significantly later. He initially said that he knew the identity of Mr. X - his refraining from naming him coming strictly out of honor. He now says he has no idea at all who the real Mr. X is - only that there is one. He claims that a group of innocent people (holed up in a house) were caught in the cross-fire in what was essentially an even-Steven battle. Wrong on both accounts. There were no people at all between the agents' vehicles and the bluff from which Peltier and company started raining bullets on them. And neither was it an even-Steven exchange. Inspection of the vehicles showed that 125 bullets had hit them (dozens more were probably fired and missed). It's also clear that the agents returned only limited fire (only a couple of bullets per man were missing from their rounds). I could go on but I won't. Hopefully, you've already gotten the message...........................................................Of course, none of these facts seem to matter to that legion of bleeding hearts, all apparently supporting this fellow - everybody from the actor, Robert Redford to the Reverend Jesse Jackson (yeah, the usual suspects). And you know what, I'm not necessarily opposed to giving Mr. Peltier a break, either. That was an extraordinarily tense period in which a lot of people (the F.B.I. included) over-reacted, lost their heads, etc.. My only point is that maybe Mr. Peltier needs to show some honor here and admit to what he did. As far as I'm concerned, there's clearly a statute of limitations on martyrdom - Mr. Peltier's running out many, many, MANY, "moons" ago.

He May Be a Bad Student...., Part Two

Just for the record, folks, I did a correlation coefficient on the Biden versus McCain class rankings comparison. As it turns out, if in fact here WERE 1,099 law students at Syracuse (the number of cadets in McCain's class at Navy), Biden's rank would have been 982nd. So, yeah, Biden would have come out better than McCain. But I don't know, 982nd doesn't sound ALL that much better than 1,094th.................................................As for Biden's ranking coming in law school, and this supposedly meaning more than McCain's stint at Navy, a couple of points. First of all, this was Syracuse Law School. A good school, but it isn't exactly Yale, Harvard, Penn, Cornell, or Columbia. And, while, yes, Syracuse is a damn decent school and all, 76th out of 85th - kind of hard to spin your way out of that one. He's a lawyer, for Christ!! You know how wany lawyers there are out there? Just in my little area alone, the Yellow Pages are full of them...................................................And another thing, folks. The Naval Academy is probably a little more challenging than the University of Delaware, the place where Biden got HIS undergraduate degree. And, yes, when Biden finally did make his way to Syracuse, McCain had a little something else going on. I think it was called Vietnam (something that Mr. Biden apparently didn't feel the need to participate in).

Dialogue/Soliloquy

Seriously, though, why the hell does Keith Olbermann even bother to have guests? This, I'm saying in that whenever I happen to watch his show, he always has a bunch of folks on who basically answer HIS questions....the same frigging way that he frigging would................................................Just take tonight (11/26/08), for example. He had Jonathan Alter from Newsweek on and, yeah, you better be believing it, folks, Mr. Alter gave Mr. Olbermann exactly what Mr. Olbermann wanted. I think the question was basically, "do the last eight years completely repudiate conservative economic policies?" - something like that. Nice, huh? - Jonathan's response of course being, "well, obviously, Keith." And, yes, folks, that was basically that................................................Now don't get me wrong here. Mr. Olbermann is certainly entitled to his opinion and all (hell, I even agree with him from time to time) but, hey, don't you think we might want to flush some of this stuff out a little more? Like, I don't know, instead of having somebody like Alter ricocheting back to Olbermann Olbermann's party-line, answering the above question in this manner: "I don't know, Keith. It definitely repudiates the policies of this particular Republican president/congress (though, please, Keith, keep in mind, the Dems have controlled the congress since'06). To go beyond that, though, I think you first have to ask yourself the following. Were the policies that this Republican president followed necessarily conservative ones? I mean, just the out of control spending alone would lead me to have some doubts."...................................................Oh, and, yeah, maybe then throw a little Jimmy Carter back at him. "And then there's Jimmy Carter. He and the Democratic congress of his era had 19% interest rates, a 12% inflation rate, unemployment up the poop-shoot, etc.. Did that scenario necessarily represent a repudiation of LIBERAL economic policies (liberals, of course, saying that Jimmy Carter wasn't a liberal)? No, huh? You do see what I'm saying, though, Keith, right?.....................................................I don't know, that's how I would have answered it anyway.

He May Be a Bad Student But He's Our Bad Student

I don't know, folks, to me, irony is ALWAYS beautiful. Of course, it's probably at its most exquisite when those on the receiving end are essentially lunatics, stooges, a bunch of self-satisfied bastards, etc.. Take, for instance, what's recently happened over at Lydia's. For months those lunatics have feasted on the well known fact that John McCain was hardly a stellar student at the Naval Academy, the fact that he finished fifth from the bottom of his class, etc.. And, yes, of course, they're always contrasting this aspect of McCain's resume to the fact that their guys, Obama and McCain, are flat-out geniuses....................................................Well, guess, what, folks, while Joe Biden may in fact be a genius of sorts (based, I gather, on one of the intellectual assessments used to determine such things), he wasn't exactly a great law school student at Syracuse. According to the research I've done, Biden only finished 76th out of a class of 85. Not quite as bad a ranking as McCain had, mind you, but, still, that's pretty piss-poor when compared to others in the field.......................................................Of course, when I pointed this little tidbit out to the lunatics over there, the response was as it always is - spinning, laced with pure bellicosity. And the thing is, folks, I could hardly give a rat's-ass about any of this. I could care less about any of their class rankings. My only concern is whether or not these politicians put forth a coherent message (McCain and Biden both ranked near the bottom of the the class in this regard). But you do see what I'm saying about irony, though, right, the fact that I couldn't help BUT to tweak the SOBs, etc.?

Dirty White Noise

I swear to God, folks, there was nothing - nothing but a blunt-faced bull-session, for Christ! And the fact that each of these stooges had had a myriad of their own "accomplishments"/were themselves AS preposterous, damned if that didn't add to it, too, damn it!! Of course, the fact that Slade Leeds had himself been amped to the surface at Sassy's, tarred and feathered, ridiculed, and what-not, might it not have been just enough for me NOT to laugh? I mean, come on, folks, we've got to leave a little something for humanity, no? Seriously.

Chin-Strap Reporting

I don't know, folks, to me, of all the various aspects to this year's elections, it had to be the press-coverage of Sarah Palin that truly revealed just how divisive it was. Take, for instance, the disparate coverage that this woman got on the various cable news networks. I cite, specifically, Fox and MSNBC....................................................On Fox (and, yes, especially if a person only watched Fox), the impression that one would get is that Palin is purely and strictly a victim. If in fact she's made any mistakes, they pale in comparison to the vicious/one-sided onslaught that this left-leaning press of ours has delivered; a press that was prone to despise her from the get (the fact that she's a conservative Christian, a staunch pro-life woman, all of it).....................................................Contrast this, of course, to the treatment that MSNBC gave her. I mean, just Keith Olbermann alone, for Christ (not that Olbermann himself is religious, mind you, but, I'm telling you, that son of a bitch was touting her as the frigging anti-Christ)!! Man, did he/they ever go after her....................................................Bottom-line, folks, these two rump cable news organizations have officially entered the fray. And, yes, any attempts to garner unbiased coverage/reporting must, by necessity, circumvent them - unfortunately.

