Diluted Sins

Where did liberal bloggers ever get this notion that Keith Olbermann never lies? I mean, seriously, do they just not scrutinize what he says or something, tend to give the guy a break because he agrees with them politically? It has to be something along those lines, obviously..............................................................And, yes, folks, I say it here, obviously, because obviously the son of a bitch DOES lie. Just last week, for example, the thin-skinned Olbermann went on a retaliatory, lie-soaked tantrum against a media critic named David Zurawik (Zurawik apparently committed the unpardonable sin of negatively critiquing the host for his mean-spiritedness, partisanship, etc.). Mr. Olbermann's main charge was that Mr. Zurawick was either a blind ideologue or that he was somehow on the take from somebody. A scurrilous charge, in other words.................................................................And, yes, folks, so, too, did it represent a bald-faced deception. Mr. Zurawik is a frigging media critic. Hell, most of the pieces he writes for the Baltimore Sun don't even deal with political programming. And when he does write about news programs, the man has a vast and clear-cut record of non-partisanship. In fact, amongst his more brutal reviews are those he's written about Fox; Greta Van Susteren, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.. For Mr. Olbermann to so blatantly distort and pillory this man's record is as vile a thing as I've seen in quite some time. And, yes, folks, it also shows, categorically, just how low that this complete and total creep will go to 1) advance his partisan agenda and 2) take a whack at anybody who has the audacity to disagree with him.......................................................................Of course, there is in fact a highly amusing aspect to all of this as well. The fact that this utter hack would have the temerity to call ANYBODY an ideologue - that, me-buckos, is side-splitting. It's also a textbook example of projection and, hence, exceedingly hilarious in that regard, too.

A Motley Screw

Ed Schultz refers to Dick Cheney as "the shooter". Sean Hannity refers to Treasury Secretary Geithner as "Turbo Tax-cheat, Tim Geithner". And, yes, believe it or not, folks, these are two of the more intelligent things that these clowns have been saying lately. It's like, I almost can't believe what I've been seeing of late - partisan stooges, not only having a high profile on cable news channels....but each having their own frigging program, too!...................................................................And the fact that they seemingly spend 50% of their allotted air time....attacking each other!! I mean, just the other night, for example, Keith Olbermann (along with his guest for the segment, Arianna Huffington) did an entire feature on Rush Limbaugh's apparent lack of mental stability (the implication being that Rush is losing it - as we speak!). And, yes, they passed it off as frigging news story, for Christ!!........................................................................The thing that I most want to know, though, is this. Who in the hell are the idiots who are putting THESE idiots on the air? And why? I mean, it's all got to be about the money/ratings, right? What in the hell else could it be? It's certainly not about serving the public-good. That is abundantly obvious.

The Wright Decision, Por Favor

As I hope you've noted, folks, on several occasions, I've actually gone as far as to commend the President for his decision-making. It seems that whenever there's a crisis to address, he addresses it - decisively and, yes, for the most part, effectively (the boondoggle-ladened stimulus package, obviously, an exception), too....................................................................But I don't know here. On some of these issues (some of the more political ones, especially), I'm starting to get a creepy feeling that there's at least a small level of expediency involved. The most obvious example, of course, is the Reverend Wright fiasco. The President (admittedly, just a candidate then) started off by saying that he could no easier disown Reverend Wright than he could his own (white, he had to throw that one in there) grandmother. He THEN, a couple of weeks later, when it was obvious that Wright had zero intention of amping it down, did a 180 and tossed him under the bus. Decisive, yes, but maybe a little poll-driven, too.......................................................................And, now, of course, we have the controversy over Sotomayor's rather questionable (or what were perceived to be) comments (a wise Latina woman making better decisions than a white man). It seemed like here, too, folks, that the President only wanted to address these comments when they were causing him embarrassment. Kind of like he was reading the polls or something. I don't know, that's what it seems like anyway.

My Very Own Fast Track to Hell

She was as fat as a fire-hydrant, for Christ! Kind of like a cow plopping, too. And the fact that even Retch himself couldn't nearly see through it; vast, the opaque nature of her girth so plain, etc.. Of course, the supple way that pretty much everybody seemed to be letting it "hang", far be it for us to cast dispersions. I mean, think about it, folks. What if not for a newer and nastier nature for chubbiness? What in the hell could be more natural than that? Retch - him taking heifers for a ride, especially!!

