A Heck of a Job, Janet - NOT!!

The depths to which some people (Clif, Bartlebee, Slade Leeds, Bradley Hadley, etc.) will shamelessly/moronically spin for this neophyte/president are staggering. YES, it was in fact a foreign airport in which this recent terror suspect was able to board the plane. But, clearly, CLEARLY, had the U.S. intelligence officials involved been even remotely competent, we would have been able to deny this lunatic entrance. I mean, come on, the plane was going to be landing in the U.S., right?...............................................................................................And talk about a major-league tea-leaf waiting to be read. The frigging guy's father (a well-respected fellow and credible) went to our embassy and warned us about him. I mean, seriously here, how much more of a red-flag do we need?..................................................................................................And I also want you to think about this, folks. If a similar situation had occurred under a Republican administration; major-league warning signals being ignored, a Homeland Security director putting forth such a B.S line (i.e., "the system worked"), the left would have gone ballistic (and, yes, justifiably so). Hypocrisy, folks, it's very much alive and well on both sides................................................................................................P.S. I also want it on the record that I never onced blamed President Obama personally for this fiasco. I am, however, expecting it to fix it.

This I Found To Be Very Interesting

Back in 2000, the Arab-Israeli newspaper, Kul Al-Arab, conducted a little research. They polled the Arab-Israeli citizens of the town, Umm el-Fahm, on the following: "If allowed, would you ever want your town to be incorporated into a Palestinian state?" Surprisingly (or not), 83% of the respondents (all of which, please remember, were Israeli Arabs) said that NO, they WOULDN'T want their town to be part of such a state..............................................................................................Hm, this means what, folks? Does it mean that these particular Israeli-Arabs are somehow masochoistic? Does it mean that they're smart, stupid? Seriously, what does it mean?

More Out of the Mouths of....

"The enemies of Allah do not know that the Palestinian people has developed its methods of death and death-seeking. For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living in this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do all mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields, of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'".....Fathi Ahmad Hammad (member of the Palestinian Legislative Council)...........................................................................................There it is, folks. They admit it. And, no, there isn't (as there is on the Israeli side) any sort of supreme court existing that can check these atrocities......................................................................................This, of course, isn't to say there aren't excesses on the Israeli side. There absolutely are. But Israel has a well-respected court system to prosecute them, a free press in which they can usually be uncovered, and, yes, elections. Compare this to Jordan from 1948-1967, I dare you.

To Those Who Think That Simply By Removing All Jews From the Middle East Peace Will Suddenly Prevail, This

"Shiites are worse than Jews; Iran produces nuclear bombs against the Sunnis, not against Israel.".....Egyptian cleric, Hassan Abu Al-Ashbal.........."The Shiites are being driven by a greed to take over Muslim countries and they are full of a wish to annihilate Sunnis. Their threat to Islam and its people is much bigger than that of Jews and Christians.".....Al Qaeda henchman, Mohammed bin Abdul Rahman.........."They (the Shiites) are the most evil creatures under the heavens.".....Osama bin Laden..........................................................................................I mean, come on, let's face it here, folks - that whole region has always been a cauldron of war. But, yeah, I know, I KNOW, it's always much easier to blame the Jews.

R(D)inos

I've got good news and bad news for Republicans. The good news is that the popular (still, despite the recession) Republican governor of Connecticut, Jody Rell, is eyeing a run at Joe Liebermann's Senate seat in 2012 - a race that she probably has at least a 50-50 chance of winning. The bad news is that if in fact she does win, she'll probably end up voting NOT like Senator McConnell but more like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and previous northeast Republicans, Lincoln Chaffee, Jim Jeffords, Lowell Weicker, Ed Brooke, Bill Cohen, etc.. She'll basically be like Liebermann, in other words (granted, not the worst scenario in the world for Republicans but, no, not a major-league coups, either).................................................................................................P.S. This particular scenario reminds me of an old Mark Russell joke (which I actually heard him perform live). "It's so great to be back in the great state of Connecticut, a place where Democrats are old style Democrats........and so are the Republicans."

I Thought That You Didn't Like Carping, Mr. O'Reilly

It's fairly obvious that Charles Krauthammer doesn't think much of President Obama's Iran policy. This, in that, yes, he basically hammers him nightly (on Fox, of course) about it. He apparently doesn't think that the President's approach is strenuous enough. But, other than an occasional bromide about supporting the dissidents, Mr. Krauthammer doesn't tell us what he thinks that President Obama SHOULD BE DOING. I mean, yeah, support the protesters - but HOW? Is Mr. Krauthammer suggesting that we provide them with military assistance, or simply rhetoric (the first President Bush - who I've ironically come to respect over the years - told the Iraqi Shiites that the U.S. "supported" THEM - this, and then the poor bastards ended up getting slaughtered)? Is he saying that WE should attack them (an action that most military analysts say would be disastrous)? Sanctions certainly have no teeth without without China and Russia cooperating. What, Mr. Krauthammer?..............................................................................................P.S. Look, folks, I am NOT in any way against criticizing Obama (either from the left OR the right). I do it myself from time to time. But to constantly hammer the fellow on THIS, an issue that literally has NO easy answers (this, as evidenced by Krauthammer's own lack of constructive advice), I don't know, you just might not want to be so overtly divisive. Just a suggestion.

The Lengthy Stench of Victory

To President Bush (and, yes, President Obama now, too, unfortunately), "mission" (especially when it comes to nation-building) is rarely, if ever, truly "accomplished". Hell, folks, it's been over a century since Teddy Roosevelt initially claimed victory in the Philippines and, yeah, you got it, we're still frigging presiding there. And, no, it isn't just a window dressing, either. I was listening to the author, James Bradley (Flags of Our Fathers), and, according to him, American journalists/visitors STILL need copious amounts of protection in many, many, parts of the Philippines. Of course, now that a sizable Mulim minority exists in these and numerous other sections, the feeling now is that we're hated EVEN MORE NOW. Great, huh - Iraq and Afghanistan, 100 years from now?

Moving (Via the Dump-Truck, I'm Saying) the Envelope

There was a shit-load of violence at Sassy's. That, me-buckos, IS/should be abundantly clear. But, I'm also telling you promptly, to me, the apex had to be, HAD TO BE, when Trailer came around. I mean, think about it. Not only would he put those "opponents" of his (slugs and rummy-dumbs, most of 'em) from Wellesley under, that son of a bitch would take out his cattle-prod out and electrocute 'em, too. Nastiness/over the top, no? Of course, the fact that there wasn't a single soul there to penalize the bastard, not a single bit of this should have even been remotely surprising; tactics, overboard....from Trailer, Blaine Paye, etc.. Not a God-damned bit of it, I'm saying................................................................................................P.S....Please, don't even ask me what it's like there now. This, me-buckos, in that, yes, sir, I took as many of those defenseless bottom-feeders as I could find and exited - happily so. The rest - they, quite frankly, had to fend for their own damn selves - God himself being busy as well.

The Debauchers Hall of Fame (Debut Members)

Ernest Hemingway, Jim Morrison, Edgar Allan Poe, Dana Andrews, Arthur Rimbaud, Kris Kristopherson, Grace Slick, Montgomery Clift, George Jones (chased Tammy Wynette around the apartment....WITH A LOADED SHOTGUN!), Dylan Thomas, Dana Plato (110 pounds, capable of drinking a half-gallon of booze PER DAY!), Jack Kerouac, Mickey Mantle (played, not just hungover but DRUNK!), Iggy Pop, and Carlene Carter (look at pictures of her from the early '90s, look at pictures of her now). Yes, folks, I'm pretty sure that there are more. These, however, are the ones that really stick out to me.

To the Level of Her Audience

Laura Ingraham is not a stupid person (misguided - maybe, stupid - no). She graduated from Dartmouth and later from UVA law school (consistently rated in the top ten law schools by U.S. News and World Report). So, when she (while substituting for O'Reilly on the "Factor") tried to pour cold water on the global warming issue by pointing out the recent snow-storm we had, yes, folks, it had to be the Fox News audience whose intellect she was questioning................................................................................................This, obviously, is not to say that Ms. Ingraham herself believes in global warming (its actual existence, how much human activity contributes to climate change, etc.). At least from what I can gather, she doesn't. BUT, I cannot believe that SHE believes that one anecdotal episode (i.e., a snow-storm) does in any way, shape, or form represent an effective rebuttal to it. Now, Fox News's current audience, they, on the other hand, may be persuaded by it. This, I also believe Ms. Ingraham understands - and, yes, may be exploiting here.

If a Screen Legend Dies in Obscurity....And Nobody Hears About it........

In a just universe, folks, all of these so-called entertainment shows ("The Insider", "Extra", etc.) would have taken at least some time to acknowledge the great career of screen legend and sex symbol, Jennifer Jones. For those of you who didn't hear about it (and, yes, I'm assuming that is most of you), Jones passed away last week at the age of 90. To say that this woman was a huge talent is an understatement. She won an Academy Award in 1943 for "The Song of Bernadette". She was also nominated four other times; in 1944 for "Since You Went Away", in 1945 for "Love Letters", in 1946 for "Duel in the Sun", and in 1955 for "Love is a Many Splendored Thing". Couple these roles with films such as "Portrait of Jennie", "Tender is the Night", "A Farewell to Arms", etc. (plus, like I said on top, the lady was hot!) and, yeah, you kind of get the picture. Too bad Ms. Jones had to die around the same time that Tiger was getting screwed (figuratively, I'm saying). That, my friends, is the real tragedy..................................................................................................P.S. The real fact of the matter, folks, is that Jennifer Jones's career has for years been ignored, inexplicably so. While contemporaries such as Ingrid Bergman, Ava Gardner, Olivia DeHavilland, etc. continue to be remembered/their long careers honored, Jennifer Jones has largely been forgotten (I posit again, this lack of coverage of her death). I don't know, maybe it has to do with the fact that her fiance/future husband/mogul, David O.Selznick, pulled a few strings for her. But, come on here, Jane and Peter Fonda - they had some help. So did Michael Douglass. It's not like Jones didn't deserve the opportunity. And have I mentioned, too - THIS LADY WAS FRIGGING HOT?