Obnoxious, Moronic, and Paranoid is no Way to Go Through Life, Son

Not only is Bradley Hadley a nincompoop, folks, he's a bald-faced lying cracker as well. And, yes, me-buckos, even those bogus elements of his shiftlessness/tweaking, damned if nary a sharp-shooter could have ever resisted/plead. I mean, think about it. This guy couldn't even get the facts straight over his own anemic "resurgence", for Christ! How the hell could he even begin to decipher truth/legitimacy? Oh, and, did I mention, this stooge happens to be a nincompoop, too?

Scriptural Rupture

If somebody ever asked me to come up with a Ten Commandments of politics, how 'bout this one for starters; Thou shalt not engage in idolatry? Yeah, huh? I mean, don't get me wrong here, folks. This Obama guy looks like he actually might have the goods to be an effective leader (I especially like what appears to be a pragmatic side). He's obviously got a good head on his soldiers and, yes, I'm hoping against hope that he's learned from the mistakes of previous presidents (from McKinley all the way to Bush Jr.). But, seriously, don't you think that some of this adulation has often been a tad over the top? I've already documented instances where I think he's acted out of pure political expediency. And now he's actually thinking about putting Hillary Clinton in charge of the State Department. I don't know, to me, that sounds a lot more like the politics of "same" than it does the politics of "change" (nothing against Hillary, per se - she just needs to be in charge)...................................................And, I'm telling you, if you don't think that there's idol worship out there for Obama, just try criticizing him, putting forth an objection or two to one of his flock, etc.. I mean, you want to talk about people "losing it"? And I'm not even talking about harsh criticism, either. Hell, folks, some of the Obamaites I'd actually go as far as comparing to George W. Bush (how's that for some irony, huh?); "you're either with us or against us", etc.. Talk about scary, huh - a bunch of grown-up people putting their minds on hold like this?...................................................Speaking of which, perhaps these folks have already put forth their own Ten Commandments of politics; Thou shalt not be critical of Barack Obama - numero uno, obviously!!

The People/Lunatics Have Spoken

The results of these elections aren't surprising, folks - seriously. And, no, you really don't need to be a partisan liberal, either, to say that they're probably justifiable, too. Not only have the Republicans screwed up for much of the past eight years (though, yes, perhaps with an assist from Barney Frank and Chris Dodd over the final two), they also fielded a candidate for president, John McCain, who ran as dismal a campaign as any in recent memory. The guy (along with his running-mate, of course) basically didn't deserve to win. No argument from this blogger on any of it..................................................Of course, what I did find perplexing (though, no, not really, we are talking politics here) was the absolute bile that was summoned by the left (the extremists, I'm saying) in their attacks on Mr. McCain. I mean, seriously, of all the Republicans to treat like a piece of garbage - I don't know, I would have thought that McCain to have been pretty far down on such a list. Sure, he did some flip-flopping in order to get the Republican nod and all and, yes, ran a negative campaign of his own but, still, who among Republicans has crossed the aisle to work with Democrats more than McCain has? I can't think of many....................................................And, no, folks, it hasn't been on a bunch of easy/consensus issues that McCain has made these compromises. He's worked with Democrats on such contentious issues as climate change, torture, campaign finance, immigration, a patients' bill of rights, gun control, Indian affairs, etc.. Oh, and let's not forget, either, that McCain was one of the prime movers on that "gang of fourteen" (the bipartisan group in the Senate that fought to retain the filibuster option regarding court appointments)....................................................And you know what really surprised me, folks? A lot of this working across the aisle that McCain's been doing has actually taken place SINCE 2005 - the time he was seemingly moving to the right (yes, yes, I know, the 90% but, please, read on). Of all the legislation that McCain has introduce over the past three years, 55% of those times he's had a Democratic co-sponsor. Compare this to President-Elect Obama - who, when he has put forth legislation, has only sought a Republican co-sponsor 13% of the time. And when he did have a Republican co-sponsor, the legislation was usually of a non-contentious nature; ethics reform, loose "nukes", stuff like that...............................................So, yeah, while I do agree with those who say that the Republicans were undeserving of re-election, that McCain himself ran a lousy/"push the envelope" enterprise, no, I just couldn't wrap my arms around the vitriol. Sorry - flip-flops or no flip-flops........................................................P.S. Obviously, folks, I'd be remiss if I didn't also say that the right has had its own field day. They've accuse Mr. Obama of being everything from a Muslim (which isn't exactly an insult, if you think about it) to a drug addict to the illegitimate great grandchild of Friedrich Engels (oh, alright, I made that one up). They've taken some of the more peculiar associations of his and, instead of seeing them in a more benign light (i.e., as simple attempts to further his political career), tried to derive something sinister about them (Sean Hannity, anybody?)......................................................The reason I focused on McCain here is that this is a fellow who, for a while, was considered a de-facto Democrat, a man who used to thumb his nose at his own party, and who John Kerry actually wanted as his running mate in '04. I don't know, I guess I just found it amazing how quickly a lot of these old "friends" of his took an about-face on him. That's all.

Where the Hell is Dana Carvey When You Need Him?

Senator Al Franken????? Oh hell, why not? The country seems to be going down the tubes anyway. Why the hell not add a little slice of comic-relief, a man sized dose of absurdity, etc.? Granted, I would have greatly preferred Dana Carvey or Phil Hartmann (God rest that poor fellow's soul, huh?). This, I'm saying, in that at least those comedians did impressions (ever see Carvey's impressions of Ross Perot and the first President Bush? - hilarious, huh?), too. But, hey, the "Al Franken Decade", "Stuart Smalley", that was some pretty good stuff as I recall. And during these hard times, I will absolutely take it, my friends. Oh, wait a minute, he actually will be casting votes, huh? Yikes! In the words of Miss Emily Littella, "never mind".

Seemingly Fair/Balanced

While I'm not sure what to make of it, folks, it sure as hell seemed as if Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, and Morton Kondracke were bending over backwards, trying to be nice/complimentary to Obama (this, in response to his press conference last week - 11/7/08). Please, feel free to insert some "Twilight Zone" music here..................................................Seriously, though, I suppose it could have been sincere and all, trying to give the new president-elect the benefit of the doubt - whatever. But, still, I couldn't help but wonder, could this entire thing be a charade (oh my God, the Cliffster's wearing off on me - get ME to a shrink!!), a fabricated base-line of fair play or something. They want us to think that they're fair, that they're actually giving this Obama fellow a break. And, THEN, once they've established this base-line, BOOM, they're all over the guy, pressing him/his flesh to the grind-stone, holding him "accountable", etc...............................................Oh well, whatever it was, it was actually kind of nice to see - them saying that a Democrat was doing well for himself, wasn't a threat to Western Civilization, etc..