Changing (As in Exchanging) Stripes

President Obama's Supreme Court appointment, Sonia Sotomayor, is clearly and unequivocally qualified to sit on the bench. She has as much experience and educational attainment as anybody in recent memory. The fact that her judicial philosophy is at odds with the conservatives in Congress is immaterial. The President won the election and he absolutely should get the type of judges he wants. I mean, sure, you can always scrutinize and ask, has every single decision she's ever rendered been an unimpeachable one? Has every single statement she's ever made been a prudent one.?But, seriously, folks, if that ends up being the criteria for each and every court appointment, we're probably going to be looking at an empty bench for a while........................................................................Of course, having said all this , it also must be pointed out that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Judge Alito were also highly qualified....and that, yes, then Senator Obama (capitulating to the base, perhaps) voted against both of these solid/distinguished Bush nominees. So, no, if in fact a Republican (or ten) does vote against Sotomayor, the Dems really aren't in all that great of a position to complain about it. Not, that is, unless they're willing to be called hypocrites anyway.

Killing Two Legacies With One Roadblock

According to NBC News (2002), in his last conversation with President Clinton, Yasser Arafat told the President, "Sir, you are a great man." Clinton responded by saying, "The hell I am. I'm a colossal failure, an you made me one."...........................................................................Yep, that's right, folks, Clinton was pissed and, I'm telling you, if the former president had a gun with just a single bullet in it, I'm not so sure he wouldn't have pushed Kenneth Starr aside and plugged Arafat instead. I mean, I remember it. Clinton was so steamed he couldn't even look at Arafat. I can't say that I blame him, either. This, I'm saying, in that that son of a bitch probably did more to promote regional hostilities than anybody (save, perhaps, for Saddam Hussein). He actually should have been vilified more than he was. That's my opinion, anyway.

The Exception That Proves Not a Lot

I suppose it's possible that enhanced interrogation techniques work on some people; promote them to confess the truth under duress, etc.. I mean, they're probably the minority and all. Most of the literature I've read (a lot of it coming from people who've actually done interrogation and NOT George Tenet, Bill O'Reilly, Dick Cheney, etc.) seems to indicate that these techniques provide unreliable information. But, hey, anything here's possible, I guess.................................................................I point this out because Dick Cheney now wants to declassify documents which show (according to him) that the water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Muhammad, etc. provided intelligence that conceivably saved thousands of lives. Well, guess what, folks? I say fine - release 'em. But I also think that we should release all of the other documents, too. This, I'm saying, in that I'm sure that there are probably a lot of other documents showing enhanced interrogation techniques leading to dead-ends, dead-ends that possibly led to the LOSS of human life (coercing people to admit to an Al Qaeda-Iraq connection, for example, leading us head-first into the Iraq War)....................................................................Look, folks, both of these sides are cherry-picking. The Dems can be just as bad as the Republicans. But on this particular issue, I really think it's imperative that we, as citizens, take a firmer stand here. Don't you think?......................................................................And, then, of course, there's the possibility (if in fact these techniques did work) that we could have gotten the intelligence legitimately. Take Abu Zubaydah, for instance. The story that I've been getting is that Zubaydah was actually cooperating better WITHOUT THE WATER-BOARDING! It was only after they started torturing the bastard that he started becoming a problem for us. Hopefully, folks, they'll have the decency to release that "document", too.