Duel in the Scum (With Apologies to David O. Selznick

A lot has been made about the recent Senate duel between Senators Thune and Franken. This, me-bucks, is my take. First of all, I want it made clear that I have virtually no use for Senator Thune. At least from what I can gather, the fellow is a bible-thumper who 1) doesn't particularly like gays and 2) thinks that the earth is some 5-6 thousand years old. And, yes, he technically WAS lying in the Senate chamber that day. There clearly ARE components of the Democratic health-care bill that DO kick in immediately..............................................................................................But, I'm also telling you here. Mr. Franken himself was peddling a fair amount of bull-crap. This, in that, while, yes, there are in fact 17-18 programs starting immediately, it also must be stated that, together, these programs amount to but a mere ten billion dollars - a fair amount of money, yes, but coming out of a trillion dollar bill, that's only one percent. And, being that Mr. Thune ultimately did amend his comments from "all" to "99%", a strong case could be made that, on this occasion anyway, Mr. Franken was the far bigger stooge................................................................................................P.S. I must also confess that I am slightly torn here; a bible-thumping stooge/lunatic versus a mean-spirited dufus/freak. The age of enlightenment - not exactly. I mean, I don't know about you, folks, but I'm not exactly feeling all that proud about the Senate these days. Not by a lengthy shot.

Remote Choices

I did something the other night that I'm extremely proud of. I skipped Chris Matthews/"Hardball" and opted instead for the final 50 minutes or so of "The Rainmaker" (on TCM). Let's just say that it was a very good choice (and, yes, a fortuitous one, too - only discovering the film via channel surfing). I mean, sure, I had in fact seen the film previously and all but, still, after all these many years/viewings, damned if it still wasn't fresh. This, and, yes, Burt Lancaster's performance was actually better than I thought (no, not as good as his performances in "Elmer Gantry" and "Sweet Smell of Success" but, still, extremely solid). He even did that frigging laugh, for Christ! Bottom line, folks, it wasn't a contest..........................................................................................P.S. I'm assuming that it isn't necessary to inform you that Katie Hepburn was also superb. I'm assuming that, yes, you've assumed that (that, or you've already witnessed it for yourself) yourself (she was, by the way).............................................................................................Oh, and, yes, just for the record, I think that I just might take some more of these breaks (from partisan politics). In fact, I think that we probably all should - from time to time, at least.

Well Dressed Man

"The Maltese Falcon" is obviously a classic film, with numerous classic scenes. Especially noteworthy, I find, are the ones involving Bogie and Peter Lorre. Take, for instance, the scene in which Bogie's Sam Spade sucker punches Lorrie (Joel). He knocks him out and, yes, continues to go about his business. After 2-3 minutes, Lorrie comes to. This, but, instead of going after Bogie, he calmly gets off the sofa and walks to the closest mirror. Apparently not liking what he sees, he says (as wryly and deadpan as a human can possibly be) to Bogie, "Look what you did to my shirt." I mean, youza, talk about laughing. I practically fall off my chair, for Christ! This, despite the fact that I know it's coming. Kind of like a Seinfeld episode, more or less...........................................................................................Oh, and, yeah, then there's that other scene in which Bogie is slapping Lorre around. Lorre protests and Bogie says to him, "I'll slap you when I need to slap you....and you'll like it!" I definitely like that goofy scene, too. Hell, folks, it's almost Jacobian.

Comparative Deception

I just love the way that Fox News tends to nourish those little pet stories (i.e., stories that either reinforce or are MADE to reinforce that conservative agenda they have) of theirs. The latest one of these stories is the one that states how federal employees currently owe over three billion dollars in back taxes. Typical Fox, in other words. And, no, folks, it doesn't take a genius to figure out the motivation here. The federal government is just plain flat-out evil. And, yes, so, too, is it bad/inefficient. I mean, just look at the frigging evidence, they say..........................................................................................Of course, what Fox and this story fail to report is just how statistically significant (or not) these particular numbers are (or aren't). They don't, for example, compare this delinquency rate to the overall population of taxpayers, or even to other industries. Three billion dollars (while admittedly a truck-load of money) may or may not be any more egregious (percentage-wise) than people paying taxes in the private sector. We clearly need additional information here. Not that I'd ever expect Fox News to provide that information, of course.......................................................................................P.S. Please, don't get me wrong here. I'm not exactly a huge fan of the federal government, either. I'm certainly not brimming with confidence that an expansion of it will fix everything (as apparently some of the Democrats are). But, really, when you put forth an argument against the government (as Fox News clearly was doing here), it has to be an argument that means something. You can't just keep throwing stupid crap against the wall and hope that it sticks/your gullible audience will buy it up. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Mr. Hannity.

Getting (Though Not Necessarily) What You Pay For

Comparative effectiveness is a term that people have been throwing around a lot lately. Those of a cynical persuasion (a group, yes, to which I sometimes ascribe myself to) are quick to point out that this is only a fancy term for rationing (yes, folks, I'm totally referring to health care here). Well, guess what, folks, it is rationing. It's rationing....and, yes, we need to do MORE OF IT!................................................................................................For those of you who aren't sure what I'm talking about, I refer you to one of President Obama's earlier speeches on health care. Remember when he brought up the two different colored pills; one of which was X dollars and effective, the other of which was X-5 dollars but equally effective - this, and of how we (i.e., the American public, taxpayers, the health care system, etc.) could save a lot of money if we all opted for the cheaper option? That, in a nutshell, is what comparative effectiveness means............................................................................................Of course, you probably also remember just how much President Obama was made fun of for these comments. What I'm here to tell you is that he shouldn't have been. This, in that, at least from what I can gather, there are countless examples of brand new (and, yes, extremely pricey) drugs and procedure that are either no better or negligibly better than what we had before (I refer you to Dr. Emanuel's book, "Healthcare Guaranteed" for some examples). I'm telling you, folks, if we EVER want to get a handle on this health care mess (the cost component of it, especially), we are going to have to do MORE with comparative effectiveness (rationing, if you prefer). 1) We're (i.e., the government, private industry, etc.) going to have to use the research that's already available. And 2) we're going to have to invest in the steady procurement of more of it. The future of the system is absolutely at stake.

Out of the Mouths of....

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.......................................................................................For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, and Jerusalem. However, the moment we claim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."....Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member 1977........This, to all of the people who say that the Arabs and the Jews aren't able to agree on anything.............................................................................................."Since we cannot defeat Israel in war, we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish a sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nation to join us for the final blow against Israel."....Yasser Arafat........This, to all of the people who actually thought that Mr. Arafat wanted a peace..............................................................................................P.S. To Mr. Muhsein. Don't be so certain about reuniting with Jordan. This, in that, yes, the Syrians have also had historical claims to the land. Can you say, "war with Syria", Mr. Muhsein?

His Own Private Idaho

Boise State quarterback, Kellen Moore, has had one of the greatest seasons in recent memory. Not only has he led the Broncos to a 13-0 record/a birth in the Fiesta Bowl, he's also put up a stat-line that can only be described as pinball calibre; 39 touchdown passes, 3 interceptions, and quarterback rating of 167.3 (yes, folks, THAT is unbelievable). Even his 254 completions for 3,325 yards, while they aren't as impressive as some of those quarterbacks operating out of the "spread", are as well pretty darn kick-ass. Granted, he plays in the WAC and, yes, because of that, the level of his competition is sometimes suspect. That, and he's also a sophomore. But, really, to say that this player isn't among the top five players in the country (as the Heismann voters apparently have) is ludicrous. Especially, ESPECIALLY, in a down year like this. Oh well, maybe next year (next year when he only throws 2 interceptions).

Kentucky Douche-Bag

Let's just be honest about it here. Slade Leeds and his "principles" themselves were putrid. This, me-buckos, in that, seriously, broes, how in the hell else COULD you characterize 'em; tap-dancing on the graves of those loners, rummy-dumbs, etc.? And, yes, I'm saying, the fact that he flat-out got that lunatic, Bartlebee, to join him over there. That, I'm afraid to say, was itself an even shittier situation (than piggly-wiggly time)....What's that, you DON'T believe me? Hm. Oh well, I guess that you're just going to have to take a gander with your own sniffer, for Christ! - Bartlebee-style. That WILL FLAT-OUT prove it to you, E.O.A. (end of discussion).

Gambling With a Partial Deck

I have to admit it, folks. I'm finally starting to get Palin'd out. And, yes, this is from a fellow who actually kind of felt sorry for her (not to mention, thought that she was HOT!). I felt sorry for her 1) because I had always blamed, HELLO!, John McCain for picking her (selecting a seemingly nice young woman for a position she clearly wasn't ready for). Obviously, she could have said no but, really, how many people amongst us have that firm a grasp on his/her limitations? Not many, from what I can tell...............................................................................................I also felt sorry for her 2) because of the abuse that she had to endure - abuse from the blogs, abuse from David Letterman, abuse from Keith Olbermann (hell, by the time that Olbermann was done with her, David Letterman was a victim of Sarah Palin!!!), etc.. And the fact that they had brought her family into it, too. It was actually kind of disgusting..........................................................................................But now, NOW, I really and truly think that, yes, it's gotten to a point where the woman is starting to deserve some of the ridicule. I mean, just the hyperbolic nature of her comments (on health care and global warming, in particular), the endless vitriol of her blogs and tweets (man, do I ever hate that word/concept) - she's got to be up to something here; trying to push the envelope, putting on public display her own brand of extremism, whatever..........................................................................................And now we've got this frigging book of hers. While it isn't entirely devoted to "getting back" at people (McCain staffers, in particular), it certainly does have a pettiness element in it. And the fact that she didn't even write the book. That isn't at all helpful (as in it reinforces her critics' belief that she lacks intelligence), either................................................................................................P.S. If in fact she really wanted to "write" a book, wouldn't it have been a much better idea to write a substantive one? I mean, think about it - what does this woman need more than anything? She needs some cred, right? Now, if she doesn't have the ability to write one - that would obviously be a different story............................................................................................Oh, and to my conservative friends, I actually DO think that this woman has ability/a future. I could see her, for instance, as a deputy secretary in the energy department - with some definite room to grow. This, as opposed to a candidate for the Presidency, I'm saying. Maybe later. Not now.