Words Can Be Dissected, Too

I guess another thing about Obama that bugs me is his terminology at times. Take, for instance, this whole tax-cut notion of his. He's promise to give 95% of Americans an income tax cut. Of course, what he doesn't explain to us is that 40% of Americans pay NO income tax. Or that, therefore, the money/reimbursement that these folks would be getting wouldn't exactly be an income tax, per se, but an entitlement.....................................................And, no, folks, I'm not necessarily saying that this is a bad idea (maybe those lower income folks DO need some help). I could probably be persuaded either way. I'm just saying that we should call a spade a spade here. If you want to give people an entitlement, tell them, "I'm giving you an entitlement." Don't try and insult their intelligence/try to sell the rest of us a bill of goods at Sassy's. That ain't even close to being presidential. P.S. And, yes, McCain certainly did his fair-share of pandering, too. In fact/like I said before, this whole election seemed like a pander fest at times. Yeah, huh, like I should have expected something different. LOL

Oh Hell, Just Give Me a Bush Beer

For me, folks, the election basically came down to "Bush-Lite" versus "Uber-Bush" - with me ultimately deciding on the former. Yeah, that's right, I cast my vote for Senator Obama...............................................Not that I'm feeling ALL that great about it, mind you. I basically picked him over a guy who couldn't differentiate between the rival sects in Iraq, yucked it up about the possibility of bombing its neighbor, Iran, and who actually thinks that some sort of traditional victory is still a possibility in Iraq (oh, and, yeah, he thought that the fundamentals of the economy were sound/Sarah Palin was the best available V.P. choice). I mean, it was better than Obama's first victory back in '04 (over the idiot, Alan Keyes) but, still, nothing really special (actually, he did run a pretty good campaign)........................................................Why was my support for Obama not more enthusiastic, you ask? Let's see. Well, first of all, the guy's foreign policy kind of scares me. He has on many occasions talked of leaving a large residual force in Iraq (up to 80,000 troops, according to the New York Sun) - a position that I find rather shaky. I mean, think about it. What if all hell starts breaking loose? Those troops are going to be extremely vulnerable.....................................................And then there's his assertion that, if in fact the above contingency happens, he will be unhesitent to "go back in". Yeah, that's right. He has said that he would be willing to re-invade Iraq. Youza, huh? I mean, yeah, I can understand the moral argument for it and all (we broke it, it's ours, etc.) but, still...................................................... Perhaps, though, the scariest thing that Obama has put for is his willingness to send either troops or missiles into Pakistan. Now, don't get me wrong here. I want to get bin Laden and Al Qaeda as much as anybody. But going in to a sovereign nation without their permission, and especially when the new president of that country has threatened retaliation, I don't know, folks, that sounds more than a little wreckless to me.......................................................I do have other reservations about Obama but I think that that's enough for now. Later.

Plucking Out a Few Good Moments

The campaign is over, folks - mercifully. I would, however, like to give kudos to each candidate for a couple of good points that they made toward the end................................................On the Obama front, I felt he really put the whole Ayers thing in perspective when he noted that, yes, there were in fact Republicans on that educational board, too. In fact (and, yes, I believe that he pointed this out, too), wasn't the whole board itself started/financed by a Republican? Why the Obama campaign, in general (not to mention Obama's supporters in the media), didn't continuously hammer away at this point, I don't think that I'll ever know the answer to that. I mean, don't you think that it might have slowed down the vitriol a tad?....................................................McCain's good point near the end involved the program, Head Start. He said (during an overall discussion on spending) that, while, yes, Head Start is in many ways a noble program, its overall effectiveness has clearly been questioned by researchers. The gains (he goes on to say) that a lot of these children make are lost by the third grade (lack of parental involvement, bad schools, whatever the reason). Does it necessarily make sense (McCain's point continues) to throw more money at a program that isn't getting good results? Not really, right?....................................................And, yes, for McCain to have made THAT point (instead of pandering - something he had clearly been doing up to that point) at THAT juncture of the campaign - I think that that took some courage, frankly. It's kind of too bad he didn't show more of that candor on the campaign trail. He might have ended up doing better.

Germs Heading South

I was listening to O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg the other night, folks (forgot the date), and, yeah, all I could do was scratch my head. News Flash - they're still nuts!! I mean, sure, they do from time to time put forth some decent analysis (the mainstrem media seemingly favoring Obama, etc.)....and are even amusing on occasion. But the hyperbole, though - damned if that doesn't ruin it even more consistently ("they're ALL cheer-leading for Obama", "they're ALL in the tank for the Senator", "they're ALL taking it up the poop-shoot for Obama", whatever!). At least it does for me...................................................And, of course, they're still maintaining that mantra of theirs that the Fox News Network is fair and balanced. Their current emphasis is that Fox has just as many liberals on the air as they do conservatives; equal representation, yada-yada...............................................I mean, talk about deceptive, huh? First of all, I don't think that it's necessarily true. And even if it were, it's the conservatives who always get the top-billing/their own shows; "Hannity's America" (Sean Hannity), "Fox and Friends" (all conservatives), "The O'Reilly Factor" (Bill O'Reilly), "Huckabee" (Mike Huckabee), "Your World" and "Cavuto on Business" (Neil Cavuto), "Special Report" (Brit Hume). Even Laura Ingraham and Paul Gigot have landed gigs, apparently....................................................And like I've said many times before, the liberals that they do get are almost always ineffectual. They're either off-the-charts lunatics like that Temple professor/human pinata of theirs, or they're frigging moderates/easily co-opted talking-heads like Juan Williams or Mort Kondracke. It's not exactly fair and balanced, in other words.................................................Of course, the most damning evidence of all is the fact that these liberals are always on the defensive. And if you don't believe me, folks, just watch one of these shows of theirs. I swear to God, practically every single one of their stories is something that makes the Democrats look bad (to which, of course, they have to defend themselves). There's practically no dirt-digging on the Republicans at all................................................Bottom-line, folks, O'Reilly and Goldberg are flat-out full of crap. At least they are on this issue. And, no, the fact that MSNBC and the New York Times are just as bad in the other direction - that doesn't mitigate it, either. If you say you're fair and balanced, then you sure as hell better be that - period, end of discussion.

Bolshevik Nation

We've had, folks, since the 1910s, a graduated income-tax. And, yes, a grand total of sixteen presidents have presided over this particular structure; nine of which have been Republicans. Are we led to believe that all sixteen of these presidents have had at least some socialistic leanings? I mean, seriously, if one of the criteria is that of putting a disproportionate burden on the upper-class for revenues/taxation, then, yeah, you'd probably have to believe so................................................In fact, everybody but Steve Forbes (among recent presidential candidates), Mr. Flat-Tax, you'd probably have to put into this infamous category. Add to that the whole Earned Income Tax Credit thing (another Republican approved policy) and, man/boy, do we ever have a bunch of "commies" down there in Washington...............................................Look, folks, Obama absolutely DID put his foot in his mouth (again, some might say) with that "spread the wealth" comment. But, really, his plan to alter an already graduated income-tax by a mere 3.5% (that being the increased burden for those on the top), basically getting it back to where it was in the 90s, I don't think that that alone constitutes Marxism, socialism, etc...................................................Granted, the fellow might screw up in other regards; the economy in general, foreign policy-wise, etc.. But, no, I don't think that he's going to be turning us into Sweden over-night. And, besides, even if he tries to over-reach in any significant way, he'll probably end up losing Congress in 2010 - and maybe even his own job two years later. We do still have elections, right? I mean, even a Marxist would have trouble stopping those, I would think.

