On Yet Another Detour

There's been a lot of talk about elitism lately. And, yeah, you got it, folks, both sides in this Presidential soft-shoe have been shamelessly using it to slime the other. "Your guy is the elitist." No, your guy is the elitist." I mean, talk about a bunch of tawdry bull-shit, huh? This is even starting to embarrass Slade Leeds, for Christ!..........................................And the thing is, I don't even think that these partisan clowns (on both sides, I'm saying) have decided upon a mutual definition here. It's like, what do they even mean by elitism? Are they talking about pomposity? Are they talking about a tendency to like the "finer"/exotic things in life (I prefer ethnic cuisine over American cooking - am I an elitist?)? Are they talking about wealth (which I guess would include the Beverly Hillbillies and other "lottery" winners)? Or are they talking about greatness (people who are smarter/more successful)?..............................................The right's tack has been to suggest that, since Obama is an Ivy Leaguer who apparently likes arugula, damned if he isn't an elitist along the lines of John Kerry. They, of course, buttrass this belief with some of Obama's own rather impolitic statements ("typical white person", "clinging to their guns and religion", etc.), a pretense that is perceived by them as marked, and other things that they can capitalize on (the fact that Europe apparently likes him, stuff like that). The dude just can't relate to regular people. I guess that that's what they're trying to suggest here.............................................Is this a strategy that'll work again (it seemed to make a dent in Kerry back in '04)? Maybe not. This, I'm saying, in that damned if the left hasn't turned a bazooka or two on McCain. McCain, not Obama, they say, is the real elitist. They point, specifically, to the fact that McCain (largely as a result of his marriage to Cindy) apparently has more frigging money that brains, for Christ! And, yes, McCain's mouth has gotten him in trouble, too. The guy apparently doesn't remember how many houses he owns and thinks that you need to have five million dollars to be wealthy. Talk about impolitic, huh, an inability to relate to John Doe, etc?.............................................And, so, there you have it, folks, Harvard and arugula versus money and detachment. In the "minds" of these partisans, one constitutes metaphysically certain elitism, the other, well, not so much. And vice-versa. Of course, the fact that none of this really matters/doesn't tell us a thing about how these guys are going to govern, solve problems, etc., seems not of interest to these stooges. They just want to piss on the other guy and his wife until the both of them drown............................................P.S. Me? I strongly suspect that they're both at least a little elitist, based on some of the things they've said and the fact that they all seem to have a lot more money than me. And you know something else, folks, I really don't give a shit. They can have as much money as they want, eat as much arugula as there is. I just want them to put forth half-way decent proposals that won't screw us up even more (the war, the economy, etc.). That's all.

A Little Soap for the Sand-Box

And the way that these partisan stooges think, for Christ! I almost feel like telling them, "Dudes/dudettes, I get it already! Your guy is spectacular! He's the greatest frigging thing since fire - better than frigging Oreos, for Christ! And I get it about the other guy, too; the fact that he's a piece of fecal-matter, etc. - the bastard! Of course, the fact that ALL your perceptions center around this, that nothing BUT THIS gets as close to your bosom-bone at night, the fact that you yourself hold these perceptions like you used to hold your teddy-bear, for Christ, neither, either, do I understand it totally. Sorry, me-buckos."............................................What's that? Oh,yeah, kind of like that damned old foo-foo juice, huh? The fact that that went down as smooth as silk, too, only to...........................................................

A Draft That I Could Live With

I hate to say this, folks, but, if Hillary Clinton was running for President as a third-party independent, I think that there's a pretty darn good chance that I would vote for her. Not that I necessarily trust her any more than I used to , mind you, but compared to the present two candidate's left standing, yeah, she's starting to look pretty decent..........................................I mean, come on. We've got this one guy in McCain who, apparently, just can't get enough military adventurism to satisfy him. He wants a situation in Iraq that will never, ever, happen and is willing to stay there forever until it does (or should I say doesn't?). Scary, huh?...........................................Of course, on the other hand, we have Obama, a guy who, less than four years ago, mind you, was busy working on pot-hole legislation. And, yes, this fellow kind of scares me, too. For instance, he stated that it may in fact be necessary for us to "go back in" - you know, if the Iraqis start to back-slide (and you know that they will), genocide starts to happen, etc.. And let's not forget, either, how he's willing to use air-strikes to take out Al Qaeda....EVEN IF THOSE TARGETS ARE INSIDE PAKISTAN, for Christ!..............................................Yes, folks (and, yes, I AM serious), I'm starting to think that Hillary, truly (who I frankly think showed a lot of class at the end of her campaign - certainly more than Reagan in'76 or Kennedy in '80), just might be the best/least objectionable Commander in Chief of the three. Too bad we don't have the option of voting for her (yes, yes, I know, the system, the system), huh?

