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.

Holy Hyperbolic Paranoia, Batman

Suffice it to say, though, that Bradley Hadley was himself just as douchely. I mean, just take a gander, folks, to the fact that his was a damned raw idiocy - just as ripe as it was implausible, for Christ! Of course, the fact that his brain was as tiny as a hornet's was, prior to that deluge at Sassy's, so, too, it just might have been a good idea to alter expectations - and to do so accordingly, I'm saying. I mean, seriously, my friends, we all have to take some responsibility, right? RIGHT?

The Newer the Breed, the Older the Bull-Shit

I don't know, folks, it looks as if Sarah Palin might be suffering a tad from what Slade Leeds likes to call Obamaitis. Obamaitis? In a nut-shell, that's when a politician (more often than not, one that's new to the public-eye) tries to present him/herself as a new sort/breed of politician - not just in his or her views, mind you, but in the way that he or she goes about their business, too..............................................So, in this case, just like Obama said that he WOULD take the public funds....and then didn't, said that he WOULDN'T play the race-card....and then kind of did, tinkered with his views to make them more palatable to a new constituency (FISA, drilling, the war, etc.), we apparently have Palin showing that she, too, is a tad on the pedestrian side. She says that she opposed that dreaded "Bridge to Nowhere"....when she initially supported it (Alaska eventually keeping every penny of the money). She's acting like she's always supported McCain's candidacy....when she obviously hasn't. And the woman's under investigation, for Christ! None of this at all sounds new and different to me.................................................Oh well, I guess it's comforting to know that Obamaitis isn't a discriminating disease, doesn't confine itself to one particular political party, etc.. I mean, think about it. You can only stare into that sun for so long, before it starts to blind you, for Christ!...................................................P.S. Talk about a cautionary tale/important point for everybody, huh? Seriously, it's almost enough to make you want to lose your own frigging pedestal, first - even before you need to, I'm saying. Well, unless, of course, you "lean" in the direction of Sassy's, big time. That, unfortunately, makes it a pisser/far more difficult choice to fracture. I mean, just ask frigging Leeds, for Christ! He'll tell you. Damn square, he'll tell you.

Rorschach Tests Available, Pick 'Em Up at Sassy's

Obama was a "community organizer". We're hearing a lot about that lately, folks. And, yes, I suppose it is in fact supposed to signify....something. But what, though? To his supporters, it evidently validates what a selfless, altruistic, socially-conscious, service-oriented, community-first hero that they thought he was from the get-go. His adversaries, though - they, on the other hand, see this phase of Obama's career strictly in terms of him padding his resume (a part of the plan, in other words), a means to make political connections, and are suspicious of the term, community organizer, in general - a suggestion that it's somehow ad-hoc/bureaucratic, that it lacks accountability, etc............................................As for me, I have no idea WHAT to make of it. On the one hand, it sounds to his credit that Obama, instead of going after the big bucks in some high-powered law firm, would prefer to work with regular folks in the community. But, if he did it just to further his political aspirations (and, no, we can't get inside his head either way here), I probably wouldn't see it quite so favorably. I don't know, I guess it's just like anything else. You have to examine the record (what he actually did/didn't do) and, then, make a determination. As of now, not having had the time to do such an exhaustive research, analyze the data, etc., I'm afraid that I'm not going to be able to respond as viscerally as some of the others have. Sorry 'bout that.

Holy Hell 'n Hyperbole

Poor Messenger, though. You have to have at least a little pity for the fellow - I would think. I mean, think about it/come on! The guy was just prancing around in his Satherly, for Christ (thinking about what he was going to have for dinner, probably) and, yes, down comes that boulder from hightower CRUSHING IT, nearly crushing him, and scarring. Add to that the fact that a bevy of huskers, too, was decimated and, seriously, how could it not weigh heavy on his mind, God damn it? Of course, the fact that Bradley Hadley points to this whole sordid/rank affair, only as a demerit to Messenger, that, perhaps, is the most hideous part of all. Well, that....and the fact that he rejoices in it - apparently. Talk about a sickie, huh?