A Crazy Seed, Period

To be honest about it, folks, I don't think that that "Island Rage" was even a factor with Leeds, his having a precipitous demise at Sassy's, Garvin's, etc.. I mean, think about it, everybody! Was there not FROM THE START....at least a trace of that silly-putty nature? I, for one, am purely thinking so....................................................P.S. And, no, I'm not even counting those times that he peed through his britches at Hightower. That, I'm afraid to say, is an all-together different scenario (him having the capacity to be such a nimrod, a douche-bag, etc. and twisting it up big time!).

Dotting the I, Crossing (Moving) the Muslim

Barack Obama's most ardent supporters are always quick to point out that their candidate is a new breed of politician, that he goes about his business differently, less partisanly (post-partisan, I believe is the term that they use), etc.. And, yes, in many ways the guy truly has been a breath of fresh air (in an inspirational sense, at the very least). But, I'm also telling you, folks, so, too, have I seen some confounding evidence here/things that lead me to believe that, yes, he is in fact quite typical; his move to the center once he got the nomination, his decision not to go with public financing, stuff like that...................................................Of course, if you're bound and determined not to believe me/continue to think that this young man is a heroic figure, then what about this? Remember when Obama was about to give a speech, and his handlers saw those two Muslim women in scarves seated behind him, and how, before the speech got started/the television cameras started to roll, those two women were asked to move? Yeah?......................................................I mean, talk about acting out of PURE political expediency, accepting the roll of a typical politician, etc.. I think it was that that cued it for me, folks/led me to believe that Barack Obama is in fact quite typical, after all......................................................P.S. Not that this was a bad "strategic" move to make. This, I'm saying, in that it probably would have looked bad to have the candidate being in such a close proximity to Muslim looking individuals. My only beef is that it wasn't in any way a new/courageous way of dealing with the problem (not to imply that Muslim-Americans are necessarily/inherently a "problem", of course). That's all.

Unbalanced Sheets

There's this thing that's been floating around the Internet lately. It asks a bunch of hypothetical what-if questions. Some of these questions are, what if Barack Obama ranked fifth from the bottom at the Naval Academy?, what if Barack Obama cheated on and ultimately divorced his recently disfigured wife?, stuff like that (stuff, in other words, that make Obama look magnificent and McCain significantly less so - a chump, basically)..................................................Kind of an interesting line of attack, wouldn't you say? Is it fair? Yeah, I guess it's fair. I mean, they aren't necessarily fabricating anything here. Obama DOES have some good points that need to be stressed and McCain some weaknesses. But it also must be stated that the McCain campaign could just as easily play this game, too. For example, what if John McCain had uttered the phrase, "typical" black people? What if John McCain had started a run for the presidency less than two years into his Senate career? What if John McCain had broken a promise about taking public financing for his campaign? What if John McCain had voted "present" 130 times as a member of the Illinois State Senate? What if John McCain had attended a church for 20 years where the pastor at least occasionally uttered anti-American rhetoric? What if, indeed.......................................................P.S. Just for the record, I think that all of this is idiotic. It's idiotic for Obama supporters to be doing it. And, yes, it would be just as idiotic for the McCainiacs to be doing it. The bottom-line is that BOTH of these guys, while they're no doubt decent fellows over-all, are extremely flawed as candidates. Our job tomorrow will be to pick out the one that is least objectionable. For me, I don't know, I guess that that choice will probably be Obama.

An Order of Wisdom, Please

As you all know, folks, Eisenhower remains one of my favorite Presidents. In terms of rankings, I'd put him at either 5 or 6 (I flip-flop Eisenhower and Kennedy frequently). So, yes, it pleased me greatly to stumble upon this quote by Fareed Zakaria, a quote that more articulately states this admiration than I could, clearly. "Perhaps the wisest American president during the cold war was Dwight Eisenhower, and his greatest virtues were those of balance, judgement, and restraint. He knew we were in a contest with the Soviet Union, but - at a time when the rest of the country was vastly inflating the threat - he put it in considerable perspective. Eisenhower refused to follow the French into Vietnam or support the British at Suez. He turned down several requests for new weapons systems and missiles, and instead used defense dollars to build the interstate highway system and make other investments in improving America's economic competitiveness. Those are the kinds of challenges that the next president truly needs to address." Senators McCain, Obama, are you listening?...........................................................P.S. Look, I know that Eisenhower wasn't perfect. His strategy to install that miserable Shah in Iran, in particular, was especially wrong-headed (hell, we're still paying for that one). But overall, he showed a hell of a lot more restraint than many of those who preceded/followed. That is FOR sure.

No Traps Here

I don't know, folks, it just seems that whenever I compliment O'Reilly for his fairness, he screws it all up by reverting back to form. I mean, seriously, did you see his show tonight (10/20/08)? He trots out (uninterruptedly, mind you) Byron York from the National Review, semi-regular Laura Ingraham, and, yes, that idiotic Congresswoman from Minnesota, Michelle Bachman - she, who fears that Barack Obama may in fact hold anti-American views....and who thinks that the media should investigate the rest of the Democrats in Congress for similar sentiments................................................And it was all so vintage, folks - the Bachman interview, in particular. First of all, O'Reilly used the opportunity to get off a few of his obligatory/choice slams at MSNBC (the network where Bachman made these comments)/the rest of the liberal "mainstream media" (opinions that the guest was all too willing to lap up, by the way)................................................Two, O'Reilly served up his usual cache of softball questions (going out of his way not to unduly stress/embarrass his Republican guest). He even let her serve up, absent even a modicum of resistance, her ludicrous excuse that Chris Matthews tricked her ....and that Chris Matthews is a "leftist".....................................................And then, of course, there had to be that whole partial presentation of the story strategy that Fox so consistently specializes in. In this case, they showed the part where Bachman said how she feared that Obama may in fact harbor anti-American views....but NOT the part where she said it would be a good idea for the media to investigate ALL the Democrats in Congress for THEIR potential anti-American views..................................................Bottom-line, folks, O'Reilly let Bachman slide/didn't even come close to telling his audience that this woman basically hung herself. It was a very disappointing performance by O'Reilly and, yes, seriously makes me reconsider whether in fact he really is trying to be fair, after all. It's kind of too bad. I was really hoping he had changed.