The Lessons of (a Little) More

As much as I hate to say it, folks, the President's decision to send those 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan is starting to look quite political; the troop surge itself serving to protect him from accusations of weakness, the 18 month time-table serving to insulate him from his liberal base. And, yes, because it's political, it's also highly unlikely that it'll succeed (this, in that, no, split the difference approaches - especially when it comes to war making - rarely do)..................................................................................................I don't know, folks - to me, it seems like the President has but two viable options here; a) commit to a long (5-10 year) counterinsurgency (one in fact that would probably take MORE than the 30,000 troop increase he's asked for) or b) do what his often maligned vice president suggested - execute a counter terrorism approach (which also happens to be what I favor); air power, special ops, intelligence, advanced technology, etc.. He obviously decided to do neither - trying instead to thread the needle/please virtually everybody. It's all terribly disappointing, folks - especially, ESPECIALLY, coming from fellow who claimed to be a different type of politician.........................................................................................................P.S. To those of you who'd say that this decision is only an example of Obama's "post-partisan" approach, I would counter by saying that war (unlike, say, an appropriations bill) is something that you either DO or you DON'T. Half-hearted compromises just don't cut it. Just ask Nixon/L.B.J..

The Manliest of Crushes

I'd have to say, folks, that, in terms of PURE partisanship, Cliffy is as "out there" as anybody. In fact, this fellow just might be THE most partisan EVER! I mean, seriously, what in the hell else could you frigging call it - the Republicans/conservatives having never done anything right, the Democrats/liberals consistently right? That sure as hell sounds hard-core to me............................................................................................This, folks, and, yet, there is in fact one thing that Cliffy places above partisanship. Yep, you got it - his total love for President Barack Obama. I mean, just look at his reaction to this Afghanistan fracas. Virtually every principled liberal that I know (and, yes, even a few principled conservatives) has at least expressed some concern about the President's decision (i.e., his sending of 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theater), most of them going as far as to oppose it. Not Cliffy, though. Not at all. But not only is he supporting the decision - he's spinning like a frigging top for it - forgetting as well all of the lessons that I though he had learned about Vietnam, etc.. It's absolutely unbelievable, I'm telling you - totally unbelievable...................................................................................................As to the substance of the debate here, I refer you to a recent Senate hearing. At this particular hearing, former CIA Pakistan station chief, Bob Grenier, testified that Al Qaeda had already been defeated in Afghanistan. When asked by Senator Kerry, "So, in terms of Afghanistan, they have been disrupted, dismantled, and defeated? They're not in Afghanistan, correct?", Grenier responded, "That's true."................................................................................................Kerry also asked Marc Sageman (yet another CIA veteran), "Is there a legitimate concern about a new union between Al Qaeda and the Taliban?" Sageman, apparently not perceiving such a threat, responded, "A Taliban return to power does NOT (my emphasis) automatically mean an invitation to Al Qaeda to return to Afghanistan. The relationship between these two groups has always been strained." When asked what we could do if in fact such an invitation did occur, Sageman countered by saying that "there are many ways to prevent the return of Al Qaeda, besides a national insurgency strategy. Vigilance through electronic monitoring, spatial surveillance, a network of informants in contested territory, combined with the nearby stationing of a small force dedicated to physically eradicate any visible Al Qaeda presence in Afghanistan will prevent the return of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan."........................................................................................................When asked about a surge strategy for Afghanistan, Sageman said, "Let me answer that with an old Middle Eastern proverb. ' It's me and my brother against my cousin. But it's me and my cousin against a foreigner.' So if we send another 40,000 U.S. troops, that will coalesce every local rivalry. They will put their local rivalry aside to actually shoot the foreigners and then they'll resume their own internecine fight. Sending troops with weapons will just unify everybody against those troops, unfortunately.".................................................................................................Grenier added that a surge could conceivably turn Pakistan against us, too. "A large increase in the U.S. presence in Afghanistan would not be welcome by the majority of Pakistanis. It would make the struggle seem all the more starkly as one of the U.S. versus Muslims, as opposed to the U.S. supporting Afghans in their own struggle."...............................................................................................So, what do you think, Cliffy - food for thought?

The Stains of Coincidence

I swear to God, folks. That stooge pissing his pants over at Garvin's yesterday - that was Purple Ivory Butts!! And get this as well. He actually may have been "manipulating" his matador this time. I mean, talk about a rank inability to keep his story straight. That and, YES, frigging Leeds was laughing at him, too - Slade Leeds, for Christ! Youza, huh?

Ad....Homonym

I know very little about Kiss guitarist, Gene Simmons. I mean, yeah, I know that I hate his music and all. But, no, as a person, I'm saying - I couldn't tell you the first thing about him. Not that I necessarily have anything against him, mind you. This, in that, youza, I was actually told by a fellow blogger that the dude is surprisingly nice. And, damn it all, he probably is. I just wish that he'd change his frigging name. This, I'm saying, in that every single time I start talking about the beautiful JEAN Simmons (i.e., the actress of such seminal films such as Spartacus, Elmer Gantry, The Big Country, The Robe, etc.), people think that I'm talking about this same Kiss dude/character. I mean, come on, dude, just go down to the city hall and change that name, would you?

Miscellaneous

1) I'm not sure what irritates me more; Michele Bachman's rantings and ravings (replete with hyperbolic fear-mongering, of course) OR Keith Olbermann's incessant hand-wringing in response to it. Hey, speaking of Mr. Olbermann (his Cornell degree always close at hand), Ann Coulter (who, yes, is often unbalanced herself) pretty much sized him up nicely, "He constantly presents himself like Bertrand Russell."........2) Jon Stewart had a real funny one the other night. He showed some footage of George Bush (2) politicking his Iraq surge strategy. In it, Mr. Bush was arguing for an additional 30,000 troops. He then juxtaposed it with President Obama's speech - Mr. Obama also asking for 30,000 additional troops (for Afghanistan). Stewart, in his inimitable dead-pan style proceeds to query, "So, what is it, folks? Are 30,000 troops the military's equivalent of 'take 2 Advil'?" Laugh? - oh man, did I ever frigging laugh........3) I forgot who said this one, folks. I think it might have been Howard Fineman on "Hardball". In the middle of a discussion on President Obama's 18 month time-line for Afghanistan, Fineman posits this thought, "I think that the Taliban just came up with THEIR time-line; 19 months.".......4) I just thought of another great movie line; Deborah Kerr from "Tea and Sympathy", right before she kisses the much younger fellow - "In the future, when you talk about this - and you will talk about it - please be kind." Delivered as only Deborah Kerr (apologies to Audrey Hepburn, Jean Simmons, etc.) could have delivered it.

The Trains Were Frigging Scared, For Christ!

The horrors/evils of the Japanese and Nazi regimes during WW2 are obviously legendary. They are also extremely well documented. What isn't as well known, unfortunately, is just how ruthless and barbaric the third member of that dreaded axis, Italy, was.......................................................................................For instance, a lot of people are unaware that Italy also had concentration camps; at Rab and Gonars. These camps included not just political dissidents, but many minority groups (yes, the Jews in fact were kept there) as well. And, yes, when you couple that with the fact that Mussolini's fascist army routinely used chemical weapons (mustard gas being the dictator's favorite) and routinely tortured its victims, the simpatico obviously becomes apparent.........................................................................................How did Italy treat American prisoners of war? I hope you don't mind here, but I really think I'd like to answer that one with an anecdote. My best friend's father was a bombardier during WW2. He frequently participated in bombing missions over Italy. And every time they flew there, the officers would give each and every airman on the plane a gun with one bullet in it. It was highly recommended that, if in fact the plane did go down, they should use this particular gun and kill themselves. This, in that, if the frigging fascists captured them, they would torture/maim them, make them suffer, etc.. The officers evidently felt that it would be far less traumatic to do "it" yourself. So, what do you think, folks? Is that little answer succinct enough for you?

To Shine or Not to Shine

To say that there's been a lot of debate on whether or not we should be trying terrorists (enemy combatants, if you prefer) in American courts is an understatement. And, yes, folks, I have to admit it, both sides have made some very decent points. The Republicans, for instance, are probably correct in saying that the trials themselves could in fact degenerate - a circus-like atmosphere potentially being the end-result. This, while the Democrats are no doubt spot-on in saying that these same trials have the potential to show us in a far, FAR BETTER light (the fact that it would highlight the fairness and justice of our judiciary, etc.). I guess that I (having since been convinced that valuable national security information will in fact be preserved) ultimately have to come down on the side of the administration on this one. I mean, yeah, if we constantly go around saying that we're better, it probably isn't the worst idea in the world to show it from time to time...................................................................................................I do, however, have to admit it. I am a little perplexed here. This, in that, yes, I've also heard that, even if these terror suspects DO get off, we aren't going to immediately release them. We're going to 1) reapprehend them and 2) either detain them or try them again. HOW, pray-tell, in the hell is that any different from what we've been doing? Better yet, how in the hell does it elevate us? You might just as well use the military tribunals.

Broken Clock Syndrome?

I've heard that Dick Cheney has decided to endorse Kay Bailey Hutchison in Texas, and NOT Governor Rick Parry (this, for the Republican nomination for governor in Texas). Wow! I'm basically speechless. This, in that, no, I can't really remember the last time that Mr. Cheney was right about ANYTHING (well, at least the stuff that he talks about, anyway)..................................................................................Now, don't get me wrong here. Senator Hutchison herself was on the wrong side (in my estimation) of a lot of these foreign policy issues, too (yes, folks,the very same ones that Cheney himself was wrong on). And, NO, I'm not so sure that I WOULD vote for her in a general election. But, please, compared to this Governor Parry character (Mr. Secession, etc.)- it ain't even remotely close. Let's just hope that the good Republicans of Texas muster enough sense to do the right thing here/vote for a person that the state can be proud of. Oh, and, yes, Mr. Cheney, a damn good call on this one, buddy.

