Wednesday, December 31, 2008
I don't know, folks, I guess that George Bush getting a couple of shoes thrown at him is funny, the fact that the whole episode had a cartoon-like quality to it, especially. And, yes, the mere fact that it involved President Bush, that alone, me-buckos, is probably sufficient/ripe. I mean, seriously, everyone knows just how much we love to laugh at the fellow, don't you think? And I certainly don't begrudge the late-night talk show hosts, either. That's their frigging livelihood, for Christ!! .......................................................This, and yet, I do have to admit that there is in fact a part of me that sees it differently. This, I'm saying, in that while, yes, George Bush indeed has been a bad president, I'm not exactly sure I want some Iraqi stooge throwing foot-gear at him (especially knowing what an act such as that means in that culture), either. First of all, if he had done such a thing to Saddam Hussein, the son of a bitch would have been tortured, maimed, and killed. And, secondly, that frigging stinking shoe of his hit the American flag. Not a good thing, me-buckos. Not a good thing at all. In fact, if I was there and saw it, I might have done a little tap-dancing of my own - and, no, not on the press-room floor, either.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
O'Reilly's up to something, folks. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but those wheels of his (such that they are) are definitely turning. First of all, he seems to now be a full-fledged member of the George W. Bush revisionary tour, arguing in his "Talking Points" many of those same lines that the administration itself has been uttering; "we haven't had a terrorist attack in the last seven years", etc......................................................He also seems to have made the leap that it was Bush's harsh interrogation techniques that have, more than anything, made us safer. It has been through these coercive measures, he continues, that we've been able to get the necessary intelligence to thwart any and all terrorist attacks.......................................................And, yes, folks, here's where Obama enters the equation. This, I'm saying, in that O'Reilly fears that Mr. Obama will ultimately end these coercive measures and, hence, leave us vulnerable to future terrorist attacks. It will be Obama's fault if we get hit again, in other words...................................................Wow, huh, talk about laying the groundwork? I mean, seriously, the guy's decided a priori that the next American tragedy should be a God-Damned partisan thing. And he does it over the issue of torture (something that most experts say is useless, that the actual people who did it to KSM said didn't give us anything useful), too. Oy Vey!..........................................................P.S., Maybe Bush does deserve some credit for us not getting hit (I kinda credit luck and the Atlantic Ocean, myself). I'm not necessarily disputing that point. I'm just saying that torture wasn't the main factor here. That's all.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Folks, I just caught a little snippet (the audio version) of Caroline Kennedy's interview with the New York Times. One word - ouch!! This, I'm saying, in that, while it may not have been as tortured as some of Governor Palin's early outings were, still, the feeling that I get is that this lady (who, yes, is a wonderful person, no doubt) is no where near ready for prime-time. Couple that, I'm saying, with the fact that New York has, what, a couple dozen Democratic Congressmen/women who actually might be qualified already. Doesn't seem fair, me-buckos. Doesn't seem the least bit fair at all, her getting the attention like this.
In my opinion, folks, a lot of Montgomery Clift's finer screen moments have also been his quieter ones; his muted Taps in "From Here to Eternity", the angst on his face just prior to Shelly Winters's "mishap" in "A Place in the Sun", his flicking of a cigarette butt from the back of a pick-up (this while he scans the overall situation) in "The Misfits", etc..................................................Of course, being the romantic that I am, I was particularly blown away by that kiss in the rain between him and Olivia de Havilland in "The Heiress". And, yes, folks, believing that Monty was a homosexual, too! I mean, seriously, I think it was in fact THAT scene that made me almost reflectively spout at times, "Wow, now that guy is kick-ass actor!".....................................................Fast forward a little bit from those times, folks. I've since learned that Clift was actually a bisexual and that he literally had sex (most of it indiscriminate and, yes, a lot of it drunken) with scores and scores of women. BUT, if you think that that makes the de Havilland kiss any less amazing, think again. I've also since learned that he literally couldn't stand the sight of Miss de Havilland. He was jealous of her and, worse still, couldn't stand her approach to acting (want to get on Monty's shit-list, disagree with him on the "craft" - even worse, do it on the set). Talk about a skilled practitioner, huh?