Major Avoidance

It surprised me, folks, to learn that Biden, from 11/63 to 1/68, received a grand-total of five student-draft deferments (deferments, obviously, that kept him from having to serve in Vietnam). It also surprised me to learn that this was the some number that Vice President Dick Cheney received roughly during the same period (actually, Cheney is two years older than Biden and, because of this, his chances of having to serve during the more intensified parts of the carnage were LESS). I also learned (and here's where it gets real good) that Biden, once he finally graduated from Law School, ultimately received a medical diagnosis of asthma (no prior diagnosis or record of treatments could I find) - a diagnosis that conveniently made him medically ineligible for service, period........................................................Do I have a problem with any of this. No, not really. I mean, who the hell (other than the most patriotic among us) in his right mind wanted to go to Vietnam (not just a war, mind you, but a stupid/needless one), for Christ? I just thought that the parallels to Cheney were kind of interesting. Granted, Cheney supposedly supported the war and, even after 1966 (the year he turned 25), he still could have enlisted. But, damn it, I didn't think that whether or not a person supported a war was necessarily a grounds for avoiding it. And the fact that we've had such a litany of these pols (Cheney, Bush, Quayle, Clinton, Dean, Biden), who seemingly had other "priorities" during Vietnam and who left that war to the poorest among us - I just find it kind of revealing, that's all..................................................P.S. While it may be true that Biden was against the war in Vietnam, let us NOT forget that in 2002 he voted to give George W. Bush what amounted to a blank-check; a blank-check that Bush used to get us involved in Iraq. Four thousand American deaths later....................................................P.S. 2 Seriously, though, am I the only one who finds it curious that Biden went all through high-school, college, his times as a life-guard, and, finally, law-school, and never seemingly sought help for this supposed asthma? I don't know, folks, it sounds at least a little fishy to me.

Snake-Oil Salesmen In Chief

I think, folks, that we can officially start calling this, not an election, but a pander-fest, instead. I mean, seriously, what in the bluest-blazes else could you possibly call it? You got this Obama calling for nearly a trillion dollars in new spending, tax-cuts for "95%" of Americans (please, keep in mind that 40% of Americans currently pay NO income-tax), and God knows what else. Even McCain, who so consistently prides himself for his fiscal conservatism, has been throwing out promises; 300 billion in relief to troubled home-owners, corporate tax-cuts, etc...............................................I don't know, folks, did these two characters just not get the memo or something (a ten trillion dollar debt, 500 billion dollar deficits, etc.)? I mean, I know that they both want to get elected and all but, seriously, this is starting to get ridiculous. And if you don't believe me, just check out any of the non-partisan groups (The Concord Coalition, for example) that specialize in this stuff (taxes, the deficit, etc.). They'll flat-out tell you that both of these guys, if elected, will no doubt add billions (possibly hundreds of billions) to the deficit.................................................Now, granted, these guys (once elected) may in fact end up finding religion. They'll see the situation as it is and, yes, take to scaling things back a notch or two. Not that this is a guarantee, mind you, but at least it's a place where we can hang our hats for a while. It's something, in other words - not exactly chump-change in this day and age.

Adios Muchacho

I don't know about you, folks, but I've had more than my fair-share of these punch-drunk "fighting men" - experiencing them, etc.. And the fact that each and every one of them (the punch-drunk ones, I'm saying) has had a thought that THIS sun, our sun, rises/falls straight up, that they can frigging dis you constantly, absent consequences - double THAT, I'm saying. Of course, the way that they fuse this asinine mixture of theirs (one part perceived self-importance, two parts paranoia), that, me-buckos, has to be the most infuriating facet, period. I mean, just take a look at this Slade Leeds character, for Christ! Talk about a major-league son-of-a-bitch, huh?

Female Singer-Songwriters Better Than Madonna

Patty Griffin, Patty Larkin, Nanci Griffith, Lucinda Williams, Emmylou Harris, Neko Case, Carlene Carter, Joni Mitchell, Victoria Williams, Kathleen Edwards, Bonnie Raitt, Kim Richey, Maria McKee, Patti Scialfa, k.d. Lang, Lucy Kaplansky, Darr Williams, Gillian Welch, Iris DeMent, Rosie Flores, Katy Moffatt, Ani DiFranco, Carrie Newcomer, Matraca Berg, Patty Loveless, Kelly Willis, Allison Moorer, Rosanne Cash, Shawn Colvin, Beth Orton, Beth Nielsen Chapman, Linda Thompson, Tift Merritt, Sue Foley, Susan Werner, Lynn Miles, Chrissie Hynde, Rhonda Vincent, Kate Wolf, Rickie Lee Jones, Shelby Lynne, Eliza Gilkyson, Claire Lynch, Julie Miller, Kasey Chambers................................I could probably keep going but I think I've made my point here.

Issue This

I'd like to take a few minutes, if I might, to defend political moderation. I'd especially like to dispel the notion that this philosophy is somehow a mamby-pambish/cut-the-difference mindset of people lacking principles, etc............................................First of all, a political moderate doesn't necessarily take a moderate position on every single issue. Take this particular moderate (a.k.a., me), for example. I'm a 100% supporter of gay-rights, including gay-marriage (not civil-unions, Mr. Obama, gay-marriage!) AND military service. Contrast this with an equally firm belief that we should absolutely be drilling for oil in ANWR. Nothing mamby-pambish there, is there? Add to that the fact that I 1) support government funding for stem-cell research and 2) oppose Federal minimum-wage laws and, well, you kind of get the picture (issues looked at individually/absent partisan preconception, etc.).................................................Of course, the fact that we do from time to time try and reach a consensus through compromise, is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, isn't that the essence of how a lot of important things (environmental legislation, civil-rights legislation) usually get done? And, besides, can you really imagine a country where the extremes in either party controlled the agenda totally? I certainly can't.

Pinkish Purple Hearts

Prior to 1981, the policy of the military was to detain, AT THEIR DISCRETION, anybody suspected of homosexual activity. An important off-shoot of this policy was something called the "queen for a day" rule. This rule stated that a person accused of homosexuality could in fact remain in the service, but only if they could successfully claim that their behavior was a singular occurrence (they had to lie, in other words). I mean, talk about homophobia, huh? Granted, this was a fairly difficult period for gays, in general, but, really, making a grown man "queen for a day", that kind of speaks for itself, don't you think? I think it does.

A Fading Brand

I have a feeling, folks, that once this election is history, Senator McCain is going to have some major regrets about this campaign he's been waging. I mean, think about it. This is a fellow who, once upon a time, was probably the most respected politician in the country - on both sides of the aisle. Hell, if anything, he was probably more respected/popular amongst the Democrats in Congress. And now it's all going to be gone, all of it - all because of this mean-spirited/pandering campaign that he/his supporters have waged. I don't know. I just find it all kind of sad.............................................Of course, what's even more sad is that this guy is a 72 year-old cancer survivor who probably won't have a lot of time to resurrect himself (ala, say, Barry Goldwater did after his defeat - not to say that Goldwater ever went this negative, mind you). I mean, he does seem like the type of guy (a person with a conscience, in other words) that would want to, doesn't he? I'm thinking he is.

Postmaster "General"

I don't know, though, I think that if anybody ever took a gun to the top of that clock-tower, it would probably be that son-of-a-bitch, Leeds. I mean, just take a look at the way that he pounds those nimble little fingers on his weenie, for Christ, the fact that he tars and feathers even those that take a slightly different turn, etc.. That, I'm asking you. Oh, and let's not forget, either, the bellicosity of his battle-cry, "Death to those lily-livered cowards who NEVER served!!" That, I'm afraid to say, is the clearest signal here - the clearest signal of all, for Christ!

