An Order of Wisdom, Please

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

No Traps Here

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

Major Avoidance

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

Snake-Oil Salesmen In Chief

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

Adios Muchacho

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

Female Singer-Songwriters Better Than Madonna

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

Issue This

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

Pinkish Purple Hearts

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

A Fading Brand

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

Postmaster "General"

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

Swimming with Old Piranhas

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

Dirty Bombs/Bombers

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

A Queer Decision, Frankly

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

Questionable Sources

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

Take a Walk on the Vile Side

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

Time to Change the Pipe Tobacco

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