Throw the Script at 'Em

Those two reality-show idiots who were able to sneak themselves into that state sponsored dinner - PROSECUTE THEM! This, in that they both obviously lied to the secret service. Yes, I understand. They went through the metal detectors and nothing of a serious nature happened. But, folks, unless they were serving nothing but finger foods, hoers dervs, etc., I'm assuming that there were a lot of knives and forks at this function. Something pretty frigging nasty COULD HAVE HAPPENED! (and, so, yes, the secret service needs to be held accountable, too).....................................................................................As for all of those out there who'd counter by saying that these folks don't in any way fit the profile of a terrorist, let me just remind you, not every single terrorist does, either (i.e., right-wing extremists, animal rights activists, etc.). And, besides, most of the dangerous folks aren't even terrorists at all. Most of them are either loner criminals or nut jobs (I'm obviously excluding gang related violence)........................................................................................Oh, and, yes, folks, I'll admit it to you. I DO have a major-league prejudice here. Reality-show participants - I thoroughly detest them. And, yeah, if it were strictly up to me, I'd frigging prosecute 'em for that alone. But, since I can't, lying to the secret service is as good a charge (not to mention a place where I can hang my hat) as any. Agree?

Common Sense From a Thuggish Source

"Since 1948, every time we've had something on the table, we say no. Then we say yes. When we say yes, it's not on the table anymore. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we say yes?"....Prince Bandar (this, after Arafat urinated on President Clinton/started an intifada that prompted the election of Ariel Sharon)............................................................................................Of course, there's also this, far more famous, quote (from Abba Eban); "The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity/they just can't seem to take yes for an answer." Hell, folks, it's almost as if the world wants them (the Palestinian leadership, anyway) to have that Palestinian state more than they do. So it seems, anyway.

I'll Bet Even Jefferson is Smiling

I haven't met a single person who thinks that Virginia has a chance against Tech this weekend (this, even though the game is being played in Charlottesville). That, my friends, is the bad news here (for Wahoo fans). The good news is that it finally appears likely that head coach, Al Groh, will be terminated. In the words of the late, great (at least in his mind), Howard Cosell, "IT'S BEEN LONG OVERDUE!"........................................................................................Now, don't get me wrong here, folks. I take absolutely no pleasure in rooting for this fellow's downfall. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I am in no way rooting for Al Groh to "fail" (sorry, I couldn't resist). But when you're the frigging head coach at one of the country's most prestigious universities, with a beautiful stadium, great facilities, and a better than average recruiting base, and you go only 59-53 (not to mention 1-8 against your cross-state rival), the vitriol shouldn't come as any surprise to you.........................................................................................Of course, now UVA has to find a suitable replacement for Groh. One of the names that comes up consistently is Richmond coach, Mike London. London, a young man with strong Cavalier ties, has done an exemplary job with the Spiders (22-4 over the past two years). And, yes, he would in fact be an obvious/excellent choice. As would Temple coach, Al Golden. Golden, another fellow with strong ties to the university, has basically pulled off a miracle; 9-3....AT TEMPLE! I mean, come on, Temple hasn't won that many games in a season since the 70s. And then, of course, there's former Auburn and Ole Miss coach, Tommy Tuberville. His name has also been mentioned. And, no, I can't think of a whole hell of a lot of bad things to say about him, either...............................................................................................But, seriously, what about it, folks? What, pray-tell, is stopping Virginia from going/thinking really big? What about a Brian Kelly (Cincinnati), a Gary Patterson (TCU), a Kirk Ferentz (Iowa) even? I mean, I know that Virginia doesn't quite have the panache of, say, an Alabama, or a Michigan. But neither did Miami....prior to Howard Schnellenberger, Florida State prior to Bobby Bowden, BYU prior to Lavell Edwards - just to name a couple. Craig Littlepage - would you just think outside the frigging box for a change? Please!

Good Night/For Nothing and Good Luck (You're Going to Need It)

If Keith Olbermann is as much of an admirer of great journalism/hard news as he professes, then, yes, folks, he has to be outraged that his own increasingly biased program is dominating (ratings-wise) that of CNN's Campbell Brown. This, in that, she, Campbell Brown is actually doing what HE, Keith Olbermann, still professes to admire - a fair and unbiased presentation of the facts in which both sides are encouraged to argue their case.............................................................................................This is not to say that Ms. Brown is perfect/completely unbiased. She isn't. None of us are. But, PLEASE, compared to Mr.s Olbermann, Hannity, and, yes, folks, even Billy Boy, HER PERFORMANCE (along with the writing staff, of course) has been extraordinary.........................................................................................For example, during a recent interview she did with Obama adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Campbell pressed her. "Yes, we all know that you and the administration think that Fox News is biased. But, really, what about MSNBC? Do you also think that they're biased?" WOW, you want to talk about making somebody red/tap-dance. Let's just say that mission was accomplished.

Do as I Say

I try and stay away from dog-piles. I don't know, they just don't seem all that interesting to me. Like with Sarah Palin, for instance. No, I don't find her a terribly persuasive candidate. I've said on several occasions that the woman lacks gravitas. I've admitted that she probably lied (the "bridge to nowhere", etc.) and has also used hyperbole (death panels). I've also specified that I'd probably never vote for her (just the fact that she doesn't believe in evolution). But that's about it, folks. I don't really feel the need to utter the term, idiot, 10,000 times........................................................................................And, yes, folks, I've also felt kind of the same way about ACORN. I.E., I've recognized that the organization clearly has its faults/conceded that maybe the funding should be cut (hell, even Barney Frank has come around to this position). This, while, at the same time, I haven't called for a Jihad..........................................................................................Unfortunately, a few of the more recent things that I've learned about ACORN DO trouble me. ACORN, folks, constantly pushes for city-wide increases in the minimum wage. They also fight to get workers organized. But, apparently, when it comes to their own organization, there seem to be some documented cases in which they've fought AGAINST these supposedly cherished principles - NOT paying the minimum wage, NOT allowing their workers to organize (multiple cases in California, especially)...............................................................................................I don't know, folks, this sounds like a clear-cut case of hypocrisy to me. And, yes, if we're going to take the time to lambaste stooges such as Ensign and Sanford (this, for their espousing of family values, while, at the same time, poontanging women the side), then, clearly, we absolutely have to stick it to ACORN, too. We certainly shouldn't be funnelling more money to them.

Views From the Moon

According to Sean Hannity, these "moderate" Democrats simply don't exist. "These 'so-called' moderate and blue-dog Democrats", he's constantly spouting. Hm, I don't know. Perhaps it's all just a part of that overall strategy of his to paint Democrats - ALL DEMOCRATS (not to mention everybody else who disagrees with him) as evil, out of control spenders, people with absolutely no interest in defending the country, etc., etc.....................................................................................Now, granted, maybe from Sean Hannity's rather extreme perspective, all of this DOES make complete/total sense (to him, I'm saying). And, yes, when in fact you DO take to comparing these moderates to Hannity himself, they probably ARE liberal. But, then again, so, too, would Ike, Rocky, Jacob Javits, etc. be liberal. Everything, EVERYTHING, is relative...........................................................................................P.S. And, really, for him to have so cavalierly implied that there isn't any sort of difference between Nancy Pelosi/Barney Frank (on the one hand) and Evan Bayh/Mary Landrieu - that, me-buckos, is just plain stupid. I mean, even when the two groups (the liberals and moderates) vote in unison, there are almost always a lot of negotiations to get there - the moderates, HELLO, moderating the legislation....What is wrong with this guy?

Some Things to Rally Around

I've been very critical of President Obama. I'll freely admit it to you. But I DO respect the man, and I also respect the office. And, so, yes, I want to take a few minutes to say some positive things about the President.................................................................................................1) President Obama has spoken out on more than a few occasions on the importance of fatherhood. That, my friends, is a powerful message for the country (especially for inner-city kids) and I'm proud of him for bringing it up. 2) The President has put more federal funds into community colleges. I find this important for several reasons. a) It's an excellent job-training program and b) it's the only way that many folks can afford college. 3) I was very impressed with the way that Obama handled the Somali pirate situation. He was swift/decisive and I found that quite comforting. 4) I liked the way that he stayed out of the Iranian election fiasco. It seems that the President recognized our total lack of credibility in that region. And, yes, because of that, he resisted intense pressure from the sabre rattlers to act. 5) The President has assembled a rock-solid foreign policy team. Gates, Jones, and Hillary are all quite impressive, I feel. 6) I like the way that the President is taking his time regarding Afghanistan. I personally believe that this conflict could degenerate rapidly and, yes, if the President needs some extra time to avoid another LBJ/Dick Nixon calibre foul-up, I don't have any problem with it. 7) I heartily applaud the President's decision to halt the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research. It was a silly ban to begin with and, especially if you're going to throw these stem-cells away anyway, why the hell not use them for research (life-saving research, potentially). 8) And, yes, folks, I still think that this fellow's a pragmatist. I mean, sure, maybe it's not to the level that many of us had initially hoped for, but, yes, I still think that it's quite there and ticking. Is it there enough to save his Presidency? That, my friends, I could only speculate upon.