Swimming with Old Piranhas

I'm kind of perplexed by this whole Obama/Ayers thing, frankly. I mean, first of all, the crap that this Ayers guy perpetrated was back in the late 60s. Granted, it was bad and all but since then, I'm saying, hasn't he basically become a model citizen? I even heard that mayor Daly likes the son-of-a-bitch, for Christ..............................................And it's not like the guy is the god-father of Obama's children or anything. The two dudes worked on a couple of projects together. Granted, they were "liberal" (O.K., maybe even radical) projects and all but, still, pretty much above-board, yes-no? It kind of makes me wonder why Obama ever felt the need to down-play the relationship. It was what it was and nothing more, I'm thinking................................................It certainly wasn't worth Governor Palin's outrage on the campaign trail. I mean, she certainly wouldn't like it if some bozo like Keith Olbermann started bringing up her/her husband's associations; that anti-American Alaskan-separatist guy, the terrorist witch-doctor who performed that church ceremony on her, etc.. Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, Keithster's already done such a thingy. Never mind.

Dirty Bombs/Bombers

Does an honorable veteran, folks (a truly honorable one, I'm saying), flagrantly misrepresent the positions of others? Well, apparently, THEY think they can. This, I'm saying, in that this one Internet shadow-boxer by the name of 1138, who stridently claims to be such a veteran, has attempted to do just that with me and my words. Let me explain here............................................For those of you who don't know, one of my pet-peeves (please, feel free to plug in a stronger term here) is when partisan/bellicose commentators engage in vile/over-the-top hyperbole. One tactic, in particular, that I find especially heinous is when one of these morons starts to compare people, the likes of which he disagrees with, to Nazis/Hitler. It tends to piss me off and, yes, I complain about it..............................................In fact, that's what I was doing earlier this year when Bill O'Reilly started comparing Arianna Huffington/The Huffington Post to the Nazis (he made an earlier analogy between the Daily Kos and Hitler, too, I believe). Yeah, that's right, folks, I ended up excoriating O'Reilly for this comparison - not just for the hyperbole, mind you, but for the fact that the making of such an analogy is itself totally insulting to those who actually went through the Holocaust. I did a "Keith Olbermann" on him, in other words............................................Well, guess what, folks, this supposedly honorable veteran took it upon himself to extract this particular quote; "the entire Huffington Post, Hitleresque in its proportions" (a quote, mind you, in which I was lambasting O'Reilly for having come to such a ludicrous conclusion), and tried to attribute those sentiments TO ME!!!..............................................I don't know, I guess he was trying to show me as some sort of hypocrite or something. This, I'm saying, in that I've recently instituted a blog policy in which I no longer allow Nazi innuendo to be made so frivolously. He must have figured, "Gee, what if I can show him doing something similar? I can make this guy look like a hypocrite." Unfortunately, for him, he didn't think very far ahead on his little scheme here, the fact that I could so readily refute it, etc.. But what a disgusting pig, though, huh?

A Queer Decision, Frankly

Just for the record, folks, the military's "don't ask/don't tell" policy (instituted in 1993) clearly prohibits any gay or bisexual person from disclosing his/her sexual orientation/any homosexual relationships while serving in the U.S. Military. Granted, this policy has probably been relaxed during the Iraq War (as policies toward homosexuality have always been during times of war). But, still/theoretically, all that a gay person has to do to be discharged from the military is to simply say to the wrong person, "Yep, I'm gay."................................................As for the charge that civilian command has been the sole perpetrator of anti-gay policies over the years, here, too, a certain correction needs to be made. This, I'm saying, in that back in 1981, it was the Department of Defense (a department of the federal government, mind you, that includes the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Air-Force, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) that issued a new (and, yes, far more stringent) regulation on homosexuality in the military - homosexual status/conduct now being grounds for dismissal. The regulation in fact was so clearly delineated that it was actually seen by its creators as impervious to court challenges..................................................Now, were these people (military and civilian) in the Pentagon acting on orders from the Reagan administration? I suppose it's possible. But if in fact that was the case, folks, I have found no evidence to substantiate it. I don't know, it seems to me as if the military itself (yes, along with every other institution of society) has had its own fair-share of homophobia over the years. We'll have to see if this resistance to change continues if Senator Obama is elected. It'll be interesting, huh?

Questionable Sources

Let's see, what do we have here; Sean Hannity, Karl Rove, and Rudy Giuliani versus....Alan Colmes? THIS is fair and balanced? Not that this is necessarily a mismatch, mind you. This, I'm saying, in that Colmes, while he's hardly an intellectual giant and clearly tends to be a punching-bag at times, that above triumvirate is an excessively sluggish one - even by Fox standards................................................And at least Fox does throw Colmes a bone or two, puts him in for some token resistance, etc.. Compare that to MSNBC, where, between 8 and 10 P.M., you've got a pure/unadulterated propaganda machine, stumping for Obama and belittling the Republican ticket - absent ANY resistance.............................................Oh well, at least we still have CNN.................................................P.S. Not that CNN is perfect, either, mind you. But at least their hosts/moderators are seemingly fair/unbiased. That, and they almost always divide their panels equally between Democrats and Republicans and/or Liberals and Conservatives. I rarely get the impression that the deck is stacked either way with them, in other words. Hopefully, that will continue. I mean, if it doesn't, then what? I don't even want to think about it.

Take a Walk on the Vile Side

To all the bloggers who've so shamelessly and moronically been comparing John McCain and George Bush to Hitler, you might want to listen up/take notice of how the Anti-Defamation League responded to that piece of shit, Madonna, after she did basically the same thing.............................................In case you hadn't heard, Madonna, during one of her more recent fiascos (concerts, I guess you'd call them), flashed, in rapid succession, images of Bush, McCain, and Hitler - all on the large screen behind her (inferring some sort of equivalence, I gather). The Anti-Defamation League, upon hearing of this, released a blistering condemnation of the "artist". It appears, folks, that they just don't appreciate tactics such as this. In the words of Abraham H. Foxman (National Director of the Anti-Defamation League), "It is inappropriate and offensive to make comparisons to the man ultimately responsible for the death of six million Jews and the death and suffering of countless others during the Holocaust. It trivializes the Holocaust and is an insult to the memories of the victims, their families, and those who fought Nazism."...............................................And the thing is, folks, I warned these clowns - over and over and over I warned them. I literally told them, "Dudes, you really ought to knock this shit off. Number one, you look like a bunch of idiots. And, two, you're eventually going to start pissing the wrong people off - possibly hurting a lot of people, too." Obviously, they weren't receptive. They usually aren't.