Survival of the Partisan

Is it my imagination, or does it seem like a lot of people are relishing the fact that the Republicans are disintegrating? I don't know, maybe it has something to do with the fact that there's still a lot of residual Bush hatred out there - that, and a feeling that the Republicans are finally getting a comeuppance of sorts. And, no, let us not forget, either, the fact that there's still a lot of that good old fashioned partisanship out there (yes, Republicans would probably be just as giddy over a Democratic demise). Hard cores have always loved to see the opposing party suffer. One might say that some of them almost seem to get aroused by it....................................................................Well, let me tell you something, folks. I don't see anything of a positive nature at what's going on here. Strong democracies need two (probably more than that, but at least two) strong and vibrant parties. This, I'm saying, in that whenever a society has just one party dominant in it, things inevitably tend to go wrong. And, no, I'm not just talking about fascist and communist dictatorships, either...........................................................................Take FDR, for example. While I'm not as predisposed to kick him to the curb as some people are (this, in that no doubt some of his policies were probably necessary), a lot of what he rammed through the Democratic congress was counterproductive, at best (National Recovery Act, Agricultural Adjustment Act). And, yes, we're all still pretty much recovering from the Bush administration policies of foreign adventurism, deficit spending, bailing out Wall Street, etc...............................................................Me, folks, I personally hope that the Republicans DO get their act together and, yes, start to put some reasonable proposals together - if for no other reason, I'm saying, than to keep the Democrats focused/on their toes. I mean I don't know about you folks, but Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi unchecked, I'm not really thinking that that's where we ought to be heading.

A Perplexing Protest, To Say the Least

I'm not exactly sure what Mr. Cheney is pissed about. He keeps saying that President Obama wants to dismantle the Bush "anti-terror" policies. But, seriously, other than stopping water-boarding (which the Bush administration itself stopped back in '04) and proposing to close Gitmo (which President Bush and candidate McCain also wanted to do), what in the hell is Dick Cheney talking about?...............................................................I mean, seriously, just look at some of the stuff that President Obama is keeping; warrant-less wire-taps, rendition (perhaps with some modifications), military tribunals, extended captivity for certain combatants, targeted killings, drones into Pakistan, a hefty residual force in Iraq. And, yes, me-buckos, add to that the fact that he's adding 21,000 supplemental troops into the Afghan theatre, spending a lot more money on unconventional fighting, etc., and you've really got to wonder about Cheney here.................................................................Look, folks, I'm one of the few people who's tried to cut Mr. Cheney some slack. Hell, I've even gone as far as to modestly defend him at times. But if he continues pulling stunts like this/using such a twisted form of logic with the country....Let's just say that he's making it difficult for me.

Screws Loose

It really infuriates me the way that O'Reilly frames this torture issue. He makes it sound as if the only choices we have are these enhanced interrogation techniques....or nada. We either put the screws to these guys, he says, or we simply let them sit there, picking their noses - asking only for their 1) name, 2) rank, and 3) serial number. I mean, come on, talk about simple-minded/ridiculous.....................................................................And the thing is, folks, the frigging guy should know better. I mean, wasn't his father a cop or something? This, I'm saying, in that, yes, you can get information out of people in a variety of ways; through threats, through trickery, through relationship building, through good cop-bad cop, etc.. It's not even remotely necessary to simulate drowning. Which really makes me wonder here, me-buckos, perhaps Mr. O'Reilly was himself abused in a prior existence. And, yes, now he really wants to..............

Dilution and Delusions

Without a doubt, folks, the most despicable accusation leveled against against the Jews by the Arabs is that they, the Jews, are practicing genocide against the Palestinians. And, yes, some of these bastards have even gone as far as to equate Israeli actions in the territories to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews. I mean, talk about an over the top and ludicrous analogy. This, I'm saying, in that, think about it. The frigging Nazis systematically tried to rid the planet of ALL JEWS. All the Israelis have tried to do (yes, clearly, with some mistakes along the way) is figure out a way to live in peace with its neighbors.........................................................................And how 'bout this for perspective? Every single Arab who lives in Israel proper (20% of the Israeli population) has full rights and citizenship. And even the Palestinians who live in the territories - 98% of them live under the civil administration of either Hamas (you can thank the Bush administration for this one) or the Palestinian Authority. Granted, it isn't the same as having an independent state but, really, the fact that the Palestinians don't have an independent state, I ask you, who's frigging fault is that?.............................................................................And, yes, there's also the demographics here. The population in Gaza has frigging exploded (an 80% growth over the past decade). Couple this with the fact that in the entire occupied territories, the population has nearly tripled since 1970 (something made possible, ironically, by the Jews - improvements in income, health care, etc.) and, yeah, you kind of get the picture. If in fact the Jews are trying to commit genocide here, they're certainly doing a bad/half-assed job. Wouldn't you say? P.S. The statistics I used here I got from the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Weasels Win Once in a While