Saturday, December 27, 2008
This Minnesota senate election is fascinating. It has all the feeling of one of those "it can only happen in America" stories, frankly. Of course, more than anything, though, it shows us just how far the Republican Party itself has fallen. The party of Lincoln, T.R., and Eisenhower has been usurped by neocons and far-right religious advocates (I'll refrain from saying fanatics here) - this, I'm saying, to the point where this "brand" can't even hold off an Al Franken, for Christ! Not that this Coleman fellow is necessarily a prototype of these two groups, mind you, but, still, it looks like he may be taken down with them. Oh well, me-buckos, nobody ever said/told Mr. Coleman that political life was fair. I highly doubt it, anyway.
If it were up to Retch, me-buckos, he'd have rubbed out Bledsoe years ago. And the fact, I'm saying, that he, Bledsoe, was as part and parcel to Sully's leaving....as EVEN Leeds, that alone would have been sufficient, I'm thinking. Of course, the way that I just see him putzing there (sitting and drooling, coughing up his own blood, etc.), it might not be the worst idea for Retch to leave him, let the much more powerful specimens decide. I mean, you gotta let the chips fall occasionally, right?
Friday, December 26, 2008
There seems to be a divide on the left when it comes to elections, folks. On the one hand, you have this bevy of simpletonian bloggers. Their consistent message is that Eisenhower's blockage of the Vietnamese elections in 1954 caused the entire Vietnam War (never mind the fact that subsequent presidents lied and/or failed to de-escalate the situation). It is their surmise, evidently, that, whether or not the institutions usually associated with Democratic societies are present (free press, etc.), free elections must always be allowed/honored, encouraged even. Kind of an interesting take, huh?...................................................And, yes, I ask you to contrast this position with that of Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Both of these fellows are clearly on the record as saying that President Bush committed a grave error in allowing the Palestinian elections to happen. They say that Bush should have realized that the terrorist group, Hamas, would indeed have a very good chance to chalk up victory - an eventuality that clearly would hamper any sort of peace process down the road. Elections aren't always the answer. I guess that that's their basic message here. Also, interesting....................................................But you do see what I'm saying about a divide, though, right? Of course, it also might be something as simple as the left not thinking that the other side can do ANYTHING right - situational ethics clearly being one huge aspect of partisanship....with, yes, both sides often having their extra digits in it.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
As for Leeds himself, though, I'm telling you, that son-of-bitch has sporn practically nothing. And even on the inside at Sassy's first, those two front teeth of his, etc., damned if even those weren't starting to thin a little. Of course, of all those shitty/moronic penchants of his, it'll probably be that stumbling and bumbling at hightower that'll mostly fill the memory bank....high and dry and, yes, be his frigging legacy, for Christ! I mean, it does make sense, right, life itself being the price for being such a loser, kerplunkingly, miserably, etc.? And, no, don't even get me talking about eternity. That, my friends, would be a terrible mistake.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
O'Reilly just seems to love those yes-no questions (Matthews ditto, though not quite as moronically), folks. It must have something to do with his brain's unwillingness/incapacity to fathom a scenario's much more nuanced fabric/tenor, his own proclivity to drink that Kool-Aid, etc.. Just a guess, of course..................................................His latest example of this either/or probing of people came last week. He asked this guy who apparently opposed Bush's policies in Iraq, "Is the average Iraqi better off now than he was when Saddam Hussein was in power - yes or no?" I mean, he was obviously trying to goad the guy into saying (and the audience into believing) that Bush's policies weren't entirely negative after all (people who consistently watch O'Reilly are totally capable of reading him). But, come on, typical spinning for the Republican president - that shouldn't be a journalist's motivation here.....................................................And the bullishness of the approach, too. The poor guy didn't even get a chance to clarify a basic premise of the question. What exactly are you talking about when you say, "average Iraqi"? It's like, sure, if you're talking about the average Shiite in a well protected, homogeneous area, he probably is better off (still some problems with the electricity, though, I gather). But, if you're talking about the average Iraqi refugee - a person who was in fact displaced as a by-product of U.S. actions - then that individual would probably say, "Yeah, bring back the frigging madman, for Christ!" And like I've said in other postings, the "average" Iraqi Christian has been far more persecuted under the present regime. Christians either have to worship elsewhere or in deep, deep cover. That person would probably say that he's worse off now. Hell, he'd probably be pissed off by the simple asking of the question........................................................ See what I say, though, about a yes-no question just not cutting it? And the bozo does it all the frigging time, folks. Pathetic, huh?