Time to Change the Pipe Tobacco

I respect John McCain, folks. And, yes, I've defended him against what I thought were scurrilous accusations. But, I'm telling you here, this whole "victory in Iraq" thing is really starting to gnaw at me................................................I mean, what is he basically saying here - that we're not going to be able to leave that country until it becomes what he, John McCain, wants it to become; a stable, pro-Western, pro-Israeli, democracy? I don't know, me-buckos, that, in spite of all of this success on the ground, still sounds like a pipe-dream to me...............................................For one thing, the Shiite-dominated central government over there is seemingly leaning closer to Iran than it currently is to us (talk about a catastrophic outcome, huh?). We've STRENGTHENED the Iranian hand, in other words. And, secondly, those Sunni allies of ours (yes, those same Sunni allies that we were able to convince to turn on Al Qaeda) are now being strong-armed by that same Iran-leaning central government that WE, as an external force, helped to create. Yikes, huh?...................................................I don't know, folks, it doesn't sound to me as if a "victory" is anywhere near around the corner. In fact, it almost seems as if it were as dicey as ever over there; the various competing parties in that country still frigging hating each other, etc.. Not that I'm convinced Obama's going to be any better, mind you, but, I'm saying.

A Painful View/Viewing

I didn't see Governor Palin's interview with Katie Couric, folks. But, yes, just like the rest of the country, I've been seeing snippets of it. And at this point, frankly, all I can utter is, Oh Boy! This, I'm saying, in that, while I generally don't like to go along with the crowd on this stuff, this time I just might have to...............................................The bottom-line, folks, I'm telling you, if Governor Palin doesn't start doing better and doing better soon (like maybe this Thursday in the debate), McCain may not have a choice but to cut his losses and pick somebody else. I mean, I know that there aren't a lot of other good options out there for him and all but, seriously; Tommy Thompson, Mike Huckabee, even frigging Romney, for Christ (though, yes, here you might have to promise McCain a bushel or two of clothes-pins)!.............................................Of course, if he wanted another woman on the ticket, that's where it would get really dicey for him. This, I'm saying, in that, while there are in fact good Republican women out there (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, the Governors of Hawaii and Connecticut, for example), they mostly tend to be pro-choice. And you know how well that tends to fly with the Republican base.............................................Oh well, maybe this will all correct itself and Palin will start to perform well. I'm sure as hell hoping so, folks. For the sake of the country, I'm saying...............................................P.S. Just for the record here, I get absolutely no pleasure in seeing this candidate, or any other candidate, self-destruct. I want ALL the candidates to do well. I mean, don't we want not only the best people to run but the ones that do run to show competence? Oh, wait a minute, I forgot, I'm speaking mostly to partisans here. Never mind.

Hide Your Gay Sons and Daughters, Unfortunately

If pressed, though, I'd probably have to say that it was Nick's concern for homosexuals/the gay community that was, more than anything, most disingenuous. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, all the while that this numbnuts was parading himself around as a "progressive", for Christ, damned if he wasn't pissing on the rest of those other parades at Sassy's - at Sassy's and at Garvin's, too, God damn it! And all the frigging pity and sympathy that the bastard himself wanted, an inability to even get a job as a data-entry slug, etc.. I mean, talk about a hypocrite of monumental proportions/a lunatic who takes the frigging cake and then some - wow, huh? Wow, in-frigging-deed.

On/Off/On the Wagon

As fair as O'Reilly has been trying to be , there are still in fact some stories, embarrassing to Republicans, that just don't seem to make the light of day over there. For instance, when George Will wrote that blistering editorial, basically saying that McCain didn't have the temperament to be President, O'Reilly didn't lay a finger on that one...........................................And, neither, either, has he shown much interest in any of Governor Palin's pork-barrel projects - the latest one being not the "bridge to nowhere" but the "road to nowhere (18 million dollars for basically 3 miles)................................................Of course, he still has time to dissect every which way but loose Obama's "negative associations". And, yes, that's fine folks. I'm not necessarily opposed to looking at anything, really. But, come on, when the leading conservative intellectual of the print-media lambastes the Republican Presidential nominee, that might be worth a segment or two, I'm thinking..............................................And just tonight, folks, he points to the media's unfair treatment of Palin by citing a recent "Saturday Night Live" skit (the one where Tina Fey, as Palin, gets interviewed by Amy Poehler's Katie Couric). As part of his presentation, he shows the SNL skit but, when it came to the actual Palin interview, he only shows the visual. Kind of sneaky, huh? This, I'm saying, in that the viewer doesn't get to see that the words (word salad) coming out of Tina Fey's mouth were basically the same ones that Palin herself used. It was barely even a satire, in other words. I don't know, it sounds like O'Reilly might be trying to protect the Governor here. I hate to think it, but that's what it sounds like.

P.S.

I just thought of another beef, folks. It revolves around the concept of service. I don't know about you, but I get the distinct impression from some of these veterans (a minority, granted, but a vocal minority) that they think military service is above and beyond all other forms of service to one's country. I mean, certainly it's important - EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! But what about, too, policemen, firemen, corrections officers (try walking through a prison dormitory of 40 cons at 3 A.M. with nothing but a flashlight to protect yourself - try THAT a few times), people who serve in the Peace Corps, people who run nonprofits/charities, inner-city teachers and social-workers, F.B.I. agents, C.I.A. operatives, foreign diplomats, border-patrol agents, A.T.F. agents, parole-officers, public-defenders, etc.? Aren't their contributions important, too? Look, I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade here. If somebody served (and served honorably) in the military (and, yes, I would absolutely include the Coast Guard, too!), that is absolutely something that 1) they should be proud of and 2) we should honor. But, like I've said before, having served in the military doesn't give you carte-blanch to be an ass-hole 20 years later. It certainly doesn't give you the right to blow up a federal building. At least I should hope it doesn't.

Aten-Hut!!

Is it my imagination, folks, or do veterans (some, I'm saying) sometimes use their veteran status as a means to stifle debate/dialogue? It seems like it to me. I mean, I'd even go as far as to say that it's blatant, at times. One tactic, in particular, that disturbs me is how they use their veteran status as a built-in rationale for why their reasoning/expertise is superior to yours. They were in the military and, so, ergo, they are de-facto more knowledgeable than you - not just on matters related to the military, mind you - but on basically anything that's even tangentially related; foreign policy, history, etc.. And, yes, they use this de-facto advantage/hierarchical superiority constantly - wherever and whenever it's needed.............................................Of course, what I find even more frustrating is how some of these veterans tend to use their status as a shield. I mean, seriously, they can be as demeaning and disrespectful to you as they want to be, but if you even think about responding in kind, boom! They whip out this "you don't respect the veterans (to which, of course, they generalize to include the troops, their service to the country, the military in general)" bromide/silver bullet and, yes, they frigging tar you with it. Never mind, mind you, that your problems with them have absolutely nothing to do with whether they served in the military or not. Nope, you disrespected the veterans, period................................................I mean, I know that this is an extreme example and all, but what about Timothy McVeigh? I absolutely respect the fact that he served his country but, really, was I obligated to continue to respect him? Bottom-line, folks, we are all, all of us, individuals and, while, yes, it would in fact be nice if we eventually could rest upon those laurels, life, damned if that isn't exactly fair, either. This, I'm saying, in case you HADN'T noticed.

When the Dullard(s) Come Home to Roost

Just for the record, folks, Cliffolaus is back again. And, yes, this mostly barbaric incarnation of Cliffy/his paranoid personality disorder/his schizo-affective disorder (steroids driven, of course), damned if he isn't just as comically deranged as he's ever been; the son-of-a-bitch. Of course, the fact that he's bankrupt, apparently, to the point of having NOTHING superior to do, of him....spending an entire life in such a virtual wasteland, etc., how could you not AS WELL have at least a smidge of sympathy - bastardly son-of-a-bitch or not, I'm saying?