Mindless Set

I'm trying to figure out exactly what it is that people think. Do they, for instance, actually think that the insurance companies go to Harvard Business School, the Wharton School of Business, etc. and ask the folks there, "Please, forward to us all of your most ruthless graduates. We wish to turn them into insurance executives." I mean, you do kind of get that feeling out there (i.e., the blogosphere)............................................................................................Now, don't get me wrong here. The health insurance companies HAVEN'T been perfect. And, yes, they have in fact played the "heavy" at times (denying people coverage, giving executives huge salaries, etc.). But it isn't as clear cut as a lot of these people are saying. Yes (for instance), they do make a lot of profits. But the 3.5% industry average is actually modest when you compare it to other industries (the beverage industry, for instance). Yes, they do spend a lot of money lobbying. But, damn it all, so, too, do a lot of other folks (trial lawyers, for example). Yes, they've clearly been known to deny coverage from time to time. But ditto, Medicare..............................................................................................In fact, folks, according to the AMA's own National Health Insurers Report Card, Medicare actually denies a higher percentage of claims than private health plans. From their 2008 report, this; Health Net 3.88%, Humana 2.90%, United Health Care 2.68%, Cigna 3.44%, Anthem 4.62%, Medicare 6.85%. Now, granted, the private plans are probably able to do some certain other things (preexisting conditions, etc.) that may in fact even everything out. But, again, it's apparently not as clear cut as we originally thought/were in fact led to believe................................................................................................P.S. I do have another question I'd like to pose. I'd like to ask the partisan Dems out there this. Do you really think that the Medicare system would be appreciably better off had it only been Democrats managing it for the past 20 years? Seriously. I mean, I know that Bush was a dope and everything and that, surely, he probably DID mismanage Medicare at times but, appreciably better, I'm asking. I don't know, to me, the problems in Medicare are largely due to demographic forces; people living longer, baby-boomers aging out, etc.. That, and the fact that newer/more expensive technologies are always coming onto the scene. As far as I know anyway, none of these variables have a partisan bent to them.

Even Poor People Can Count

While I obviously haven't read the Congressional health-care plan in its entirety, there is at least one part of the plan that I can say with confidence is stupid. It involves the individual mandate. For those of you who haven't read it, certain folks (families of four, $88,000 and up) who fail to obtain a qualifying health plan ("qualifying" to be determined later) will have to pay an annual tax penalty of up to $750 per adult/$375 per child, the maximum penalty being $2,250 per family. The problem? The problem is that, while $2,250 is in fact a lot of money, it's still significantly less than what a family health plan would cost. And, yes, being that the plan also contains a provision that does away with preexisting clauses, my fear is that people will simply pay the penalty and only purchase health insurance when they have to (i.e., when they end up getting sick). The logical end result (or at least the worst case scenario) is that only sick people will purchase insurance. Talk about an absolute way to bankrupt the system. This little stipulation just might do it, folks...........................................................................................P.S. As for that 5% tax on plastic surgery surgeries - that one's just flat-out funny. More than a little creative, too, don't you think?

Clif, the Rabbi

Clif, I'm going to be straight with you, buddy. I don't think that I've ever seen a person who's quite so married to his orthodoxy as you. It's strange and, no, I'm not exactly sure what to make of it (actually, I am but, whatever). You do seem to be making SOME progress, though. This, in that, yes, you do seem to be admitting that the medical community is getting low-balled by Medicare. Now, granted, you're (predictably) blaming the Republicans for having created this mess but, hey, at least it's a start for you. And I don't even actually care whose frigging fault it is. All I know is that, yes, we have a problem and, yes, we have that problem NOW!..........................................................................................Some additional points, Clif. 1) My source for that story about doctors threatening to boycott Medicare came from CNNMoney.com. I hasten to guess that they're not a segment of the conspiratorial right. 2) Clif, we're looking at a 38 trillion dollar discrepancy (over the next 70 or so years) between Medicare expenditures and projected revenues. We're either going to have to raise taxes significantly or cut these benefits EVEN MORE. And if so, MY GOD, we'll be lucky if 10% of doctors accept Medicare insurance by then. 3) "Dr. Emanuel's bold prescription is thoughtful and will challenge everyone involved in healthcare. As America addresses our unsustainable cost, quality and and coverage problems, we must heed Emanuel's call to act." You know who said that, Clif? Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, said that. Hm, is he a right-winger, too? 4) Clif, we currently can't buy our health insurance across state lines. If President Obama really wanted to stimulate competition, wouldn't this be a significantly more prudent way to go about it (this, along with insurance reform)? I mean, I know that you LOVE the public sector and all but, really, isn't there going to eventually be a point of diminishing returns here? 5) Blue Cross Plus in Minnesota has a 4.3% administrative cost. And they are now paying 91.6% of their revenues toward health claims. What about nonprofits, Clif? Would you not at least contemplate using these? 6) And, finally, we have an 11 trillion dollar debt (the Chinese boot squarely on our adam's apple), bro. This, and we're also running deficits in excess of a trillion a year. Don't you think that maybe we need to start looking at this from OUTSIDE the orthodoxy? I'm thinking, maybe yes.

Intensive Medicare, Part Two

Oh, and, yeah, Clif, the other "concern" that I have about Medicare - it's a freeloader. Yeah, that's right, Clif. Medicare reimbursements to doctors have consistently (not to mention, progressively) been lower than those of private health insurance plans. And guess who pays for that, buddy? Yep, that's right, we all do (well, maybe not you, personally). It's been estimated that an average family pays an additional $1,788 a year for their health insurance - this, I'm saying, to pay for these additional costs. And now, with the 21.5% additional cuts that that Congress is proposing, some doctors are threatening not to accept Medicare period (much like they currently don't accept Medicaid). How the hell is that frigging good, bro?.....................................................................................A few additional facts. 1) According to the Community Oncology Alliance, current Medicare payments to community oncologists cover only 55% of the costs associated with the delivery of cancer care. 2) According to the Association of Physicians and Surgeons, it costs 27% more to process a Medicare claim than it does a claim for private insurance. 3) The 3% administrative cost of Medicare is a total mirage. This figure fails to account for such things as revenue collection, personnel, and enforcement. If in fact those things were included, the administrative costs would actually double. This, and it still wouldn't include such things as nursing hot-lines, decision support tools, etc. - things, I'm saying, that a private plan typically provides..........................................................................................And let us not forget, either, Clif, Medicare typically pays only about 50% of a senior's total health expenses. The average senior ends up having to pay for a supplemental anyway - private insurance! I mean, I don't know, Clif. Is this really the health care model that you, etc. want our entire country to follow? Me, I'm not so totally sure anymore.

Something in the Vents Over at Fox, I Guess

Charles Krauthammer - now there's another angry dude. I mean, seriously, have you seen him of late? The guy's on Fox News's "Special Report" pretty much every night. And when I say that this fellow doesn't particularly like President Obama, yeah, folks, that's about a ten on the understatement scale. This, in that, no, he doesn't seem to like a damned thing that the President is doing...............................................................................................Now, clearly, Mr. Krauthammer isn't anywhere near the idiot that Bartlebee and Leeds, etc. are (partisan shills on the far-left blogosphere). But, yes, in terms of his unyielding approach to a lot of these complex issues, he's definitely in the ballpark. This, to the point of his almost being unwatchable at times. Seriously!................................................................................................P.S. I ended up doing some research on Krauthammer and, yeah, there were in fact some surprises. The fellow was actually a Democrat for a while. He served in the Carter administration and, later, wrote speeches for candidate Mondale (in 1980). He's STILL an editor over at the New Republic (considered by most to be a left of center publication). And, yes, believe it or not, his personal opinions are hardly Republican orthodoxy; liberal on social issues, moderate on the economy, etc. (this, though, he has bought into a lot of the neocon agenda). As for that syndicated column he writes, even that is considered by most to be cutting edge/iconoclastic. Perplexing, huh?

Word Salad This, Slade

Art to Leeds, folks, is nothing but a Duke Wayne poster. And, so, no/nada, I wouldn't expect him to appreciate anything that good old Marta's accomplished. Of course, the fact that he's still so damned frigging obnoxious about it....

Free the Slave

I don't have any "masters", Clif. Unlike you, I'm saying - who bows to the DNC, who bows to the beneficent (in your eyes) federal government, who bows to President Obama, who never even criticizes him when he deserves to be (don't ask/don't tell, Afghanistan, etc.), for Christ. I mean, I don't know about you, pal, but I go to blog sites where liberals (principled liberals, I'm saying - this, as opposed to the rank and file partisan riff-raff) consistently criticize Obama. Why the hell can't you do that? Seriously, though, why can't you? Are you just too lovey-dovey?

What Happens When You Watch JFK Too Many Times

This, Lydia, THIS, is what we are asked to believe. Voltron, in some sinister effort to fool his "adversaries" (two guys, basically), has created this moderate alter-ego; namely, me. And, yes, this same sinister Voltron, who evidently has a lot of spare time on his hands (this, in spite of having to drive a truck 50-60 hours a week), has even gone as far as to fabricate a blog by this persona ("Contra O'Reilly", by Will "take no prisoners" Hart - 734 posts and counting), gone to a significant number of other blogs (many of which are liberal, btw) using this persona, and, yes, written a bunch of stuff that he actually doesn't believe - AGAIN, just to fool a couple of dudes! I mean, if this isn't a clear-cut case of paranoia, then, really, I don't know what is..........................................................................................P.S. Just for some added perspective here, I would have to say that only 10-15% of my overall blogging actually takes place at Lydia's (your) site. The other 85-90% takes place either on my blog or on other blog sites (again, a large chunk of which are liberal sites). So, yes, YES, what this contributor is literally saying is that this 85-90% - these particular (mostly moderate) writings - only exist as a ruse/deception/an attempt to convince these two inordinately marginal individuals that, YES, I am in fact a fair/decent guy. Of course, they also completely see through the deception/recognize me....for what I TRULY am; a right-wing ideologue of nasty/epic proportions.............................................................................................Oh, and, yes, if you actually take the time to examine those 734 posts of mine, I'm pretty sure you'll see (unless, of course, YOU'RE a paritsan) that I at least try to be fair and consistent. I mean, sure, if you're a paranoid cherry-picker then, yes, you probably could make a case either way. But, BUT, if you're an honest consumer of information, I'm saying.