Sugar-Coated Placebos

The sad reality of things, folks, is that both of these Presidential candidates have been absolutely miserable. This country is staring at 400 billion dollar deficits/a multi, Multi, MULTI, trillion dollar debt and these two clowns have have been giving us shit. I mean, sure, Obama wants to eliminate Bush's tax-cuts. O.K.,fine. But what the hell does that frigging give us, for Christ, 70-80 billion (most of which the Democratic congress would probably blow on increased social spending anyway)? Oh, and then there's Mr. McCain. What's his magic bullet here. Yep, you got it, "ear-marks". I mean, don't get me wrong. That's as good a place to start as any. But what could that alone possibly save us? Try less than 20 billion...............................................You do see what I'm saying here, right? The frigging guys are tinkering. And while they're tinkering, the problem is getting worse. Do the words, demographic nightmare, mean anything to you? The sad fact here is that with the baby-boom generation aging, retiring, and taxing the Medicare/Social Security systems beyond belief, we're going to need something bold and a hell of a lot more honest than those poor excuses for candidates are giving us. Bottom-line, folks, we're either going to have to increase the retirement age, markedly raise taxes, and/or means-test. Hell, we might even have to revisit that nasty little bugger/nonstarter called partial privatization (on a voluntary basis, of course). I seem to recall Senator Biden once saying that partial privatization might in fact be a good idea. Of course, this was before President Bush officially proposed it to Congress (the mere fact that Bush proposed it made him change his mind?). Talk about partisan capitulation, huh?

ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?

There's been a lot of talk about T-Bone Pickens lately - and with good reason. This, I'm saying, in that the fellow's apparently come up with an energy plan that experts across the political spectrum are lauding. It's comprehensive and, at least from what I can gather, doesn't cave in to any one particular interest. Kudos, in other words............................................Unfortunately, though (and, yes, on a completely different subject), I do have a bone (no pun intended) to pick (again, no pun intended) with Mr. Pickens. I guess that last year some time, Mr. Pickens gave 168 million dollars to his alma mater, Oklahoma State University. Why do I have a bone to pick with this, you're asking? Well, apparently, the man has expressly targeted this money to go for (drum-roll, please) football facilities. Yeah, that's right, football facilities. I mean, don't get me wrong. It's his money. He can do whatever he wants with it (and, yes, he's probably done plenty of good things with his money over the years). But, I don't know, I was thinking more along the lines of an add-on to the nursing-school, a scholarship fund, perhaps - anything but frigging football!.........................................And while we're at it, how does the state of Alabama have the chutzpah to dish out four million dollars a year....FOR A FRIGGING FOOTBALL COACH? I mean, we are talking about a state that ranks near the bottom in terms of educational expenditure, correct? Look, folks, I love college pig-skin as much as anybody but, really, don't you think that maybe our priorities are a little bit off these days? That's what I'm beginning to think.

Power in the Right (or Should I say Left) Hands

Obama's vote on the FISA compromise, folks, conventional wisdom had that, too, as a component of his "move-to-the-center" general-election strategy. Me, though, I'm not so sure about it. I was thinking instead that, while, yes, it may indeed have helped him in that regard, so, too, does this legislation preserve an aspect of executive power - not exactly a casual topic these days to the Senator.........................................I mean, think about it, when was the last time a President (or, in Obama's case, prospective President), ANY PRESIDENT, willingly gave up power like this? Could it simply be that Obama isn't any different in this regard? Just a thought (a fleeting one, at that), me-buckos............................................P.S. Not that there's anything wrong with this, of course. A strong executive branch can sometimes be beneficial, especially during a time of crisis. I guess it all depends on who the President happens to be, huh? Obama, we all frigging trust him, right?

Froth-Free Criticism, Book 2

As for Obama saying that, even knowing what he knows now, he still would have voted against the surge, that, too, has been demagogued a bit. I mean, think about it. All that that shows is how Obama is able to discern multiple causality. He probably sees that, while, yes, additional troops may in fact have suppressed some of the violence, all of those other factors that I've mentioned ad-nauseum in other posts (our deals with the Sunnis, the results of ethnic-cleansing, etc.) have probably played a role, as well. And since the level of political reconciliation needed for that society to maintain stability HASN'T happened, what would have been the reason TO vote for the surge? That's the way I see it, anyway.................................................P.S. And, no, folks, I don't expect Mr. Obama to be as blunt or as impolitic as I've been here - AT ALL! I'm just saying that he needs to communicate better, period. I mean, think about it. Not a lot of other swing voters are necessarily going to be as generous/patient as I've been. They're going to want to hear it from HIS mouth - and, yes, preferably before the election.