Monday, December 22, 2008
How did I ever live before Neko Case, folks? I'm serious here. And, yes, this is absolutely coming from a guy who's "master list" of favorites (female singer-songwriters, all) rules, is itself massive, legendary, etc.. I don't know, maybe it has to do with the fact that she has this simultaneous capacity to transport....and render, too. I mean, seriously, I can't even remember the last time that "Deep Red Bells" or "Maybe Sparrow" didn't make me want to rush toward it; something, a dream-like state at Sassy's, etc.. And, yes, folks, all along the wretched banks, those cheers and cheers for Neko. Talk about having your own cake and tripping on it later, huh? - something special, indeed!
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Bill O'Reilly, folks, he either doesn't read "Vanity Fair" or he does and simply disregards it (part of the liberal brain-trust, perhaps). Either way, he clearly hasn't mentioned a recent piece from that publication which unequivocally states that torture doesn't work. It gives crappy intelligence in fact. And, yes, it especially didn't work, the article goes on to say, when it was used on Khalid Sheik Muhammad - the mastermind (this, in direct opposition to what O'Reilly's been spouting).....................................................Of course, the reason that O'Reilly hasn't mentioned the article is probably because it quotes the actual practitioners of the policy. Yeah, that's right, folks, the people who actually carried out these "coercive" measures on Muhammad said that they didn't work on him (i.e., give us any actionable intelligence) . In fact, one of the guys went as far as to say that 90% of what Muhammad ultimately "gave up" was worthless (actually, I think they used a stronger term for it but, whatever).......................................................It's like, folks, I get it. I'd like to smack these guys around as much as anybody. But that's just because I can be an impudent SOB at times, not because I know what the hell I'm talking about. Leave that to the experts, I'm thinking. There. Now if only Mr. O'Reilly would show a similar level of self awareness, allow the interrogation experts to determine strategy, etc...........................................................P.S. I just thought of a good Christmas present for O'Reilly: a tackling dummy. Let him get his frustrations out on that. Hell, you could even spice it up and tell him it's a member of Al Qaeda. Youza, huh? What do you think?
Friday, December 19, 2008
It's clear, folks, that Barack Obama had (and, yes, still has, I'm sure) legions of ravenous supporters out there, all of whom no doubt helped him to victory this fall. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that I've never seen anything quite like it, EVER! - this support of his. And I've been out there for a while, too. And while, yes, I hate to reduce any phenomena like this to an Ideal-Type analysis, unfortunately, there does seem to be a little something to it that just might warrant such a thing......................................................Take, for instance, the motivation of these folks. I don't know, but it seems to me that there are in fact two major groups among these hard-core Obamaites. Group number one sees (saw) Mr. Obama as a sort of savior of the liberal/progressive movement, a personification of liberalism itself. And, yes, they also see in Mr. Obama THE LEADER (of this movement), the very one that they've always wanted and, yes, through HIM, it ALL will come; justice, liberty, equality, etc. It's just a matter of time...........................................................As for the other group of staunch Obama supporters, they represent a somewhat different breed. While, yes, they obviously see Obama as a Democrat and, hence, probably liberal, they're seemingly driven far less by ideology. It doesn't matter whether Obama is a liberal, a moderate, or even a conservative Democrat. He's Obama....and that, my friends, is sufficient for them. They're not exactly sure how he's going to fix everything. They just have an undying faith that he somehow will. It's just as idealistic a mindset as the other group's, but it's far more directed toward the individual himself, not toward any specific creed he may or may not represent..........................................................Now, like I said, these are clearly ideal-types and, yes, we may in fact be working more toward a continuum here. All I'm saying is that there does seem to be that dichotomy out there and that I personally have witnessed it. Of course, it will be even more interesting to see how these two types end up reacting should Obama continue to deviate from form (i.e., moving to the middle). My hunch is that the first group will have a little more difficulty remaining loyal. I mean, just read a couple of the blogs already posted - a little bit of shit going down as we speak.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
