Wednesday, February 27, 2008
President Clinton was lucky in one respect, folks. Yes, I'm referring to the fact that a large chunk of his adversaries/critics were just as loathsome as he was (some even more-so). I mean, think about it. You've got the likes of Tom DeLay and Dan Burton hammering him on the political side while, at the same time, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Hannity - those sons of bitches were slandering away in the media. Talk about a cavalcade of slope-heads making poor old "Bubba" look good. THAT was a man-sized dose/the real shit..................................Alright, why do I bring this up?, you ask. I don't know, I guess I'm developing a small fear that President Bush himself may in fact be reaping a similar harvest. I mean, sure, it's not exactly the same in that, no, the "Existential Cowboy" and his lot have a hell of a lot LESS clout than Limbaugh, etc.. Hell, even the Hollywood tripe (Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donnell, etc.) that O'Reilly constantly rails against, really, how much power do even those sons of bitches have? Still, I'm saying, I cannot help but be concerned here. This, me-buckos, in that, no, I am not in any kind of mood for Bush to get off easy. None - WHAT-SO-EVER!!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Honestly, though, folks, as relieved as I am that Giuliani is gone/out of the picture (Bush, with a couple extra chromosomes), there is in fact a part of me....that's actually going to miss him. I mean, come on, all that "material" he provided, all the hyperbole, logical inconsistencies - all the cow-towing, for Christ! Oh well, at least he did get a final one off, saying that, if in fact a Democrat does get elected, we'll be going "back on defense", in terms of fighting terrorism, etc.. "Back on defense." The Democrats are going to get us killed, in other words. Yesssssss!!!!! Sweet, huh?....................................But even beyond the fear-mongering, I'm saying, just that whole "back on defense" statement. I mean, I feel like telling him, hello!!, dammit!!, we never really WERE on defense, dude! Seriously/think about it, lax security at the airports, lax security at the shipping ports, lax security at nuclear plants, the water supply, etc., etc.. And the fact that a lot of these problems remain (funds diverted to Iraq, no doubt), the fact that I could probably still blow up the bow of a ship....if in fact I was bored enough/predisposed. THAT, I'm telling you, is what scares the crap out of me...................................Oh, and, yeah, Mr. Giuliani, where did you put that command and control center again? WHERE? That's what I thought. Wow. And to think that the great Pat Robertson wasted an endorsement on you, ya' bastard. What a shame. What a shame, indeed.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
How 'bout that "Existentialist Cowboy" (gee, that's original - NOT!!)? What a piece of work that guy is, huh? This, I'm saying, in the damned if this S.O.B. hasn't become one of the major proponents of 9/11 conspiracy crap. I mean, it's not enough that he's been continuing to prop up these same old hackneyed theories (Americans flew the planes, explosives took down the buildings, a missile hit the Pentagon, etc.) that have been totally shredded by the academic community. He's actually calling what most of the world's sane population has taken as factual....and turned it on its head. He ridicules it as "a crazy conspiracy theory about a world-wide conspiracy of radical Arabs and incompetent pilots....and that, no, there's not a scintilla of verifiable evidence in support of it.".................................Man, oh man, oh man. It's like, I feel like asking him, "What about the first World Trade-Center attack, the attacking of the U.S.S. Cole, the bloody explosions in England and France, was/is the U.S. also behind each of these atrocities?" Not that he would respond intelligently, of course....but still...................................P.S. Here is just a small sampling of the professors and journals that have successfully debunked these 9/11 "truthers": Dr. Keith Seffen of Cambridge U, Dr. Walter Murphy of Northwestern, Dr. Ching Chang of UMass, Dr. Joel Conte of Cal-SanDiego, Dr. Christian Hellmich of Vienna U of Tech, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Fire Engineering, Civil Engineering, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Geotimes, and the Journal of Acoustical Society of America. Just to give you something to go on, I'm saying. As for the "Cowboy" himself, I don't know, I have this one feeling that the blankety-blank is only stroking himself (his pipes, etc.)....and that, yes, we should definitely keep an eye on him. Of course, then there's also the other side of me - you know, the one that says, 'mmm, not so much."
Saturday, February 16, 2008
I love how O'Reilly constantly refers to Democratic Senators such as Durbin and Leahy as far-left bomb-throwers, out of the American mainstream, etc.. I love it, I'm saying, in that, really, isn't this guy, O'Reilly, supposed to be Mr. Fair and Balanced? I mean, it's fine to call the afore-mentioned fellows whatever you want to call them (not that I would necessarily agree, mind you, but, yes, for the sake of argument, I'm saying) but then, THEN, if in fact you are fair and BALANCED, don't you have to say something similar about Senators Hatch and Inhofe (the latter, especially, for example)? I'm just asking, folks.