If somebody had told me several months ago that, in a dispute between Barack Obama and Harry Reid, I'd be siding with Senator Reid, I would have told them that they were bonkers. But that's exactly what's happened this week, folks. Yeah, that's right. I'm referring to the Senate vote on the funding for Obama's proposed closure of Gitmo. Reid and the vast percentage of his colleagues (rightly, in my opinion) opted to vote against the bill - not because they're opposed to the closing of Gitmo, mind you, but because of the extreme lack of details surrounding the plan; namely, where to put these detainees once the facility finally IS closed....................................................................I mean, seriously, though, talk about a wake-up call, huh - getting a brush-back pitch from the clearly less than stellar Reid? Hopefully, folks, the President will learn from this and, no, won't be sending to Senate any more incomplete pieces of legislation (yes, even when his own party is in charge up there). The last thing Obama needs is a nasty egg on his face. Especially not from Harry Reid. Ugh!

Fibs and the Fibbing Fibbers Who....

Liberals, in this ridiculous effort of theirs to salvage the small amount of credibility that the mainstream media still has, constantly go around saying that, "Hey, at least they don't flat-out lie like Fox does."...................................................................Well, guess what, me-buckos, they do lie. Just the other night (for example), David Shuster (what an asinine frigging piece of work he is, huh?) - damned if he didn't let out what I considered to be a real whopper. He actually had the audacity to say that Arlen Specter was being "chased out of the Republican party." I mean, I know that the moderate wing of the Republican party is shrinking and all but, COME ON HERE! Specter left out of self-preservation and self-preservation only. He felt he had a better chance to hold on to his seat if he switched parties (didn't he basically do the same thing 40 years ago - in reverse - went from being a Democrat to a Republican, doing it for expediency?). And so he did...................................................................Look, folks, I've always kind of likes Specter. He's a moderate and a maverick and so am I. But for the obviously moronic Shuster to try and make political hay out of this - that, I'm afraid to say, is inordinately shameless. Of course, what's even more shameless is the fact that those eqally partisan viewers of his fail to see ANY of it as crap. The frigging bastards lap it up, for Christ.

Random Flurries

A prominent liberal blogger recently asked this rather provocative (though, yes, it was probably meant to be rhetorical, too) question. She specifically wanted to know, "How did Dick Cheney receive five draft deferments, enabling him to avoid military service in Vietnam?................................................................Of course, just like Pontius Pilate, this blogger didn't stick around for a discussion - pursuing, instead, a litany (an exhaustive one in fact) of other chinks in the conservatives' armour. But, please (and, yes, so, too, me-buckos, just to be playful), folks, allow me a minute or two to actually answer her. Dick Cheney got his five draft deferments in the same exact manner that Joe Biden got his (five draft deferments) - by going to frigging school, for Christ!!................................................................Oh, and in case you might be interested, being that Cheney is clearly a couple of years older than Biden, his avoidance of the draft is actually LESS blatant. I mean, sure, you could probably hit Mr. Cheney harder on the hypocrisy "meter" (Cheney apparently being in favor of the Vietnam War) but, still. Wasn't Biden part of the mindless Democratic contingent who voted to give President Bush what was basically a blank check for Iraq? I mean, seriously, I seem to recall something about that.

Murky and Murkier

I can't figure it out, folks. How do the interrogators, the ones who actually administer these enhanced interrogation techniques, know whether they're working or not (aka, providing valuable intelligence)? Do they use them for a while and stop, gather the information and then try and verify it? And then, yes, me-buckos, what if the information ISN'T reliable? Do they then go back and use these measures additionally, ad infinitum - this, until they frigging DO get something useful?...................................................................OR, folks, do they kind of have the information already and only use these enhanced interrogation measures to verify it? Which, of course, leads one to wonder, why in the hell does one use them, period? I mean, I think we all pretty much know that you can get a person, if in fact you put them under enough duress, to basically confess to anything. In the soon to be famous words of Jesse "the body/governor", "give me a water-board and Dick Cheney, and within an hour I'll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders."