O'Reilly always loves to bring up the fact that, once the war in Vietnam was over/American troops left that country for good, millions of people in that section of the world (Cambodia, southern Vietnam, especially) were slaughtered, forced to flee, etc.. America is a noble nation that tries to do noble things, he goes on to argue - one of which was to deliver freedom to South Vietnam. It was they, the Vietnamese government/people, who screwed it up, ultimately. This appears to be his basic thrust.........................................................Typical O'Reilly, in other words. This, I'm saying, in that whatever you happen to think of Bill's analysis here, his views on America's motivation, whether or not Vietnam was in fact a just war, etc., once again you sense a reticence to dig a little deeper. For instance, what, prey tell, is O'Reilly thinking here - that we SHOULDN'T have left Vietnam? I mean, certainly, Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were despicable humans (the former, especially) and all but, what, we stay inside the quagmire indefinitely....just so we can delay what was going to happen inevitably? Oh, and, yes, let's not forget, we'd continue to lose hundreds and hundreds of our own guys EVERY MONTH - again, indefinitely. Yes, Mr. O'Reilly, what happened was a tragedy and the people who were responsible for it were thugs. But so, too, was the Vietnam War an unwinnable war/idiotic enterprise. Perhaps it would be advisable for you, especially, to occasionally come to this conclusion as well.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
When it comes to the issue of abortion, folks, yeah, I suppose you'd probably have to call me a "pro-choice" guy. I mean, seriously, I just don't think it's feasible/appropriate (fill in whatever term you want here) for a society to mandate that a woman retain a pregnancy she doesn't want. We CERTAINLY don't want to go back to a time when women were forced to seek back-alley abortions, etc.. And then who do you frigging arrest here? The woman? the doctor? You see what I'm saying?.....................................................Of course, having said all this, I also want it understood that I fully respect those on the other side of the issue (abortion clinic bombers, etc., obviously excluded). This, I'm saying, in that, yes, whenever something that has it's own distinct beating heart is in fact "terminated", you're definitely edging into some difficult territory. To those who've said/implied that there ISN'T a moral argument on the pro-life side of this issue, you really have to wonder about them.........................................................And, yes, folks, it's because of this proclivity of mine to see the other side that I seek to find some compromises here, too. I mean, we all know about the restrictions (parental notification, mandated counseling, waiting periods, bans on partial birth abortion, etc. - some of which appear to be quite reasonable) and all. But what about contraception, too? Don't you think we need to be stressing prevention significantly more so? Not that this isn't a controversial subject in and of itself, mind you, but, come on, isn't it a hell of a lot more preferable than piles and piles of fetal carcases?....................................................And, no, NO, I wouldn't stop there, either. This, I'm saying, in that I would go as far as making RU486 (aka, the morning-after pill) an over the counter medication. I mean, I know that this is an even more controversial subject than birth-control to some - this, in that many on the religious far-right consider RU486 itself a form of abortion. But, clearly, folks, those folks aren't the types that are ever going to be in the mood to compromise anyway. My goal is to compromise with those who are at least in the mood to consider it. And, yes, believe it or not, I actually think that there might be a spate or two of folks out in the community who ARE willing to cooperate. Wishful thinking, perhaps?