A Chest-Thumping Stumping

Senator McCain has said countless times over the years that Teddy Roosevelt is one of his heroes. And, yeah, folks, in many ways I do kind of see it; the independent (though, no, not lately) streak, a focus on the environment, etc.. But, in terms of their approach to foreign-policy, it seems that there might be at least a semblance of a disconnect. I mean, didn't Teddy Roosevelt say that we should, "speak softly but carry a big stick"? McCain, it appears, may have missed that particular memo............................................Case in point (one of several in fact), is how McCain is responding to the Russian/Georgia crisis; namely, with bluster. He's popping off daily on what the Russians MUST do, on what WE'RE going to do (not necessarily militarily, mind you, but, still, stated with bellicosity) if in fact they don't comply, etc.. Of course, in the mean-time, me-buckos, we're still bogged down on two fronts (possibly three, if McCain wins) and have nothing to back the bluster up with. Oh well...........................................P. S. I seem to recall another quote of Roosevelt's that may have also escaped McCain's attention. Five little words: "One war at a time."

Wasted Days and Wasted Nights

Speaking of Garbo, folks, I was watching "Camille" the other week and, yeah, you got it, I was enthralled; the way that she ran circles around Robert Taylor, especially. Of course, as I was watching this great movie, I couldn't help but wonder, too, what my fair and balanced friends (not!!) friends over at the Lydia Cornell site were doing, how the hell that they might be "entertaining" themselves, etc...........................................And, yes, folks, I actually came up with a theory. My theory? Well, let's just say that in many ways it was a typical night over there. On this particular occasion, though, I had the bastards sitting (bibs and drool-buckets in place, of course) over the keyboards and debating furiously. The topic? Oh, it was a dandy. On this night, the subject was WHO, betwixt those damn devils, Bush and McCain, is best equipped to take those reins from Hitler. And, yes, me-buckos, very heated it was between those stooges (3-4 guys comprising 90% of the comments over there - it's hilarious!) this night. So much so, in fact, that through the verdict of attrition, they ultimately decided, it's a draw! I mean, talk about a serious "hung-jury", huh?................................................P.S. Personally, folks, I prefer to keep that Hitler bullet in my holster. This, I'm saying, in that you never know when you're actually going to need it.

Like Sands Through a...............

There's this one extremely important point that you have to realize, folks. Every second of your life that you spend trying to reason with these paranoids - that's a second (a precious one) that you're never, ever, EVER, going to get back. I mean, think about it. One less second of Garbo. One less second of Clift. One less second of Smetana/Mussorgsky. One less second of Gide and Flannery O'Connor. One less second of Georges Roualt, for Christ! I mean, sure, it's human-nature to want to counter everything, every bit and piece of dogmatism, per se. But is it really worth it? Me, I'm beginning to think less and less so..........................................P.S. One thing, though, that I will always condemn is Cliffolaus's boorish/moronic homophobia. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, I have a lot of gay friends and acquaintances who, damn it, folks, don't deserve a fifth of the bull-shit that this skank has been peddling. If in fact we DO have to pick our battles here, this would be as good a one as any, I'm thinking.

Froth-Free Criticism

As I stated in the previous blog, there are certainly things about John McCain that one could legitimately be critical of. Take, for instance, his recent statements about Obama; saying that Obama would "rather win a campaign than win a war', etc.. He says that he isn't questioning Obama's patriotism, only his judgement. I don't know, folks, if he isn't questioning his patriotism with that statement, he's certainly pushing the envelope very close...........................................As for Obama's having opposed the surge, that, me-buckos, was hardly a questionable "judgement" call. Very few people thought that by putting an extra 30,000 troops into that grinder (certainly not at that stage of the war anyway) the people of that "country" would magically start to coalesce. And you know what, folks, they STILL actually haven't. Yeah, that's right, political reconciliation, the purported/specified goal of the surge (as amplified by the President himself - hello!) has yet to be accomplished! It doesn't appear that Obama's judgement was bad at all - at least not on that topic, anyway. Hoe ironic, huh?.............................................P.S. As for political reconciliation, I don't think that that itself could be considered complete, either, as long as the refugee problem (a problem that we created, by the way), too, remains unsolved. This is not to say, of course, that everyone should necessarily be moved back to where they were before the war (what, to start fighting again?), only that a fair settlement needs to be reached. And, yes, folks, here is where the afore-mentioned (in a previous post) partition plan could possibly have relevance. Hell, maybe Obama, if in fact he is elected, can help us to think outside the box on this one. I mean, he is a smart guy, right?