A Break From My "Right-Wing" Talking-Points

As a lover of old movies/stars and everything, folks, I just can't help but be perplexed by certain twists of historical fate. Why, for instance, aren't luminaries such as Charles Boyer and Deborah Kerr not as revered in retrospect as they should be? I mean , I know that certain factors such as charisma and celebrity (not to mention the fickleness of taste) have a tendency to play into things here but, really, folks, we're not exactly looking at a couple of potted-plants here, damn it. And, yes, the examples are numerous - almost ridiculously so, in fact.........................................Of course, there's always that one example the likes of which a person is more than happy to lobby for - yes, independent of the others. For me, that would clearly have to be the disarming, talented, and beautiful (subtly ferocious, in this regard) British actress, Jean Simmons.............................................For those of you who don't remember, Simmons was a routinely busy actress whose career (not to mention, style) coincided with those of Audrey Hepburn and Grace Kelly. She was one of the biggest/most bankable stars of that era (late 40s to early 60s) but, while the public continues to revere Hepburn and Kelly, it has all but forgotten Jean Simmons.............................................Well, let me tell you something. That's not going to be the case around here, folks - not as long as I have a breath to spare, anyway. I mean, look at the frigging resume, for Christ! At age 17, she was holding her own opposite John Mills and Alec Guinness ("Great Expectations", 1946). Two years later, she was trading riffs with Olivier in "Hamlet", holding her own with him as well. Yeah, that's right. She was going toe-to-toe with Olivier at age 19. Not exactly shabby, huh?...............................................And look at the other movies she was in; "Spartacus" (opposite Kirk Douglass), "The Robe" (opposite Richard Burton), "Elmer Gantry" (opposite Burt Lancaster), "The Big Country" (opposite Gregory Peck). She even did a movie with Brando and Sinatra, for Christ! Granted, "Guys and Dolls" was a tad of a dud and all but, really, folks, surviving a movie with Brando AND Sinatra, that alone is a hell of a testament. I don't know about you guys, but I'm thinking that maybe some sort of lifetime achievement award at a future Oscar ceremony might be in order. Hopefully, not TOO far into the future, though - she'll be 80 in January.

Old Demons Die Hard

O'Reilly, though, while he has in fact been seeming a tad more fair of late, damned if he still doesn't show those older (truer?) colors from time to time. Take, for instance, one of his recent segments on John Edwards's extra-marital affair. While he went out of his way to try and not hit Edwards too hard on this, damned if he didn't use the opportunity, too, to bring up that old feud he had with Edwards on homeless veterans. And he continued to lie about the whole thing.............................................For those of you who don't remember/didn't know, O'Reilly initially denied that there were 200,000 (?) homeless veterans. Then, when he could no longer do this (the evidence was undeniable), he changed the subject to say that, yes, there WERE homeless veterans....but only because they were mentally ill and/or addicted (never mind the fact that the wars in which they fought in maybe caused these problems)................................................And, then, of course, there was the whole thing with the "bridge"; Edwards saying that there was a bridge near New Orleans with homeless vets under it, O'Reilly saying that there wasn't, O'Reilly being wrong but never admitting to it, etc..............................................It's like, what the hell is wrong with this guy, O'Rielly? It seems like he's never been able to leave bad enough alone. The same thing with those racial comments he made; saying that he was "surprised" by the good behavior of black people. He still maintains that he never said THAT, either - this, I'm saying, despite the existence of transcripts, despite the existence of film-clips, etc.. I mean, seriously, if you're not going to make the correction, fine, but don't keep bringing this stuff up - ad infinitude. That's just plain stupid, I'm thinking.

Worst Faces Forward

It's sad to say, folks, but I think that Fox and MSNBC BOTH need to be chastised for their convention coverage. This, I'm saying, in that at least from what I could tell, both of these increasingly partisan enterprises were using partisan ramrods as moderators/hosts. On Fox, for example, damned if I didn't see a great deal of Sean Hannity - his level of circling-the-wagons apparently as unparalleled as ever. Unparalleled, that is, save perhaps for Keith Olbermann, MSNBC's liberal host/hatchet-man. Yeah, you got it, he was "moderating" over there. Hannity and Olbermann - and, yes, they were both "liberally" interjecting their sarcasm, snide comments, etc., editorializing, for Christ, throughout the frigging convention. How pathetic, huh?...........................................Thankfully, folks, CNN seems to be resisting this form of slanted journalism/coverage. Of course, being that they're also languishing in third-place, who the hell even knows how long that's going to last. Talk about an indictment on us.

Raining Hypocrisy

How is it, folks, that a women still gets questioned when she tries to balance motherhood and a career? I mean, I had thought that those antiquated notions were a thing of the past (had hoped so, anyway). Well, apparently, they're not. Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin (on the liberal blogs, no less) - she, specifically, has had to undergo a bevy of second-guessing. Folks are either saying that her job performance will suffer....or that her family in fact will. It's like, come on, when was the last time a man (a male politician, specifically) was ever scrutinized like that? I mean just look to the fact that Barack Obama has two young kids and he's never faced these questions. Of course, the fact that Obama is a Democrat, in addition to being a man, that has probably been to his advantage as well. Talk about a shifting standard, huh?..........................................And, yes, folks, those shifting standards can work both ways. I seem to recall, for instance, that when Obama was considering Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia for HIS Vice President, a lot of the conservative pundits (Karl Rove, I'm pretty sure, was one of them) were quick to point out HIS lack of experience; Governor for only a year and a half, mayor of a "small " town (in this case, Richmond, a CITY of approximately 200,000). I mean, granted, he doesn't look as good in a pants-suit but, still, it's the same frigging resume as Palin's, for Christ! That was then....and this is now, I'm guessing................................................P.S. Ironic, though, isn't it, about the Palin situation? I mean, wasn't it the conservatives who initially said that women with kids SHOULDN'T work, that they should stay at home with the youngsters, period? Talk about confusing, huh?