Monday, December 15, 2008
As for Slade Leeds, though, that son of a bitch had nothing but a poop-shoot and a zinger. I swear to God! And even though that process of him dragging his own rutabaga through the swamps at Sassy's was itself imbecilic, so, too, was he wary of it, totally, for Christ! I mean, just take a look at his disrespect for the cherry-pickers. That's got to be the most bastardly display of cretinism ever, I'm thinking (not that I'm 100% certain, either - obviously).
Sunday, December 14, 2008
First of all, folks, I have no idea what's going on with this financial crisis. I can barely pronounce some of the terms, for Christ! I mean, sure, I watch Hardball and CNBC, things like that, but all seems kind of murky. Everybody seems to think that they have the pre-eminent option, that they've most astutely connected the dots, etc.. They're all frigging talking Finnish to me.....................................................Actually, there's this one guy I've been seeing who does seem to make some sense. Congressman Pence from Indiana has said (from the start, I might add) that bailing out all of these companies is probably NOT going to help the economy - that to do so is merely to prop up inefficiency. And while everybody else has been debating bankruptcy versus a bailout for the big three auto-makers, Mr. Pence has taken a more sensible approach. His solution would be to mandate a court-ordered restructuring of the company - a process that would necessitate that both management and the workers sit down and make some compromises. I don't know, to me, this sounds like a process that could conceivably save both the company and the union....................................................Of course, it's probably something that isn't going to happen, right? It's not divisive enough. Oh well, here's to hoping that President Obama can make it happen. I think that I'm quoting him correctly when he said that, yes, "Republicans have good ideas, too." Did I mention that Pence is a Republican?
Friday, December 12, 2008
While I hardly consider myself an expert on the subject, I think I've developed at least a rudimentary understanding of how major college athletics work. Take, for instance, all this hype surrounding the 2008 Heisman Trophy race. We're apparently down to three players; Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, and last year's winner, Tim Tebow. And, yes, folks, they're all incredibly worthy recipients. No problem with any of them. I just can't help but notice that they're all from powerhouse programs. And it almost ALWAYS seems to be that way. It's like, wouldn't it be nice if a player or two from outside the power structure got some ink/recognition, too?...........................................................For example, what about UConn's Donald Brown? For those of you who aren't aware of him, Donald Brown led the entire nation in rushing. He finished with 1,822 yards and 17 touchdowns. And he did this on a team that had perhaps one of the worst passing games in college football. He WAS the UConn offense. All you had to do was stop Brown and you stopped UConn. And, yes, folks, he still led the nation in rushing. To put it into some perspective here for you, if Donald Brown was a UConn basketball player, he'd probably be up for the player of the year award. He's been that frigging good. Not that he should necessarily win the Heisman, mind you, but he should have got a mention. That's all I'm saying.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
I know I'm a little late on this one, folks, but, yeah, it still kind of ticks me off some. Remember when everybody bitched and moaned about Phil Rizzuto not being in the Hall of Fame....and how the Veteran's Committee eventually caved in and put him there? Well, guess what, everybody, Phil Rizzuto doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame. And he especially doesn't belong there if Maury Wills isn't in it. I mean, look at the most important stats between the two players. Wills had way more hits (2,134 to 1,588), way more runs scored 1,067 to 877), way more stolen bases (586 to 149), and a solidly better lifetime batting average (.281 to .273). Granted, Rizzuto had a few more homers (38 to 20) and R.B.I.s (563 to 458) but, being that neither one of these guys was built for power, these seem like minor differences. And, while, yes, "the scooter" did have a better lifetime fielding percentage (.968 to .963) than Wills, Wills covered way more ground and was clearly able to get to balls that Rizzuto couldn't. I don't know, folks, maybe Mr. Wills needs a legend or two from HIS era to step up and support him. This, I'm saying, in that that's what Mr. Rizzuto needed in order to get his overdue (supposedly) due, etc..