Human Bile, Folks, At its Worst

The Bush Presidency has failed. The Republicans have messed up the country. The Democrats deserve their chance to govern. I get it already. And, yes, I also get the fact that the McCain campaign has recently been a horrid one. The increasingly abusive/attack-oriented tone, in particular, has been very troubling. I get all of it!!.......................................What I don't get, however, is the absolute hatred/vile commentary in which the far-left blogosphere has been reveling in of late. I mean, don't get me wrong. Senator McCain has made some bad mistakes in his life, professionally AND personally. But the absolute vitriol that's been directed at this man has been beyond the pale/revolting. He's been called everything from a traitor to a money grubbing/serial opportunist (often on a web-site that claims to "love" its enemies, ironically)........................................And he's been swift-boated, too. One blogger, in particular (yep, you guessed it, Bradley Hadley), has been excessively blatant about it. The bastard consistently cites the fact that McCain, during his NAVAL career, "lost" five planes, not so subtly implying that McCain himself was responsible for every bit of this carnage. He includes the episode in which McCain was shot down over Vietnam (McCain's fault, evidently). He also includes an event, folks, that was truly a human tragedy............................................Yes, I'm referring to the episode in which McCain, while waiting on the tarmac, was accidentally hit by a missile - a missile that nearly killed him. Well, guess what, folks, it appears that McCain's plane wasn't the only one that was hit. Many, many, others were as well. In fact, over 100 sailors were killed during this tragic event. Are we led to believe it was their fault, also? Or, OR, was it John McCain's fault that these people died? One can only wonder in fact....how this is going to be spun..........................................P.S. The bottom-line, McCain has sacrificed enough for this country. He doesn't, in any way, deserve to be belittled by such a cavalcade of Internet bit players/stooges. He certainly doesn't deserve it from Bradley Hadley. THAT is for certain.

Something Borrowed, Nothing New

As for all of this much more false bravado, damned, I'm saying, if that especially didn't start to wreak, as well. I mean, just take to that pounding toward those pincer-stakes, for Christ - the fact that these same clowns would mischaracterize as involuntarily as most people sneeze, etc.. Of course, the fact that these same "conclusions" had in fact been rendered previously, one could just as easily say that, yes, it ALL make for a putrid affair, irregardless. Oh well, just keep riding those rails, suspiciously, I guess.

Doubtless Wonders

I'd rather get kicked in the head by a horse, folks, than be forced to listen to guys with such depraved certitude. I mean, don't get me wrong here. Part of me is envious - them being able to wake up every morning....knowing that the sun is going to look exactly the way that THEY want it to, kerplunkingly. It's just when they try and force this absolutism/cowardice on the rest of us poor slobs at Sassy's - THAT is starting to be a major turn-off, for Christ! Oh well, I guess that I could always turn the chapter, too, huh, high-tail it the hell on out of here, etc. - this, as a potential option, I'm saying!

Numbskullery/Nincompoopishness

The literalness, I swear, it was almost comedic at times. And even those baby-faced mamby-pambs themselves, keeping it all so close to the vest (at Sassy's, especially), none of THEM could decipher the stupidity of it, either! Of course, if I could only get this bevy of dim-witted bullies into thinking less linear, popping those corks less prematurely, yeah, I'd probably give it a shot, for Christ! Nothing much to lose, right?

Echo Chamber/Network

Fox News, folks, they say that they don't/never take Republican "talking points" - yeah, right. Fred Barnes, the conservative (or should I say, more conservative?) member of that network's, "The Beltway Boys", basically said/spouted ( this, within a week of McCain having said it, mind you) that the counter-insurgency tactic of turning the Sunni militias against Al Qaeda (a strategy that happened well before the troop-surge, by the way) was, in fact, part and parcel TO THE SURGE! I mean, talk about some serious spinning, huh?...........................................P.S. And, yes, this from a guy who, up until McCain had gotten the nomination, had been very lukewarm in his tolerance of/support for the Senator. Oh well, I guess that when a Republican runs against a Democrat, ANY REPUBLICAN, it can in fact make for some strange bed-fellows. This, I'm saying, in that it gets them all on the same wavelength, for Christ!