Friday, February 15, 2008
As for Keith Olbermann himself, I guess I have some mixed feelings relative here, too. On the one hand, I find the man both brilliant and refreshing (and, yes, I do in fact agree with the fellow, more often than not). The writing on his show is first-rate and, yes, while he, too, does from time to time bloviate, I've never once caught the man in a blatant mistatement..................................All of this, I'm saying, and, yet, the other part of me does in fact find his show at least a tad peculiar at times. For one thing, he never has anyone on his program that even remotely deviates from HIS "talking points" - kind of a Kumbaya session, in other words. And there isn't even an attempt on his part to hold the Democrats responsible for THEIR transgressions (they do occasionally commit one, right?). I mean, come on, when Bill Clinton made that dispicable comment about Jesse Jackson (a black man, obviously) having himself won South Carolina twice and that, because of this (clearly his implication), Obama's victory there WASN'T significant, was not THAT worthy of a worst person nomination? Seriously, I'm asking.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Bernie Goldberg, a man who I generally find to be hyperbolic/a "Johnny One-Noter" (the liberal mainstream media, yada-yada), actually made a good point the other night. He said that it was unfair for MSNBC to utilize Keith Olbermann (he didn't actually say the name, Keith Olbermann, in that, yes, he was a guest on "The Factor") as an anchor on primary coverage, that MSNBC shouldn't have done that, etc..............................It was a good point, I'm saying, in that, while Olbermann didn't necessarily skew the coverage, per say, his presence I did find to be at least a little awkward. I mean, just look at one simple fact alone. Olbermann, my friends, did not participate in a single interview of any Republican candidate, handler, or even a talking head. Chris Matthews was left with all of those assignments. I mean, yeah, it was probably good discretion to not have Olbermann interview people, the likes of who he's clearly lambasted. But, still, I'm saying, having him in the anchor-chair, period, not necessarily a good idea, in my opinion...................................P.S. Yes, I know that Fox does it as well (Sean Hannity, for example, right there in the middle of it all). And, yes, I also know that Brit Hume hasn't for the longest time been anything close to impartial. I guess I just kind of hold the other cable channels to a higher standard. That's all I'm saying.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
I'm telling you, though, folks, the absolute level of ignorance on the far-right - it's staggering!! Laura Ingraham, for example, she's still of the opinion (this, I'm saying, despite an incredible amount of data to the contrary) that homosexuality and being transgender are "life-style choices". I mean, she even goes as far as to conjur up images of God to buttrass this frigging misinformation. Of course, what's even worse is when she goes on to say (and, yeah, here's where the vindictiveness fuses with her ignorance) that these two groups are in fact poisonous, ruinous of the culture, et.. Talk about mean-spiritedness, huh, being wrong on multiple counts, etc.? And some people actually listen to this crap FOUR HOURS A DAY! Unbelievable...................................Oh, and then there's Tom DeLay on "Hardball" the other night, saying that "Man" has absolutely no impact, ZERO, on the environment/climate change. It's like, I feel like telling this guy, "Go tell that to the poor bastards on the southern tip of Chile, whose staggering rate of skin-cancer has clearly been linked to ozone-depletion. Tell THEM that all the crap we've been putting into the atmosphere hasn't changed the climate. I dare you."...................................I mean, sure, we can quibble over solutions and all but to so categorically deny the obvious like this. It's like, too bad we couldn't just put Mr. DeLay in an alternate universe - you know, one in which the scientists didn't care about, say, flourocarbons, never sought to study/purge them from the atmosphere, etc.. This, I'm saying, in that, seriously, I can almost hear that bastard hacking pronto/as we speak..................................Sympathy? Sure, a little.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Laura Ingraham, though, folks, she has got to be THE most tone-deaf person EVER - especially when it comes to irony, I'm saying. Case in point: She's subbing for O'Reilly again, right, and, yep, you got it, damned if she didn't step in it big time. This, I'm saying, in that, while excoriating those on the other side of this "culture war" creation of hers, among those foibles she particularly underscored was narcisism. "These people can only think of themselves", she basically goes on to say................................Yeah, that's right, folks, narcisism, that in fact is what the lady said. I mean, I felt like screaming at her, "Hello!! Your on the Bill O'Reilly show....and you don't see the irony in calling ANYBODY....whose name ISN'T Bill O'Reilly narcisistic, self-centered, etc.?" Talk about needing a new gig, huh? Something.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Just when I thought he couldn't possibly ramp it up higher, what does he do?, HE RAMPS IT UP HIGHER!! Seriously, folks, in tonight's "Talking Points Memo", he actually refers to the non-U.S. portion of this planet as a "callous, cowardly world". Yep, that's right, the rest of the frigging world he disses! Only the good old U.S. of A. has the corner on bravery/wisdom these days, according to Mr. O'Reilly..................................And the fact, too, I'm saying, that he bases this assessment on, what, the fact that they've so judiciously (my assessment) decided to follow a different path (ixnay on the nation-building, etc.)