Monday, December 8, 2008
I've noticed, folks, that most conservatives tend to favor a flat income-tax. They feel that the more "successful" people in a society shouldn't be singled out in such a manner. They also feel that to do so acts as a major disincentive for economic growth - 1) in that it stifles an individual's motivation to succeed and 2) in that it feeds the growth of the federal government...................................................Liberals, they, on the other hand, tend to argue for a more graduated form of taxation (those on the higher end of the income spectrum having to pay a higher percentage of their income - in the form of taxes - to the government). They feel that these people, because they MAKE and Have more money, CAN and SHOULD pay a higher percentage. Some in fact have gone as far as to say that their doing so is a "patriotic" duty..................................................How 'bout this for a compromise, folks? We agree, conceptually, to the idea of a flat tax (20-30%, whatever the rate that would be revenue neutral). But, BUT, we make the first $30-50,000 of income that a person makes tax free. And then we make for no deductions/exemptions - zero, nada. You just pay a certain percentage of your income in taxes, and that's it. As for capital gains, interest, and dividends, you pay the same rate for those, as well (though, yes, I'd advocate that these be adjusted for inflation).........................................................You see what I'm saying about a compromise here? It's a flat tax, yes, but it has a liberal exemption for those on the lower end of the income scale. And so, too, it gets rid of all those nasty exemptions that have a tendency to benefit the richest amongst us. Add to that, it totally simplifies the tax code big time. What do you think?
Friday, December 5, 2008
Look, folks, I know that a lot of you are angry with Dennis Miller (my liberal friends, especially); the fact that he's gone from being a liberal to a conservative, the fact that he apparently admires George W. Bush, etc.. But, I'm serious here, this guy, in my opinion, has come out with some of the best punch-lines in the history of "stand-up". Allow me the indulgence here of putting forth a couple of my personal favorites. 1) "The only thing I learned throughout the entire impeachment process is that CNN's Greta Van Susteran moves her mouth like Clutch Cargo." 2) (on the lengthy appeal process for death penalty cases) "It takes longer than it would take Porky Pig to sing 'Hey Jude'." 3) (regarding Shane Stant, the alleged "hit man" in the Nancy Kerrigan fiasco) "He had an alibi. He was spotted climbing out of some primordial morass, learning how to stand upright." 4) (on the Iranian President/madman, Ahmadinejad) "He's as unstable as Gary Busey with a clogged Eustachian tube." 5) (on the mostly tourist comprised audience of his doomed CNBC show) "The highlight of their day, prior to my show, was gazing at a chalk-outline of Sal Mineo." I guess that those are my top five picks, folks.
I'm telling you, though, Bradley Hadley - damned if he, too, wasn't just as big a stooge, for Christ! And, while, yes, indeed, it was just as clear that that penchant of his FOR RUTHLESSNESS was itself just as bold, absolutely, FOLKS!, it was his brain fartin' hard that ruled. I mean, just take a look at the way that that bastard, Leeds, Slade Leeds, had in fact taken to him, the way that he frothed so, at the mouth, inarticulately, etc.. THAT, to me at least, makes it an open and shut case - no pun being intended, of course.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Oh my God, he's at it again - O'Reilly. And, no, folks, I'm not even referring to that annual "there's a war on Christmas" crap he's been spewing again (I'm more than happy to let Olbermann waste his time with that one). I'm talking about this incredibly weird fixation of his on torture (oh, excuse me, coercive techniques)..................................................He continues, specifically, to peddle this highly dubious notion that torture in fact works - i.e., that it somehow yields consistently valuable/actionable intelligence, yada-yada. And, yes, he continues to use the highly discredited former C.I.A. director, George Tenet, as his main "source". "Coercive techniques have saved thousands of lives", O'Reilly continues to tell his audience...................................................Well, guess what, Mr. O'Reilly/Mr. O'Reilly's viewers. Torture (and, yes, this in fact WAS torture) at Abu Garib may in fact (hello!!) have COST AMERICAN LIVES!! Al Qaeda in Iraq (which, let's face it, was a tiny population prior to our invasion/occupation) was clearly able to utilize this event to swell its population dramatically. And correct me if I'm wrong here, but I've been