The Good, the Bad, and the Tweeners

Some of these calls are easy, folks; Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Pinochet, Roberto D'Aubisson, etc.. Most of the rest, unfortunately, aren't. Take, for instance, guys like Joe Kennedy Sr., Prescott Bush Sr., Averill Harriman, the Duponts, Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, et. al., who either through their words or deeds, have been associated with comforting and/or assisting Hitler's Nazi regime. Few, if any, of these men can be painted so simplistically.......................................This, I'm saying, in that, while, yes, these men clearly did make mistakes/used shaky judgement, 1) the mistakes have often been exaggerated and 2) their positive contributions ignored. Bush's case, in particular, is illuminating. His critics (many of who were not even alive during his Senate career, by the way, motivated by the hatred of his grandson, etc.) have essentially accused him of being a Nazi collaborator, of being Adolph Hitler's personal banker, for Christ! And those are some of the nicer things that people have said about him..........................................I mean, don't get me wrong here. The fact that Union Banking Corp (the company where Bush was on the board of directors) was doing business in Nazi Germany in the years leading up to (and even after Germany declared war on us) the 2nd World War can in no way be viewed positively. But (and like I stated on a previous posting) there are a myriad of mitigating factors here. Some I referred to in a previous post. Here are some others...........................................Point one. If you look at all the U.S. Companies who were doing business in Nazi Germany during this specified time-period, it's essentially a who's who of American industry. Are we going to hold each and every one of these companies (it's in the hundreds, folks) accountable for this transgression, basically accuse them all of treasonous activity? And what about the employees (possibly as many as a million)? Are we, being that there apparently isn't such a thing as being a little guilty here, going to put all of THEM on trial, too? And how about the friends and associates of these people? Might they be considered as well a part and parcel to this conspiracy? What about F.D.R. himself, folks? Was not he one of Averill Harriman's best friends (yes, THAT Averill Harriman, the Averill Harriman who allegedly owned 3,997 shares of that dreaded Union Banking Corp stock)? You do see what I'm saying here, don't you?.........................................Point two. When we strictly focus on the transgressions, not just of Bush, but of all these men, and not on their total lives, the tendency, frankly, is to miss a lot. Kennedy, for instance, at the same time F.D.R. was canning him, was also raising sons who went on to be great leaders in America. Bush went on to be one of the country's finest Senators, Harriman a vital and indispensable aid to Truman. Industrialists, such as Dupont and Ford, added greatly to the U.S. economy. These men weren't, clearly, in any way, shape, or form, pure evil..........................................Point three. When you try and reduce historical perspectives to such clear-cut dichotomies of good and evil, not only do you sometimes vilify the wrong people, so, too, can you inappropriately deify others. Winston Churchill, folks, probably the greatest man of the 20th century, he was the person who ordered the fire-bombing of Dresden, an act that not only destroyed one of the world's most beautiful cities but killed as well 200,000 civilians - an act that we now know wasn't necessary. F.D.R., probably the second greatest man of the 20th century, he incarcerated thousands of good American citizens - simply because of their nationality! Abraham Lincoln, too, damned if he didn't suspend the writ of habeus corpus. And what about Thomas Jefferson, boinking his slave-women as if it were his God-given right? Yes, all of these men in fact WERE great, but so, too, were they decidedly flawed..........................................Bottom-line, folks, shouldn't we all be getting a little tired of this gotcha shit, the sins of the father, guilt by association, etc.? I sure as hell know that I am.................................................................P.S. Correction, folks, it was not Averell Harriman who owned these shares of Union Banking Corps. It was his brother. I apologize for any confusion brought about by this error. Thank you.

Bradley Hadley

He was using my back-yard as his own personal latrine, for Christ! And the bull-shitted "artistry" of it, too, I'm saying, the fact that he was even more like Lawton than Lawton himself was, damned if that wasn't just as much of a perforated mess/ball-sack. Of course, the fact that this plugger was never, EVER, in his right mind, a normal fool, etc., it probably would have been prime/magnanimous to cut him some slack, accept him as a nimrod, too. Don't ya' think?

A General Trend

And, then, of course, there's Bradley Hadley. Talk about a son-of-gun who won't stop at anything. This, I'm saying, in that, damn it, this plugger actually had the audacity/temerity to drag out George S. Patton, for Christ! Let's see, what was the frigging quote (he might have been paraphrasing) he used? Oh, yeah, "in order to win wars you need to shoot down the enemy and make the enemy P.O.W.s, not get shot down or crash and become a P.O.W. yourself."..........................................Hm, talk about some convenience, huh - a quote by Patton that makes it seem as if being a P.O.W. (enter John McCain, of course) is maybe something less than we previously thought it was? Interesting...........................................Of course, as long we're citing Patton here, it makes me wonder, does Mr. Hadley have as well a grip on this particular General's views on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (it was called shell-shock back then, I believe)? I mean, could it be that he didn't know how Patton basically thought that people suffering from this affliction were wussies, that they should either be thrown back into the conflict....or court-marshalled - period? Kind of hard to tell..........................................Bottom-line, folks, let's just say that the random quoting of old soldiers like this, it's very similar to quoting the Bible....or the Koran. It's best not to get into the habit of it.

McCain's Planes

From what I can gather, folks, Senator McCain, while a member of the Air Force, was involved in five incidents in which the plane he was the pilot in was crippled. Two of these incidents involved Mr. McCain himself crashing the planes. One of the other incidents was obviously him being shot down in Vietnam. The fourth incident involved the plane that he was in "flaming out" and him having to parachute out of it. As for the fifth incident, Mr. McCain was simply waiting to take off and, yes, WHILE he was waiting, the craft that he was the pilot in was accidentally hit by a missile. Hardly a "crash", in other words.............................................So, there you have it. Those are the five incidents that I could find. Just how many of those are McCain's own fault, I don't know, I guess that that depends on just how much of a jack-booted, venom-spewing, mentally-challenged lunatic/thug you are. If you happen to be high on that particular metric, then, yes, they're all frigging McCain's doing. If, however, you're more of a fair-minded citizen (not a lot of THOSE on the Internet, huh?), you'd probably say that just two of them were - if in fact you spent any time on it at all, for Christ!