? Gee, that's a real fair criteria, punishing them for having the wisdon NOT to engage in such folly - NOT!!..............................P.S. As for his other assessment, the one that says Al Qaeda has largely been relegated to northern Pakistan, he might be a little askew on that one, too. I mean, just ask the people of England and Spain if they feel that terrorism has been contained. Sure, it may not exactly be Al Qaeda "Central" over there, but, seriously, those bastards are of a very similar stripe doing that shit. And, yes, they'd be here, too, me-buckos, save for the Atlantic Ocean, a modicrum of improved homeland security, and, yeah, let's just face it here, folks, LUCK!!..................................P.S.2 Being that I never actually blamed Bush for 9/11, I don't exactly feel obliged to praise him for there not having been another. What, you think that somebody, anybody, couldn't have blown themselves up (along with others, of course) if in fact they wanted to? They've got their own frigging time-table, folks. Well, that, and they want it to be another big one.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Seriously, though, what is O'Reilly? From what I can tell, he's little more than equal parts/a mixture of bluster, judgement (omnipresent in its certitude), and idiocy (illogic, at the very least). Take, for instance, his insistence that actor Heath Ledger's death COULDN'T have been an accident (as it was deemed by the toxicologist's report), in that, yes, Heath Ledger was a smart man who surely should have known that this behavior (i.e., the mixing of various drugs) could in fact have lethal consequences. He obviously didn't care if he lived or died, I guess was O'Reilly's point (he was careful, though, not to use the word, suicide).................................And all this AFTER his very patient guest-expert (Dr. Keith Abdow) explained to him the legal and medical definitions of how exactly an accident is defined (the concepts of intent, rationality, etc.). Incredible, huh? Of course, when you couple that with HIM, trying to get inside the young fellow's head, coming to all these basically unknowable conclusions, and, yes, exploiting the whole damn thing for ratings, what in the bluest blazes IS left? It's a frigging dog-and-pony show, for Christ!!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
What's that, Bill, you say it's obvious that John McCain is getting much better press-coverage than Mike Huckabee? Gee, that's interesting. I mean, didn't you just say (less than two months ago, I think it was) that the media was in fact ROOTING for Huckabee (the fact that he would be a weaker candidate against the Democrats in a general election, that America, specifically, would find his overt religiosity problematic, etc.)? You do remember saying this, don't you?...............................Seriously, though, Bill, you have to remember, PEOPLE ARE KEEPING TRACK OF THIS STUFF!.... Isn't it about time that you started to as well? At least be a little bit more judicious, I'm saying.
Monday, February 4, 2008
How 'bout O'Reilly, though, chastising (through one of his surrogates, of course) all those homeless vets for their not having watched "The Factor" ? "Did you actually hear him say that there weren't any homeless veterans?" Yep, folks, that's what the stooge-like Jesse Waters actually asked these people (they're ambushing homeless people now, nice!). I mean, seriously, he's thinking, what, that these people curl up by the fire-side every night at seven and watch Mr. O'Reilly opine? Of course, they haven't been watching "The Factor", damn it!!................................I, folks, on the other hand, have been. And, yes, I can tell you, uncategorically, that Mr. O'Reilly supremely doubted that a homeless veteran problem even existed. PERIOD!! It was only after the son-of-a-bitch stepped in it, that he started fine-tuning the hell out of things; defending the economy, blaming mental illness/substance abuse, using the opportunity to further denigrate Edwards, etc.. I mean, talk about a history-altering interpretation of things. Bill O'Reilly, at his best, ladies and gentlemen................................P.S. Thank God, though, huh, that somebody has a television out there? Thank the Lord and then some, I'm saying.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Some of those folks at Fox, though, I'm telling you, they just flat-out lie. Take, for instance, Brian Kilmeade of "Fox and Friends" (friends of Bush would be more accurate), saying that "'Media Matters' doesn't ever touch MSNBC." That's a lie....and an easily verifiable one at that. I mean, just go to "Media Matters" and click under Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Chris Matthews, etc.. They constantly blast those sons a' guns - unmercifully, at times. Hell, they've even constructed a "Matthews Monitor" link to, yes, monitor Mr. Matthews/ his "shameless" commentary.............................But, no, they only persecute O'Reilly, Hannity, and the rest of those lunatics at Fox. This, according to Brian Kilmeade of "Fox and Friends" (an unimpeachable source, obviously!).
Friday, February 1, 2008
Of course, what really brought me to my knees was when Laura Ingraham, in yet another attempt on her part to slam the media, juxtaposed the coverage of actor Heath Ledger's death (which she accurately cited as excessive) with the much more scant coverage of this month's mititary casualties (she also proceded to show their names on the screen). I mean, talk about exhibiting some bald irony, huh?, having the chutzpah/stones to do this while subbing for O'Reilly on Fox, etc.. Think about it, I'm saying. She's on Fox news, right, the network that never, ever, EVER, acknowledges the human costs of Bush's war/ always, always, ALWAYS, finds the time to cover such celebrity tripe - and she uses this forum to slam what she so derisively calls "the elite, mainstream media". Incredible!...................................P.S. Irony, did I say irony? I probably should have said rank hypocrisy instead, huh?