thinking that those new recruits for Al Qaeda were doing a hell of a lot more than twiddling their thumbs in Baghdad, preening for the camera, etc..................................................I don't know, maybe O'Reilly just needs to talk to Matthew Alexander (an alias), a former interrogator (yes, he actually did the job, Mr. O'Reilly) who's written a book on the subject (yes, it's a fictional account but it clearly offers his insights). Alexander clearly explains how non-coercive measures have been far more effective than torture in garnering useful intelligence. He'd probably also be better at explaining to O'Reilly the long and short-term dangers of acting in manners commensurate with our enemies, and of how it reduces us to THEIR level, in particular. I don't know, folks, maybe O'Reilly just likes the concept of inflicting pain on people. I mean, seriously, that could actually be it, for Christ. Maybe? P.S. He also might want to talk to Generals Haynes and Eaton (a couple of heavyweights). They don't seem to be too enamored with torture, either.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Leonard Peltier screwed up, folks. He participated in (along with Dino Butler and Bob Robideau) the execution-style killings of two defenseless/wounded men. And then he frigging lied about it. I mean, sure, that was a volatile time (1975) and place (Pine Ridge Indian Reservation) and all (atrocities committed on both sides) but, clearly, Peltier and his cohorts over-reacted, panicked, and eventually fled......................................................For those of you who don't know the narrative, two young F.B.I. agents (Jack Coler and Ronald Williams), in pursuit of a vehicle that they thought carried the fugitive, Jimmy Eagle, entered the Jumping Bull compound on the Pine Ridge Reservation. As they continued the pursuit, they met with a gauntlet/intensive gun-fire from a group of A.I.M. (American Indian Movement) activists. These agents were wounded immediately and, yes, because of this, were only able to return several rounds in return. At some point after this, Peltier, Butler, and Robideau approached the vehicles and, no doubt fearing that these men would live to tell their story, unloaded point-blank several rounds into their heads. They then, of course, fled and one of the great man-hunts of the 20th century occurred. Butler and Robideau were arrested and tried first (they were ultimately acquitted on grounds of self-defense). Peltier was ultimately extradited from from Canada where he faced a separate trial. Not content to beat the rap simply on a self-defense plea, Peltier and his defense team instead put up a bunch of smoke-screens. Among them was the creation of a fictional character (the supposed real killer), Mr. X. Needless to say, the jury didn't buy it and Peltier was convicted of murder and sentenced to consecutive life terms in prison (life sucks, huh, Mr Peltier?).........................................................And like I said, folks, so, too, has this fellow lied and lied repeatedly. He claimed that this whole episode was part and parcel to a larger gun-fight between the F.B.I. and A.I.M.. Wrong!! It was an ambush. The other F.B.I. agents arrived on the scene significantly later. He initially said that he knew the identity of Mr. X - his refraining from naming him coming strictly out of honor. He now says he has no idea at all who the real Mr. X is - only that there is one. He claims that a group of innocent people (holed up in a house) were caught in the cross-fire in what was essentially an even-Steven battle. Wrong on both accounts. There were no people at all between the agents' vehicles and the bluff from which Peltier and company started raining bullets on them. And neither was it an even-Steven exchange. Inspection of the vehicles showed that 125 bullets had hit them (dozens more were probably fired and missed). It's also clear that the agents returned only limited fire (only a couple of bullets per man were missing from their rounds). I could go on but I won't. Hopefully, you've already gotten the message...........................................................Of course, none of these facts seem to matter to that legion of bleeding hearts, all apparently supporting this fellow - everybody from the actor, Robert Redford to the Reverend Jesse Jackson (yeah, the usual suspects). And you know what, I'm not necessarily opposed to giving Mr. Peltier a break, either. That was an extraordinarily tense period in which a lot of people (the F.B.I. included) over-reacted, lost their heads, etc.. My only point is that maybe Mr. Peltier needs to show some honor here and admit to what he did. As far as I'm concerned, there's clearly a statute of limitations on martyrdom - Mr. Peltier's running out many, many, MANY, "moons" ago.