Small D Neocon

Mort Kondracke, folks, the supposedly liberal member of Fox News's, "The Beltway Boys", damned if he, too, hasn't bought into that oxymoronic justification for our continued presence in Iraq. He said during a recent episode that, yes, if in fact we do leave Iraq, there's a good possibility that Iran and Al Qaeda will take over the country. Yeah, that's right, Iran AND Al Qaeda. I mean, I don't know, folks. I had always thought that Kondracke, in spite of these long-held internationalist leanings of his, was at least an intelligent man. Has he seriously not learned that the Iranians and Al Qaeda totally hate each other....and would never be able to peacefully co-exist, EVER? A.K.A., they BOTH frigging couldn't take over Iraq, for Christ!..........................................Seriously, though, is this not equivalent (or at least similar) to the logic that got us into Iraq in the first place? I mean, think about it. We (Bush and his bipartisan buddies in the Congress) actually surmised that Saddam Hussein would surrender his WMD to terrorist groups, terrorist groups that would in turn use them against us. Wow, how silly does that sound now? If these terrorist groups actually had WMD, one of the very first targets would be frigging Saddam himself. Look, folks, don't get me wrong. I'm not against using the military. I'm certainly not against the concept of mowing down some swine from time to time. I just think that we have to be one thing in addition to that; careful/wise. And when we do use force, what do you say we use the Powell-Doctrine next time and not, NOT, the frigging one that Rummy cooked up?

Projection Erection

Hasn't it gotten past the point, folks, where Keith Olbermann can continue to lambaste Fox for ITS partisan coverage? I mean, don't get me wrong here. The guy makes a lot of good points about his competitors over there (some of those points are downright hilarious, in fact). But, really, is he the best guy in the world to be delivering this message - he himself being as partisan as a rubber-stamp these days? I don't know, it kind of would have been like Ho Chi Minh calling Benito Mussolini a ruthless thug/dictatorial. Mr. Minh would have been correct and all. It just would have sounded a little comical coming from a nimrod like that, that's all.

Partition and Parcel

Not that it ever showed up on the Richter-Scale, mind you (I'm not of the big-dogs, I've been told), but this hombre was one of the earliest advocates for the partition plan in Iraq. I don't know, I guess I must have figured that this present day Iraq....is in many ways like the old Yugoslavia . This, I'm saying, in that each of these "countries" was, for all intents and purposes, a manufactured entity; Iraq stitched together after the first world war, Yugoslavia after the second. Both countries, also, in order to keep the disparate components from warring, had to be held together via dictatorships. And they both, once the dictatorships were eliminated, started to unravel.........................................I also must have figured that, since the partitioning of the old Yugoslavia has itself more or less worked (no, it's not a utopia but, still), it might not be the worst strategy to try it out in Iraq. And you know what, folks, I still haven't heard a better solution offered. In fact, partitioning may in fact be even more plausible now. I mean, think about it. Ethnic-cleansing has pretty much already divided the country. Why not make it official (revenue-sharing on the oil, the use of peace-keeping troops, sticky issues, granted)? It won't be easy (the Turkish-Kurdish quandary, especially) but, seriously, compared to a series of potential blood-baths and/or OUR continued occupation, it just might be the best of the least-worst options out there...........................................Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, what do you think?

The Pervasive Nature of Skeletons

I don't know, folks, I thought that everybody was aware of Joe Kennedy Sr. being a Nazi sympathizer. I was wrong, evidently. To those of you who were unaware of this, please, allow me to provide these basic points: 1) It was common-knowledge among those in Washington that Kennedy was a Nazi sympathizer/admirer of Hitler. 2) Kennedy was fired from his post of U.S. Ambassador to England by Roosevelt in 1938, expressly for his being a tad TOO vocal in his expressions of these view-points. 3) After he was fired by Roosevelt, Kennedy joined the "America First" movement and, later, the anti-war movement. 4) While serving as U.S. Ambassador to England, his German equivalent in London referred to Kennedy as "German's best friend in London." 5) Also while serving his post in London, Kennedy doggedly and repeatedly sought a personal meeting with Hitler himself. 6) In one of his meetings with the German ambassador, Kennedy is on the record as saying, "I understand your Jewish policy completely." I could go on but you kind of get the picture, right?.............................................Oh, and if you think that this is nothing but a smear-job by the far-right, think again. Every one of these points comes from Seymour Hersh, not exactly what one would call a Republican water-boy. But not only THAT, folks, liberal commentator, Joe Conason, agrees with him, that Kennedy indeed was a Nazi sympathizer................................................As to what all of this information means, I don't know, what do you want it to mean? To me, all it says is that Joe Kennedy Sr. was a flawed man. It absolutely has nothing to do with his children. NOTHING! This is America, folks. Sins of the father aren't as important here. Nor should they be.

Operational Definition

True non-partisanship, folks, let's be honest here. It has to do (on some level, at least) with being able to see the idiocy/hypocrisy ON BOTH SIDES!! This, I'm saying, in that, NO, it's not enough simply to slam the B-team....for not having the balls to slam the A-team! You also have to be able to slam the B-team....for what THEY, as a unit, represent; the bone-headedness of the supposed solutions that they proffer, etc.. You need to see it as an equal-opportunity form of criticism, in other words............................................Of course, if you find yourself unable to accomplish such a balancing-act, there's nothing at all wrong with that, either. It's fine. Just don't go around calling yourself non-partisan, that's all. Comprehendo?