The High Price of Consensus/Letter to Lydia

Lydia, whenever I get criticized by a hard-core partisan like this (i.e., Cliffy/the dull contributor), I tend to take it as a badge of honor. It basically means that I'm doing my job, touching all those mealy-mouthed tender spots, etc.......................................................................................Oh, and, yes, for the record, it doesn't matter whether that criticism comes from the left or the right. Nope, not at all. Hell, I was just as proud when that conservative blogger, Gadfly, excoriated me. Yep, you got it - that individual accused me of being a (drum-roll, please) LIBERAL TROLL; a frigging member of the Obama police (I guess because I defended Obama - who frigging knows!), for Christ!..........................................................................................Now, look, I know you're in kind of a delicate position here. These guys are your contributors and, yes, they DO tend to agree with you politically. But, Lydia, please, hear me out here. THEY ARE NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS. I mean, think about it for a minute. Your blog used to have a fair amount of traffic on it. Now it's just basically Larry and Moe....pissing on the grave of Voltron. It's, to say the least. bizarre.

Winter-League Diplomacy

To all of those who say that the Obama administration was acting out of principle when it decided to boycott Fox News, let me tell you something here. If at some point in the not too distant future, this same Obama administration decides that it's to their BENEFIT (politically, I'm saying) to go ON Fox, they will do it in a heartbeat. This decision, folks, had NOTHING to do with principles. It was a) a political decision (probably something to do with the left's base, who knows) and b) retaliatory (this, for all of the nasty crap that Hannity, etc. say about them). They were, as former President Nixon (ironically, huh?) used to describe such actions, punching down.....................................................................................Now, please, don't get me wrong here. The Fox News Network IS biased. Some of it is very biased. But, I don't know, folks, for the President of the United States to get into pissing contest with them, it just doesn't look good. I mean, come on (Mr. President), do the frigging Chris Wallace show, the lady with the funny mouth at 10 (Eastern Time). How is THAT going to cripple you? It might even make you look Presidential, for Christ. And, besides, it might even be good practice for when you have to talk to the real enemy (you know, guys like Mitch McConnell - I'm kidding!!).

Poop-Shoots

I love it, folks. You've got all of these bidders for the meat industry (many of whom are also ridiculers of vegetarianism, btw) going around saying that there are just as many vegetable sources of E-coli as there are meat sources. And, yes, me-buckos, they're saying it all with a frigging straight face, too. It's like, what-up - they think we're frigging stupid or something? Obviously, some vegetables HAVE been contaminated with E-coli. But it isn't the vegetables that cause it. It's the frigging cow and pig shit (excuse my French but, yes, I'm a little bit pissed right now) that runs into the fields that causes the vegetables to get contaminated....But, seriously, though, nice try, defenders of the meat industry, agribusiness, factory farming, etc.. Very nice frigging try indeed.

Human Phlegm

To say that Bartlebee is a crazed nut is way, WAY, TOO generous (not to mention an insult to all of those crazy nuts as well). This frigging guy, folks, is TOTALLY OFF the charts. And the fact that he hasn't met a conspiracy theory that doesn't laminate him - that, I'm informing you..........................................................................................I mean, it's almost as if he can't see beyond his own frigging proboscis, for Christ! Just get a load of this one (for example). If you completely disagree with the guy, you're a "right-wing" troll. If you partially disagree with him, you're a "concern" troll. If, however, you totally AGREE with him, well, then you're nothing but a liar - this, in that you're only doing so to convince him that you're fair/balanced. You're not MEANING what you're SAYING, in other words. Talk about not being able to win, huh?..................................................................................Of course, so, too, is everything written in black and white. There's only right and wrong (him/his views always being the former, of course), only good and evil, only good guys (heroes) and bad guys (villains), only liberals and conservatives. And when I way there is nothing in between, I mean....there is NOTHING in between. No nuance - NONE!....................................................................................And, yes, in addition to all of this lunacy/simple-mindedness, you also have a person whose emotional intelligence is equally compromised. I point specifically to the fact that you simply cannot disagree with him. I'm serious, folks. He is in fact....just like a child in this regard. This, in that, yes, if you do have the temerity to put forth a contrary viewpoint, he WILL attack you, label you (refer to above), tear apart your integrity/motivation, and, yes, me-buckos, that's when the conspiracy theorizing starts to get real scary. The latest? I swear to God, people - he's now saying that Voltron and I are one and the frigging same. Youza vi youza, huh?..............................................................................................P.S. I am going to take his advice, though. The next time that a creditor starts to hassle me and shit, I'll just say to the guy, "Hey, buddy, I'm not broke. I'm only underfunded."

Now THAT was Rock and Roll

"Boston's back Bay Theater was jammed to capacity, filled with a noisy, enthusiastic throng, out to see the latest of the traveling soul revues. This show promised to be something special, with a rare visit from Roy Hamilton, the urbane crooner of 'Ebb Tide', and an appearance by Jackie Wilson, the man responsible for 'Lonely Teardrops' and 'That's Why'. But as the warm-up acts went through their paces, all was not well backstage; the show's promoter was on the phone jabbering frantically to Roy Hamilton's agent, who had no idea where his singer was. It soon became clear that Hamilton wouldn't show............................................................................................Fearful of the wrath of the fevered crowd if one of the headliners failed to appear, the promoter urgently whispered in Jackie Wilson's ear as he prepared to go on; Wilson, after a moment's pause, agreed. Bounding onstage, he grabbed the mike, spun around and raced into a blistering version of 'That's Why (I Love You So)'. For over an hour, Jackie Wilson played to the screaming audience, teasing the women clustered in front of the stage. Suddenly, in the middle of 'Shake! Shake! Shake!', he jumped into a sea of outstretched arms. With mike in hand, he attempted to sing, but women , clawing ravenously, shredded his shirt. Finally, Wilson's body disappeared. The theater was in turmoil; the audience stretched forward, hoping to catch a glimpse of what was going on. After minutes of pushing and shoving, the police escorted Wilson to safety. The lights were turned on and everybody was ordered out. NO ONE MISSED ROY HAMILTON...............................................................................................In his prime, Jackie Wilson was that kind of performer: he could stop a show at the drop of a hat - sometimes without even trying........"................Joe McEwen and Gregg Geller, from the liner notes to "The Jackie Wilson Story"...............................................................................................For those of you too young to remember, Jackie Wilson was probably one of the greatest rock and roll/R and B singers of the 50s and 60s (the fact that he ultimately influenced Michael Jackson, I do not hold against him). His career, while inconsistent (quetionable song selection, his biggest vice) and shortened due to illness (he actually had a heart attack ON STAGE), was something to behold. It included such classics as "Lonely Teardrops", "Baby Workout", "Doggin' Around", "Whispers Gettin' Louder", and, yeah, you got it, folks, "Your Love Keeps Lifting Me (Higher and Higher)". All this and apparently Jackie was pretty damn good on stage, too. Too bad we all didn't get a chance to see him back then. I, for one, surely would have dug it.

The "Return" of Hardball

I could be wrong here. But it's really starting to look like our pal, Chris Matthews, is starting to reclaim that independent streak of his. I mean, granted, the fellow had a lot of ground to make up to get there and all (the fact that he basically tanked for Obama, made that idiotic thrill-up-the-leg comment, etc.) but, seriously, he seems to be heading in a positive direction at least.....................................................................................On the President's Afghan policy (or should I say, lack of a one?), for example, Matthews has been exceedingly critical and questioning of it. He basically referred to it as a reconstitution of the French Foreign Legion. Seriously. And even on other key issues such health care and the economy, he's been skeptical - to say the least...................................................................................Now, granted, the fact that Matthews works over at MSNBC/is constantly surrounded by folks who'd literally make Karl Marx look moderate - that is clearly something that COULD be clouding my assessment. But, I don't know. The guy really does seem to be revving up his mojo - thankfully so, from my perspective.

The Starkness/Humanity of It

Let's do a quick check-list here, folks. Israel has a free and open press (one in fact that is frequently critical of the government). The Palestinians, not so much. Israel has one of the most respected supreme courts of all the countries on the planet, one in fact that frequently rules AGAINST the military. The Palestinians, not so much. Israelis posses freedom of speech, where people can speak out freely AGAINST the government. The Palestinians, not so much (just being suspected of colluding with Israel will bring upon your quick demise). Israel agreed to the Peel Commission compromise (an agreement that was actually quite unfair to them) of 1937. The Palestinians, not so much. Israel agreed to the UN partition plan (passed overwhelmingly, 33-14 - only thuggish, rogue elements dissenting) of 1948. The Palestinians (who, along with the Arab countries, immediately attempted to annihilate Israel), not so much. Israel agreed to the 2000 Bill Clinton-brokered peace agreement (an agreement that even Prince Bandar thought was generous to the Palestinians). The Palestinians, not so much. Israel does not intentionally target civilians. Yes, Palestinian civilians are killed. But that is more the fault of the terrorists who effeminately hide behind women and children (this, in that they WANT Palestinian civilians killed for propaganda purposes). The Palestinians, not so much. I mean, I could go on here. But I think that my point has definitely been made............................................................................................P.S. I want to make this perfectly clear, folks. I am personally IN FAVOR of a Palestinian state (and, no, I don't mean by that, Jordan). Their forefathers had a strong connection to the land of Palestine, too. But, yes, the way that I see it, if your side went as far as to support Adolph Hitler (in WW2) and Saddam Hussein (in the first Gulf War), you may not necessarily be in the best position to dictate the terms anymore. Not in my reality, anyway.

Imperially Speaking

Let's see if I've gotten this straight, folks. The Hashemite Kingdom was ultimately awarded 80% of British Mandate Palestine. The Jews (a people with ancient and continuous ties to the land) - they, on the other hand, received 12%. But, in the minds of very many, it's still the latter who get the tag of "imperialists"? Now THAT is very interesting.............................................................................................Of course, the whole thing gets even more preposterous when you look at some of the additional facts. 1) The Jews were awarded only those areas in which THEY had the clear majority. 2) From basically 1929 onward, the Arabs of that area have engaged in a systematic effort to terrorize civilian areas/kill civilians. 3) For long stretches of time prior to the partition, the British put massively severe restrictions on Jewish immigration - this, me-buckos, while, at the same time, providing Arabs virtually unrestricted access. 4) Prior to Jewish development of Western Palestine (the land purchased fairly and squarely from absentee landlords), the area was at best sparsely populated. It was only after the Jews turned what was essentially swampland into a thriving area did the Palestinian/Arab population grow to the extent that it did. 5) Israel has tried from day one to live in peace with its Arab neighbors. Even after they took the West Bank from Jordan (an act that was prompted solely because of Jordan's aggression/their attack on Jewish population centers), they were willing from the start to give it back for peace/security. 6) Whenever Arab states HAVE shown a willingness to seek peace with Israel, they've clearly been successful. Reference Sadat, King Hussein, the fact that Turkey and Israel have had normalized relations for years, etc..........................................................................................Look, folks, I don't particularly enjoy doing this - not even a little. But the anti-Israel sentiments that I've been encountering are absolutely dumbfounding. I mean, seriously, doesn't SOMEBODY have to speak up for Israel here?......................................................................................P.S. Bill Clinton did some things that brought shame upon this nation - no question. And I'm certainly not about to defend him when it comes to those issues. But, yes, I was/am very proud of his strong/tireless attempts to bring about peace in the Middle East. It's just too bad that there wasn't somebody on the Palestinian side (ten God-damned frigging years ago) that wanted it as bad as he did.