Speaking in Lungs (get it?), Loud Ones!

I want it to made perfectly clear, folks. In no way do I find it unseemly to be critical of religion. In fact, if you do an exhaustive search of my early postings, you'll see that I've been quite critical of religious dogma myself. The main problem that I have with what some in the far-left blogosphere have been doing lately has to do with their cherry-picking; their targeting of one particular faith for ridicule and, yes, their doing of it for some cheap partisan political advantage...........................................I mean, don't get me wrong. Some of the stuff that the Assemblies of God believe probably are a smidge on the peculiar side. But, come on, to single them out when the Catholic Church, say (just as an example - don't shoot me), still thinks that the bread and wine given during communion is the actual body and blood of Christ, seriously, shouldn't that alone be enough to give us pause here?..............................................And like I've said before, there is also a fair amount of variability within the Assemblies of God. I mean, sure, there are in fact the core beliefs and all but with 12,000 churches nation-wide to choose from, I think that, yeah, it's probably just as unfair to generalize here as it would be to generalize about Muslims (that they blow people up, etc.)..................................................Bottom-line, folks, I don't give a rat's ass about Palin's church. I don't give a rat's ass about Obama's, either. I just care what comes out of their mouths. And, no/unfortunately, I'm not exactly impressed by what I've been hearing from either of them lately. It's time for me to pray, too, I guess.

Cartoon Meanness

I suppose, though, had I known that those looney-tunes themselves....as well had been smothering, discretion, yes, WOULD have been an option. But, really, to have known ahead of time that stooges of this ilk/calibre EVEN EXISTED, let alone were willing to take such a low-road, for Christ, WHO in the bluest-blazes has such a capacity, damn it? And, besides, isn't it up to me (a nominally bigger person, at least), me-buckos, to put forth a sympathy card or two, to recognize the source of the depravity, etc.? I'd like to at least think that I'm capable of that - that, and to have some hope for these clowns as well. Here's to hoping so, anyway.

No Need to Stretch on this One, Folks

I was watching "12 Angry Men" the other night and, yes, believe it or not, I actually started laughing. This, I'm saying, in that damned if it didn't remind me of some of those other angry men at Sassy's; Clif, Mike, and Bartlebee, especially. Of course, being that I needed to get a little more specific if in fact I wanted to construct a workable analogy, so, too, did I chew on the bastard a trifle.............................................Truthfully, it went something like this. "Hm, let's see, alright, I guess that they're men and, yes, they're definitely angry....but what, what else? And what about the number, damn it? There's only three of them, not twelve; the three stooges, basically. Oh, wait a minute, that's it! They're the three angry stooges - the three ANGRY stooges!.............................................I mean, talk about a light-bulb going off, huh? Not that they're anywhere near as good as Lee J. Cobb, Ed Begley, and E.G. Marshall (never mind, Larry, Moe, and Curly) were, mind you....but, damn it all, kids, this is the absolute reality. The three angry frigging stooges, ladies and gents, right 'chere!!

Pakistani-Roulette

Just for the record, folks, Pakistan's new President, Asif Ali Zadari, has categorically stated that if in fact American forces enter his country without permission THEY WILL BE FIRED UPON. I submit this fact not just to Mr. Bush in his last 3-4 months in office but also to his two potential successors; Senator McCain and Senator Obama. This, I'm saying, in that they both (McCain in his zeal, Obama in his naivete) have made some rather provocative statements. Obama, in particular, clearly stated, during one of the Democratic debates, that he would absolutely use air strikes to take out Al Qaeda, EVEN IF the target was inside of Pakistan. Now I know that we all want to get Osama and all, but, seriously, a promise to heave weaponry into a country that is already deeply divided, a country that is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons, that sounds more than a tad risky to me. And now, with the new President of that country doing some posturing of his own, yikes, huh?.................................................And, no, the fact that Bush has apparently already pushed the envelope here (reports of at least three missile strikes into Pakistan are available), absent calamity, doesn't in any way pacify me. I mean, come on, even in Russian-Roulette, the odds are with you for a while, no?

The Powers of Wandering Thought

Greta Garbo and Montgomery Clift....TOGETHER! Ponder it, I ask you. I mean, seriously, folks, can you even start to imagine how devastating a combination that one would have been? Just the shear juxtaposition of it; Hollywood's two most beautiful people sharing that same, large, black and white screen - scintillating! But even beyond the aesthetics of it, YES, to have been able to see that sensual, alluring style of Garbo attempting to (but not quite succeeding) run her circles around the brooding and vulnerable Monty Clift. Granted, she was 15 years older than him/had retired a full five years prior to "Red River"....ever having had an audience, for Christ! But, still, friends, in some sort of "Sunset Boulevard" scenario (or in anything, really), I would have basically given anything to see it. Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher, not so much.

Praying Off

"That's above my pay-grade", Obama's response to Pastor Rick Warren's question about human life/when it begins, boy, did that ever start a frigging fire-storm, huh? I mean, don't get me wrong here. My sympathies are clearly with Obama on this one. This, I'm saying, in that darned if there aren't any pat/easy answers to any of these types of questions. And, yes, to struggle with them (as Obama obviously did, let's be honest here), that, to me, shows that the fellow is at least a thinker of sorts. And the fact that he was basically in his "opponent's" territory, for Christ (McCain himself obviously having no trouble with this either-or/yes-no paradigm of morality)! That, too, was impressive............................................But, folks, come on, Obama - he had to have known that these types of questions were going to be asked. How could he NOT have had a little something better in his arsenal - not exactly a series of one or two word answers, mind you, but something less flip, a little less ambiguous perhaps? Not that he was necessarily going to peel off a lot of these voters anyway but, seriously, you've got to give yourself a better shot than that idiotic punch-line apparently did.............................................Thankfully, for him, it wasn't his base that had to bear witness to such a curt response. Now THAT would have truly been a disaster (though, yes, his most ardent devotees would more than likely rationalize instead).

Jihad THIS, Bartlebee

Just for the record, folks, The Assemblies of God, the world's largest Pentecostal denomination (57 million members world-wide), has no official stance regarding the question of war/the military. Individual members/churches are allowed to take whatever stance that they deem to be most appropriate. Loyalty to the government is generally acknowledged by Assemblies of God churches, but no other official stances on these issues are part of church doctrine..............................................Actually, prior to 1967, rather than being advocates of war (as a number of bone-headed bloggers have recklessly asserted recently), the Assemblies of God opposed Christian participation in war and considered itself to be a peace church. Now it didn't always turn out that way, of course, in that thousands of church members participated in WW 2 and other wars. But it wasn't encouraged or mandated by those who were preaching from the pulpit, that being the major point, clearly...............................................P.S. As for any individual pastor/parishioner who may in fact be out there recklessly advocating war, certainly some criticism may be in order for them. All that I'm saying is that the entire faith shouldn't be getting a tar-job - not on this particular issue, anyway.