A Pissing/Shooting Contest

Have you noticed, folks, how both of these major party Presidential candidates have been trying to out-do each other on Afghanistan; which of them more desperately wants a troop-surge there, etc.? And have you noticed, to, how uncritically the public/media have been lapping this stuff up, accepting the premise of these two guys almost as if it was a frigging axiom?........................................I mean, sure, maybe it's possible that more troops in that country will help to stabilize it/cut down on the drug production/take down the resurging Taliban/etc.. But, really, haven't we learned that, by fighting this "war on terror" predominantly via the military option, other drawbacks are as well created; a recruiting tool for terrorists, us being seen as imperialists, a spiraling of insurgency and counter-insurgency. What, we think that the Afghan people are going to be less p.o.d than the Iraqis were at being occupied?.......................................And the timing of it, too. Just because this might have been a good idea 5-6 years ago, doesn't necessarily mean that it currently is. Look, I don't know. I'm just saying that maybe we ought to toss this around for a while first. Perhaps we can come up with a better idea - or not. Just a suggestion.

A Numbers-Game Game

It has come to my mind, folks, that the so-called reduction in violence in Iraq may in fact be open to interpretation. It seems that the present statistics have not been including car-bombings, a popular form of mayhem in Iraq that's apparently been killing and maiming dozens of civilians each week. I need to do more research on this BUT, if it IS true, damned if the Bush administration and Senators McCain/Lieberman/Graham (the 3 Amigos) ALL need to be criticized here. I know it's a lot to ask of our government to give us the whole truth (nor at this point should we even expect it) and all, but this would be ridiculous...........................................P.S. Thank God there isn't a law saying that we ourselves can't go probing for this truth. Well, at least there isn't one in the constitution that I've been reading, anyway.

Great Way to Persuade, Fellows

I have been accused by several of Barack Obama's more ardent supporters of having "trashed" the Senator, of doing so in an effort to help McCain, specifically. I don't know, what can I say here? These people evidently don't believe me when I say that I couldn't (due to my position on the Iraq War) in good conscience vote for Senator McCain this time around. They must also in essence feel that ANY criticism of their candidate (unless, of course, it's done by them) is something that must not only be stifled but but seen as a by-product of some sort of conspiratorial process. Needless to say, the messenger of the criticism gets denigrated along with McCain.......................................I don't know, folks, I find this all rather strange. I used to think, frankly, that among the central tenets of liberalism were tolerance, an openness of thought, a willingness to see the world through another's perspective, etc.. If you ask me, it seems that a lot of these so-called liberals are as rigid in their thinking (interpretations often coming before the actual experiencing) as these right-wing talk-radio folks (Melanie Morgan, possibly excepted) continue to be.......................................As for the actual charge of me having trashed Senator Obama, give me a break. I've criticized him on a number of issues (air-strikes inside of Pakistan, his willingness to leave a residual force inside Iraq, etc.), period. But not only that, folks, I've never once hit him on any of the really salacious stuff; the Reverend Wright flap, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, the San Francisco "clinging to their guns and religion" comments, his "typical white person" comment. I've never teed-off on his wife for any of her comments. I've stuck to what I thought were some pertinent points. Not that I expect any credit for this, mind you - but just for the record, I'm saying...........................................P.S. As of now, this perennial "swing-voter" is leaning toward Barr. Not that I couldn't be persuaded otherwise, of course. Just be sane about it, O.K.?

Ring Around the Lobby

Senator Obama has made a lot of hay over the fact that he continues to refuse money from lobbyists, that 80% of his contributions have in fact come from donators donating $200 or less, etc.. It all sounds pretty commendable, right? And it is. Well, kind of. This, I'm saying, in that it appears that the Senator has currently raised more than 18 million dollars in contributions from lawyers and/or law-firms that currently represent, you guessed it, lobbyists. And the Obama campaign has also become very adept at that little technique known as "bundling" - you know, where one donor can in fact be a magnet for a lot of other donors, all of who conveniently appear to have a common agenda or two..............................................I mean, is all of this as bad as what the McCain camp has been doing for all these months (lobbyist-wise)? Probably not. And, yet, it does kind of show us that whenever you start to peel the outer-layers off of ANY of these politicians, you eventually end up with, well, a politician. With a Barack Obama, in other words. Not that there's anything wrong with that!!