Always the Jews

It's very easy to find negative stories on Israel. All you have to do is a Google search and you'll drown in 'em. Unfortunately, most of the places that have these stories are left-leaning enterprises that clearly don't like Israel to begin with. That, or they're Arab sites such as Al Jezeera. Again, not necessarily fair or reliable....................................................................................The latest of these stories to go "viral" is the one that "informs" us of how the Israelis are booting Palestinians out of their homes in East Jerusalem....and of how, too, the Israelis are building settlements there. I mean, yes, it sounds terrible. But, again, I would really like to get a more reliable/less biased source to examine/confirm/debate these stories.................................................................................And, yes, folks, I say this precisely because of my previous experiences with such biased reporting. Take, for example, that supposed massacre at Jenin. According to the Palestinian propagandists (the source for a lot of these anti-Israel stories/diatribes), the Israeli army brutally mowed down some 500 Palestinian civilians (killed these folks in cold-blood, supposedly). And, yep, you got it, terms like genocide and holocaust were cavalierly tossed around as well. Now, granted, we eventually did learn the real truth about Jenin - namely, that only 52 Palestinians (the majority of which were found to be terrorist fighters) were actually killed. But the public-relations damage had already been inflicted (coupled with the fact that a lot of regular Palestinians never learned this truth)........................................................................................As for this particular story about East Jerusalem, I would at least like to know 1) the extent of these evictions (this, in that, yes, folks, terms like ethnic cleansing are already being bandied about) and 2) if in fact there were any terrorists being harbored in these dwellings. This, for a little bit of perspective, I'm saying. And, yes, folks, I'm frigging saying all of this as a person who strongly OPPOSES Israel's settlement policy.....................................................................................P.S. You know what else would be nice? It would be nice if, on occasion, all of these bloggers/academics who constantly hammer Israel for its "mistreatment" of the Palestinians, would do the same to China for its treatment of the Tibetans, Turkey for its treatment of the Kurds and Armenians, Russia for its treatment of the Chechnyans, Spain for its treatment of the Basques, and, yes, YES, Palestinian terrorists treatment of the Jews (nails soaked in rat poison, stuffed into bombs). It would be extremely nice in fact.

Just the Right Balance

Do you folks remember how I blasted Olbermann for his unfair (in my estimation) treatment of Baltimore Sun media critic, David Zurawik; the fact that he referred to Zurawik as a right-wing ideologue (this because Mr. Zurawik had the temerity to criticize Olbermann), etc.? Well, guess what? Bill O'Reilly (this, in that HE was recently criticized by Zurawik) is now characterizing this same Mr. Zurawik as, yep, you got it, a left wing ideologue. I absolutely shit you not. It's like, this poor frigging Zurawik guy just can't frigging win..............................................................................................Of course, you can also look at it this way. If Keith Olbermann and Bill O'Reilly BOTH have it in for you (two of the biggest partisan spinmeisters on the planet), then, absolutely, you've got to be doing something right - especially if you're a frigging media critic! David Zurawik, folks, MY HERO!

His Own Personal Safety-Net

Leeds? HA! He was a whiskey drinking stooge, for Christ! And the fact that he had thrice taken it up the poop-shoot, AT SASSY'S (one time from Paye and twice from the lower-shelved Messenger) - that, I'm afraid to say, itself was boffo. Of course, for Slade Leeds to have mangled that crowbar....

Robert E. Who?

I really wish that we could get away from terms like victory and defeat. This, in that they literally don't make sense anymore. They're archaic, obsolete, and, hell, folks, even frigging dangerous at times. But, still, politicians (from Bush to McCain to Obama) continue to seduce us with them. It's like, what, does Senator McCain (who I continue to have respect for, believe it or not) actually think that these Taliban lunatics will one day throw up the white flag - a la Appomattox Court House/Yorktown? He must. This, in that I never hear him decipher it any differently.........................................................................................But, really, don't you think that maybe we need to start reassessing here, start to get a little more realistic in our objectives, especially? The thing is, folks, we're never going to be able to get rid of all the terrorists. We have a better chance of getting rid of cockroaches (remember that tired old joke about Tanya Tucker?). And we're never going to be able to manage third-world countries, either. The sooner we realize this fact, the better..........................................................................................P.S. This is not to imply that we, as a nation, are powerless. We're not. And, yes, folks, this absolutely affirms a strong role for the military. But just like when you go after those cockroaches, you have to be not just aggressive but smart. Yes, we need to kill as many of those mother-effers as we possibly can. But, so, too, we have to be careful 1) not to end up creating more of them and 2) not to alienate the rest of the frigging world as well. And, really, folks, where has it ever been stated that we constantly have to "fix" these countries (they're not frigging Germany and Japan, damn it!)? Just getting rid of that notion alone would help SIGNIFICANTLY, I'm thinking.

The Other Book (Dog)-End

And, O'Reilly, too, while he's still nowhere near as partisan as Mr. Olbermann's become, damned if doesn't treat a lot of Republicans gently. On a recent segment with Congresswoman Bachman, for example, he actually asked the woman, "So, why is it that people are always picking on you?" And then he allowed her to spin like a frigging merry-go-round. Compare this to the way that he treats Congressman Frank (who actually SHOULD get grilled - though, yes, that's another subject) and other liberal Democrats. It's frequently quite a distinction.................................................................................Oh, and if Mr. O'Reilly really does want an answer to the question, here it is. Congresswoman Bachman gets "picked on" 1) because she isn't particularly crafty, 2) because she's as rank a partisan as there is, and 3) because she's constantly saying incendiary things (the Democrats are unAmerican, yada, yada). Now, granted, there are only a limited number of ways that one can utter, "Michele Bachman is an idiot" (this, though, Mr. Olbermann is constantly trying to come up with new ones) but, still, to have a lot of sympathy for her probably isn't the way to go, either. You certainly don't want to treat her with kid-gloves, for Christ!

Mirror, Mirror on the Stall....

Boy, does that Keith Olbermann ever have a lot of nerve. I especially love it when he takes to accusing others for the same stupid stuff he does. Take, for example, a recent segment (yes, the SOB actually does entire segments related to bashing his competition). The son of a bitch went on and on about this interview that Chris Wallace (he of the dreaded Fox News Network, of course) did with Rush Limbaugh. He literally bludgeoned the former (selective footage galore, of course) for the supposedly powder-puff questions he was asking.................................................................................And the thing is, folks, he does this without a single iota of irony. Olbermann, a guy who never has anybody on his show who EVER disagrees with him, literally gave President (then candidate) Obama campaign advice when he interviewed him. I mean, talk about some powder-puff interview questions. He never even laid a glove on Obama, for Christ. And all this comes from a guy who claims to worship Edward R. Murrow. It's disgusting, I'm telling you - the hypocrisy AND the partisanship.

Dung of a Rectum

"I take this opportunity to express extreme gratification that you were able to restore normal order after the recent incidents in People's China. I wish you, close friends, more progress in your endeavor to achieve the hopes, goals, aspirations, stability and security of our friends, the Chinese people."........You know who made these comments, folks? Yasser Arafat made these comments. And, yeah, the son of a bitch made 'em right after the Tienanmen Square massacre in 1989. I mean, come on, if this doesn't tell us what a frigging low-life Arafat was, LITERALLY NOTHING COULD.................................................................................................And the thing is, folks, this is hardly the only example of Arafat throwing his support to such a vulgar despotism. So, too, he's had similar kind words for pigs such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Khadafi, Fidel Castro, etc., etc.. I mean, I don't know, it's almost as if these frigging dirt-bags have had a club or something. Me, I can practically see it now, Arafat, high-fiving Zemin for the latter's having cracked the skulls of those peaceful demonstrators, for Christ! I, folks, personally find this whole matter QUITE disturbing - the fact that Arafat is still thought of highly by people, especially.

Keen Discernments of the Sweetest Kind

Alfred Hitchcock is obviously one of the greatest film directors in movie history. I really don't think that there's a question about that. This, in that, starting from his early films like "The 39 Steps" and "Rebecca", all the way to his now classic "Psycho", Hitchcock's canon is as memorable as anybody's this side of Frank Capra............................................................................Of course, what's probably most impressive to me (me and a lot of the other shallow-thinking 50 something fellows out there) is just what an eye THIS FELLOW had for the ladies. I mean, just frigging think about it for a sec. You've got Ruth Roman (Strangers on a Train), Ingrid Bergman (Spellbound, Notorious), Vera Miles and Janet Leigh (Psycho), Eva Marie Saint (North by Northwest), Ann Baxter (I Confess), Joan Fontaine (Rebecca, Suspicion), Kim Novak (Vertigo), and, yes, perhaps the master's own personal favorite, Grace Kelly (Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, To Catch a Thief). A pretty impressive stock of beauties, wouldn't you say?.........................................................................................As to my own personal favorite (Hitchcock Hottie), I'm going to have to respectfully utter none of the above. This, in that my numero uno is the incredibly beautiful/smokingly hot Teresa Wright. Her presence took what was already a can't-miss/awesome film (Shadow of a Doubt) WAY into the stratosphere - a really kicking performance, my friends. And like I may have mentioned in a previous posting, her ass was incredibly bitching, too.