The Complete/Unabridged List of People That the Idiot, Alan Keyes, Could Conceivably Defeat in an Election - Any Election!

. . . . ....

Benjamin Harrison, Anybody?

I hate to bring this up, folks, but I think that there's at least a slight chance (15-20% - I'm guessing) that we might have a repeat of 2000 - you know, where one guy wins the popular vote but the other guy gets elected via the electoral college. The reason that I say this is that, while Obama (it being a Democratic year and all) has a solid chance to get a plurality of overall votes, the electoral map still appears to be problematic for him............................................I mean, think about it. The last northern liberal (and even he wasn't all that liberal by today's standards) to win a Presidential election (a general election, I'm saying) was J.F.K. - 48 years ago!! Now it certainly could be argued that this is a special year, 1) because the Republicans have mucked it up (one could argue) so much and 2) the fact that Obama's race could in fact help him in certain (previously thought of as unattainable) states; Virginia and Georgia, especially. But, I don't know, I still think it's going to be a donnybrook/white-knuckler. Be prepared for an all-nighter, folks.

An Insulting Insult, for Christ

To all the bloggers who toss the term, "gay", around, as if it were an insult, I submit THIS to THEM. Friends, it is NOT an insult to call somebody gay, to infer that people are gay, etc.. In fact, it's about as much of an insult, folks, as telling Joe that his eyes are green - blue, whatever! I mean, talk about a sad situation, huh, the mere fact that I even have to mention such bull-shit? Oh, how far we haven't come, apparently.

It Takes an Idiot to Know One, I Guess

O'Reilly literally said something that made me howl recently (9/1/08) - something that actually made some sense, I'm saying. He said, essentially, that blogging has become a forum for any emotionally disturbed person with a computer and a grudge to spout his/her sadistic notions for public discussion (obviously, I'm paraphrasing). I mean, granted, this isn't necessarily the guy (himself the king of hyperbole/demonization) we want/need to be hearing this from - this admonishment, if you will. But, hey, what can I say, even a guy who's most always wrong (filled to the brim with fecal-matter even) can sometimes get it right. I mean, just ask Bradley Hadley at Sassy's, for Christ! - him, and the people who have to listen to him, especially. They'll tell you the real deal, folks...........................................P.S. Yikes, though, huh, getting called to the carpet by O'Reilly? Now THAT is embarrassing.

Obama Takes a Stand

Kudos to Barack Obama, ladies and gentlemen. I mean, seriously, did you see that forceful and eloquent comment he made the other day (9/1/08), saying that we really needed to keep the families (nominee Palin's, included) out of this maelstrom? And, yes, not only was it impressive, folks, it was a classy maneuver, too. I'm telling you, if in fact I do vote for Obama with anything resembling enthusiasm this fall, it will probably be because of this. THIS was one of those rare good moments for a Presidential candidate and, yeah, he needs to be given credit for it. Hell, even Laura Ingraham said that it was a classy moment for Obama. Talk about something that's rare, huh? LOL..............................................P.S. Hopefully, this will be a turning point for some of Obama's (and McCain's, as well) supporters, who haven't always been as classy as their candidate has been. We win, and we lose with dignity, my friends. Hell, sometimes dignity is all we frigging have.

THANKS, MSNBC!

As much as I hate to have to do this, I'm afraid that I'm finally going to have to cry "uncle" here. Bill O'Reilly, folks, has ultimately proven to be a prophet, after all. MSNBC has in fact become what he says it's been all along; a far-left partisan network. And, yes, me-buckos, the final straw is this latest programming decision of theirs; Keith Olbermann (erstwhile Daily Kos blogger) and Rachel Maddow (erstwhile Air America hostess), back to back, Monday through Friday, prime-time.............................................I mean, don't get me wrong here. At the time I was arguing against O'Reill on this "issue", clearly, they WEREN'T a far-left enterprise. This, I'm saying, in that when he was first spouting all this stuff, Joe Scarborough (granted, not always a reliable conservative) and Tucker Carlson (granted, far more of a traditional conservative than a neocon) had their own frigging prime-time shows, for Christ! Add to that the fact that 1) Chris Matthews is never, EVER, predictable and 2) Keith Olbermann hadn't at that point even approached the deep-end (I mean, sure, he was blasting away at O'Reilly but, seriously, who in his right mind didn't share those frustrations?), and, yes, you kind of get the picture...............................................And, so, no, I'm not necessarily taking anything back, per se. I'm just saying that NOW, presently, as we speak, whatever, he seems to be at least in the frigging ball-park. THAT, my friends is kind of sad, isn't it?