Sometimes You Can Hate a Little TOO Much

There's been an awful lot written on the Internet of late about President Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush/his supposed ties to the Nazi regime of the '30s and even after the war in Europe started. It is pointed out, specifically, that the elder Bush was on the board of directors of Union Banking Corp., a company that did a lot of business with a fellow by the name of Fritz Thyssen, a prominent German businessman with Nazi ties. It is also pointed out that Bush, in addition to being on the board of directors of Union Banking Corp., was also a prominent shareholder of the company - a company that also did business with a Polish-owned entity that supposedly operated what eventually became Auschwitz. Wow, it all sounds pretty incriminating, huh?......................................Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's level of political fanaticism), there are at least a spate of problems associated with this accusation. One, Fritz Thyssen (Prescott Bush's co-villain in this sordid tale) broke with Hitler in 1938 (allegedly in response to Hitler's Kristallnacht program) - well before the invasion of Poland/the discovery of Hitler's "final solution". Two, there is no evidence that Prescott Bush had anything to do with Thyssen's political work in Germany. If Bush was guilty of anything, it was wanting too badly to make a buck. Three, Bush owned but one (yeah, that's right, one) share of Union Banking Corp. stock. Compare that to Averill Harriman (friend of Roosevelt, assistant to Truman), who owned 4,000 shares. Four, the operations of the Polish company associated with Auschwitz were actually stolen by the Nazis in 1939, well before the Auschwitz concentration-camp program existed. And, finally, while, yes, it must be pointed out that the Union Banking Corp. in fact DID do business with the Nazis, so, too, did Ford, General Motors, Standard Oil, DuPont, and many other companies. Damned if it wasn't a common practice, in other words..........................................Look, folks, did Prescott Bush (along with all the other companies mentioned) perhaps show some bad judgement here; putting profit over principle, etc? Yeah, probably. But in the words of liberal commentator, Joe Conason, "Henry Ford was a Nazi collaborator. Joseph P. Kennedy Sr. was a Nazi sympathizer. Unless additional information emerges to indict him, Prescott Bush Sr. was neither. To misuse such terms for political advantage against his grandson is to trivialize very grave offenses.....Imputing Nazi sympathies to the President or his family ought to be beneath his adversaries."..........................................Addendum. After his business career was over, Prescott Bush went on to serve two terms in the United States Senate. He was a liberal Eisenhower/Rockefeller Republican whose record was actually one that today's "progressives" ought to (apart from their partisanship, that is) see as admirable. He was an early advocate of public housing. He was one of the earliest supporter of the United Negro College Fund. He consistently championed such causes as Planned Parenthood. He was a staunch opponent of McCarthyism. And, yes, he was largely mistrusted by the conservatives and was denigrated by them regularly.........................................And that's part of the whole irony here, folks. It wasn't the liberals of the world who started this whole Nazi-Bush smear-job. It was the conservatives! Sensing that George H.W. Bush had at least a decent shot at the Presidency, the right, in an effort to halt this momentum (and, yes, remembering the liberalism of the father) came forth with this connect-the-dots/sins-of-the-father strategy. Talk about coming full-circle with some strange bed-fellows, huh?........................................And, finally, if we're going to tar-and-feather everybody with the last name of Bush, what's next - denigrating everybody with the last name of Kennedy, DuPont, or Harriman, boycotting Ford and G.M. FOREVER? I don't know, folks, that sounds like something that just might be beneath us all.

Coverin' the Poop-Shoot (From Hightower All the Way to Sandy-Bottom, for Christ!)

Prior to Lawton, folks, I had never even heard of "progressive" homophobes. Seriously. I mean, sure, I had known that there were in fact some subsets whose OWN prowess (or lack thereof)/orientation had caused them to ridicule the Baver brothers, etc.. But I had always considered them more along the lines of those knuckle-draggers at Sassy's/douche-bags whose own profits were clearly related to looking - kerplunkingly! Oh well, I guess I probably should have known all along, huh, hypocrisy being what it is in Wellesley - the freakishness of it, ad infinitum/especially?

Means-Ends Awareness

Let's see, this makes four negative attack ads in a row by the McCain campaign (yes, I have in fact been counting). I guess they've decided that the only way in which they cannot derail this Obama juggernaut is, well, to derail it. And the best way to do THAT (in their opinion, evidently), is to continue to try and plant doubt in the voter's minds about the readiness of Obama to be President; casting doubts about his value-systems, his judgements, etc......................................Not that this is an all-together ineffectual strategy, mind you. You DO want an extremely stark contrast between your guy and the other guy and, yes, to do this, you sometimes have to negatively portray (hopefully within reason) the latter's record. But, seriously, some of the points that these recent ads have been stressing have indeed been questionable (even McCain's campaign guy from 2000 has criticized these ads); Obama being compared to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, footage of him playing basketball (WITH the troops, mind you) instead of visiting the troops in Germany. And it's making John McCain look bad, as well......................................I mean, think about it. From 1999 to 2002, Senator McCain was probably the most respected politician in the country. This, I'm saying, in that, whenever another politician wanted instant credibility for him or herself, all he or she had to do was drop the name of John McCain and there it was. I don't know, it's almost as if it isn't even the same guy who's been spouting all this crap. I really feel like asking the Senator, "Bro, do you really want to be president of the United States THIS bad? Is it really worth it to you?"........................................P.S. Me? I just wish he would go back to some of that vintage-speak of his; "agents of intolerance", stuff like that. I mean, it would at least make me feel a little guilty about not voting for him.