Disagree to Agree

Islamic fascists and haters of Islam have one very disturbing thing in common. They both like to quote the Qur'an out of context and, yes, use these quotes to further/justify bigotry............................................................................................For example, this common verse is frequently cited by both sides. It states that those of the Muslim faith should "slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them."..........................................................................................Of course, what they fail to include (and, yes, my friends, that part alone does in fact sound very bad) is what precedes it; "Proclaim a woeful punishment to the unbelievers, EXCEPT (my emphasis) for those idolaters who have honored their treaties with you. With these keep faith, until their treaties have run their term. God loves the righteous." Nor in fact do they include what follows; "If an idolater seeks asylum with you, give him protection so that he may hear the Word of God, and then convey to him safety."........................................................................................The bottom-line, folks, is that, yes, violent passages do exist in the Qur'an (some of which may be questionable). But, I ask you, are they any worse than what we could find in our own Christian bible? And do we really need the extremists (on both sides) to decipher them for us? I would personally say no to both of these questions...........................................................................................P.S. As for Muhammad himself, can we legitimately say that he was as peaceful a prophet as, say, Jesus or Buddha? My guess would be probably not. But, neither, folks, was he anywhere near the war-monger that those on the far-right consistently claim. That is simply THEM "going off".

Politics EQUALS Hypocrisy Equals Politics....Equals Hypocrisy........Equals Politics................

Not that I can prove it, obviously. But, I'm telling you, if the Iraq and Afghan wars had been started (and, yes, mismanaged, too) by a Democratic President (a President Gore, a President Bradley, whoever) many of these same Republican lawmakers who have consistently championed war ( a lot of whom probably WEREN'T internationalists a decade or so ago) would have absolutely crucified that President. And, yes, folks, they would have been saying virtually the same things that the anti-war Dems have been saying for the past 6-8 years; it's a waste of American life, it costs too much, it actually makes us less secure, etc., etc.. I mean, HELL-FIRE, I can almost here 'em now..........................................................................................P.S. I just thought of an empirical counterpart; the Republican criticism of President Clinton's Kosovo bombing campaign. They frigging didn't care for that at all. Remember? Hell, I didn't care for it, either, but, please, at least I try to be consistent. I try.

False Comparison

I really wish that Bill O'Reilly would stop lumping CNN and MSNBC together. It's like, WHAT, is he actually saying that Anderson Cooper is as biased toward Obama as Keith Olbermann, that Campbell Brown is as biased toward him as Maddow? I mean, I know that my conservative friends continue to equate the CNN of the 90s to the CNN of today (still, of course, thinking that it tilts mega-left), but I don't even think that they would equate CNN with MSNBC. That, I'm afraid to say, is strictly O'Reillyville.

Digging for a Deeper Find

One of modernity's most persistent axioms is the one that states that Jews and Muslims are just plain incapable of living in peace with each other. They point, specifically, to Arab pogroms, the constant struggle between these groups in the holy land, and, yes, they even go as far as to bring up the Crusades. And while, yes, these are in fact some good examples of just how intractable the problems have been at times, they hardly represent an exhaustive study of the history between them.......................................................................................For example, a closer examination of history shows that from the 15th to the 19th century, the Muslim majorities of the Balkins and Turkey were both exceedingly hospitable to the Jews of their region. In fact, folks, when the Jews of Europe and Russia were being persecuted in the 17th century, many of these same Jews escaped and found refuge in Turkey. Yeah, that's right, Jewish refugees from places such as Ukraine actually looked to the Turkish Sultan to protect them from all things, CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION!!......................................................................................Now, none of this is to excuse the virulent anti-Semitism that's still evident in a great many Arab countries. But 1) it does serve to show people that the two groups have in fact lived in harmony and 2) that Islam is NOT de facto a violent religion. Yes, they've done a lot of violent things throughout hisory. But so, too, have the Jews and Christians - Christians, especially. I mean, just look at the European colonization of North and South America. That, me-buckos, was a wholesale massacre. Nazi Germany, the forced conversions of the Nordics and Slavs - the frigging list goes on and on. Thankfully, "we've" changed. And I'm thinking that if we've changed, maybe so, too, can the Muslims....yet again.

The Principle Involved

Thank goodness/the Lord for George Will. I mean, I know that the guy can be a pompous ass from time to time and that, yes, he's probably a lot more conservative than some of us. But, 1) the guy is a traditional conservative (this, as opposed to a neoconservative) and 2) he's never been one of those guys who would defend the indefensible out of partisanship.............................................................................................For example, while, yes, he did in fact strongly support Reagan, he was also strongly critical of both President Bushes. He didn't, for example, just because a Republican did it, throw away his opposition of nation-building, start to say that it was now a necessary tactic, etc.. On the contrary, folks. Will was one of the strongest critics of the Iraq War/President Bush's (mis)handling of it............................................................................................And, yes, folks, Mr. Will continues to place principles over partisanship. When asked about Dick Cheney's criticism of President Obama's deliberative approach regarding Afghanistan ("the President is dithering"), Mr. Will responded by saying that it probably would have been a good thing if the Bush/Cheney administration had done a little more dithering prior to their getting us involved in Iraq. Wow, huh? Talk about an arrow directly hitting the bulls-eye. Mr. Will literally nailed that sucker, for Christ. It's just too bad there aren't more conservatives like Will out there.

The Gitmo Got Nothin'....

I don't know if the people who go on the Nancy Grace show get paid or not. But, I'm telling you, if in fact they do pay 'em, whatever it is that they pay 'em, it ain't even remotely enough. I mean, my God - have you seen this woman/lunatic? She has got to be the rudest person in the history of television. And it isn't just the analysts who take it on the chin, either. She treats the straight reporters like garbage, too. She even treats regular folks (who are already frigging nervous, mind you) shabbily. I'm personally surprised that anybody would be willing to go on the air and get a brow-beating like that. They must really like to be on the TV. That's the only thing that I can come up with........................................................................................P.S. Just for the record - even if there weren't any guests on her show, it would still be unwatchable. This, me-buckos, in that, yes, the woman's self-righteousness alone is enough to make me vomit. She literally thinks that she's this high-powered voice of virtue, a protectorate of the little folks, etc.. And I'm also telling you, folks, if I have to hear one more story about those twins of hers....(I obviously DO watch from time to time).

Fuzzy Thinking All Around

To those of you who say that the Republicans have used a lot of scare tactics/misinformation in an effort to sink the President's health care agenda, I basically say, "fair point". When you go around using such terms as "death panels" and "government takeover, the overall discussion at the very least gets clouded. But, while I do think that, yes, we should put a damper on this type of lingo, I also think it's fair to point out some of the more legitimate criticisms of what the Dems are espousing..........................................................................................For instance, in the Baucus plan, there is a mandate that individuals /families procure health insurance....and, if they don't, they will be fined. The problem with this is that the fine is considerably less than the health insurance would cost. A lot of people may simply opt to pay the fine. AND, because the Baucus plan also outlaws preexisting clauses, they will simply wait until they get sick to get insurance. The end result could be only sick people seeking insurance. THAT would be totally unworkable..........................................................................................And, so, too, the fact that they're cutting half a trillion out of Medicare; reducing reimbursements to doctors, facilities, etc.. That as well would have repercussions. Doctors would either have to take a huge hit OR try and get it out of the rest of us (charge more and/or spend a lot less time per patient). Hell, folks, some doctors just might say screw it and no longer accept Medicare (as they are similarly doing with Medicaid NOW!) Then where in the hell would we be? I don't know, I really think they need to think this through a little more.

A Very Good Sport

I've never been a big fan of the University of Miami football program. First of all, the teams themselves were just so frigging dominant. This, I'm saying, in that from the late 70s (Jim Kelly's hey day) all the way to the early part of this decade (the Ken Dorsey era), Miami probably had the most dominant program of the era (5 national championships, almost always ranked in the top 20, etc.)...................................................................................But it wasn't just the program's success that bothered me. I didn't like the image of it, either. I don't know if you remember or not, but the 'Canes of that era had a major-league swagger to them - an arrogance, if you will. They also had a reputation for being thuggish/intimidating. And, yes, folks, one could clearly get the impression that the bulk of the players revelled in this bad boy status. I mean, it was almost impossible NOT to root against them................................................................................So, yeah, it does feel kind of weird that I'm actually rooting for Miami now. Why am I rooting for them? Three little words, folks - coach Randy Shannon................................................................................For those of you who don't know the man, coach Shannon was actually a player on one of those Miami teams; the 1987 national championship team in fact. But to say that this guy wasn't one of the typical Miami players is an understatement............................................................................................To make a long story short, Randy Shannon grew up in the most dire of circumstances. At the age of three (for instance), his father was murdered. At age ten, both of his brothers became addicted to crack cocaine (they later died). A few years later, his sister died of AIDS. And at age sixteen, Shannon himself fathered a child. But, instead of allowing these circumstances to destroy him forever, Shannon worked his way through high-school and was awarded a scholarship to play football at the University of Miami. Since then, he's had a brief NFL career, worked his way up the coaching profession, and, yes, presently coaches at his alma mater.....................................................................................How's he doing there? Well, after a little bit of a tough start, it appears that the Hurricanes are back. They're presently 5-1 and ranked 8th in the country. And, yes, folks, after they beat the Oklahoma Sooners a few weeks back, I'll admit it. I got a little lump in my throat.......................................................................................But it obviously isn't just results on the field that we're looking at. Shannon, instead of reconstituting that bad boy image of the 'Canes, has brought about some real perspective on campus. The first thing he did was to eliminate the players' names on the jerseys (a "there is no i in team" approach, obviously). But even more so than that, he's totally focused in on academics. If a player misses a class and/or his grades fall below a certain grade-point average, that player just doesn't play. And when he recruits a player, he talks to the family about basically everything. The only thing that he doesn't talk about? Yeah, you got it, football. That'll take care of itself, he figures....Go Canes.