Garbage In, Garbage Out, Garbage By the Wayside, Etc.

Believe it or not, folks, the North Naugy had actually risen (a factor of two, I believe, that being appropriate here). And, yes, absolutely, the fact that Slade Leeds was himself as punch-drunk and knee-deep standing in it, damned if the whole damn thing wasn't preposterous, lunatic driven, etc.. Of course, the sadness that there were just as many pin-headed nincompoops at Sassy's as Garvin's, that, me-buckos, was far and away more persuasive. I mean, think about it here. Isn't is possible that Leeds was just a prototype, Bradley Hadley, a replica? Talk to me. TALK TO ME, TALK TO ME. It's at least a possibility, no?

A Lousy Answer, Regardless

In terms of Miss California, specifically, a couple of things. I agree with Sean (Hannity) that this woman shouldn't be attacked, ridiculed, etc.. And, yes, me-buckos, she should definitely be allowed her opinion here - on this....or any subject. My only point is that the answer she gave (in addition to it being politically incorrect) was poor. She started off by saying that, in America, WE CAN CHOOSE, only to conclude that we absolutely SHOULDN'T be allowed to. It was an illogical utterance and I personally would have docked her for it (not for her stance against gay marriage). But, like I said before, that would have been the end of it. I wouldn't have tried to make an example of her. I mean, seriously, she's a snot nosed frigging kid, for Christ!

Ratings, Angles, and Videotape

Here's a good one, folks. Yesterday, while Fox and MSNBC were covering the completely inane/totally unnewsworthy press-conference of Donald Trump/Miss California, CNN was actually doing what it claims it does/advertises; i.e., REAL NEWS! I mean, sure, they'll probably take another hit in the ratings because of it but seriously/think about it. Does that not make their decision even more noble?..................................................................And, yes, add to that, the sheer partisan motivation of those at Fox and MSNBC. Those bastards didn't cover this story simply because of the titillating aspects to it. They covered it also so they could put THEIR spin on the gay marriage issue; MSNBC obviously in favor of gay marriage (as I am as well - truth in advertising), those at Fox opposed to it. That absolutely obvious (talking-heads blathering, etc.) was their motivation - I swear!.................................................................The bottom-line, folks: these two rump cable news organizations rarely (if ever) do anything by accident. They pretty much have an agenda driven motivation from breakfast on. And, yes, me-buckos, this was just another in a long line of examples of it. They really should be ashamed.

Real World Stuff

The President seems to be taking his lumps from both sides lately. In fact, folks, I'd go as far as to say that those on the left are equally furious with him. I mean, just check out some of the commentary regarding Obama's decision to take a second look at military tribunals. Does the term, Bush-lite, ring familiar? And, yes, me-buckos, that was one of the kinder things that they said about him..................................................................Well, guess what, folks, I've decided to give President Obama a little bit of a break here. This fundamentally decent man has an unimaginable weight on his shoulders. And, yes, the most significant portion of that weight he feels is to keep the citizens of this country safe. If he feels that traditional court proceedings could conceivably jeopardize valuable American intelligence and therefore put the country at risk, it's not a part of my personal inclination to stand in his way....................................................................And, no, it's not like the military tribunals (in this country, anyway) have a disgraceful track record. They do not. Hell, even a strong civil libertarian, such as John Dean, has essentially admitted to this. He points to Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and, yes, even the liberals' own darling, FDR, as having already used them. I don't know, folks, my simple suggestion would be that we refrain from jumping to conclusions here. I also strongly advocate giving President Obama a break on this one. To take a quote from the great Judy Garland, the President's "not in Kansas anymore".

Will the Real John McCain....

I saw Senator McCain on the Tonight Show recently (a few weeks back, I think it was). And, yes, me-buckos, I have to admit it here, I was stunned. This, I'm saying, in that, damn it all, the frigging guy was funny, charming, and, yes, even a little bit insightful. I mean, seriously, all I could do was continuously ask myself, "where in the hell was this guy during the campaign?" Not that I necessarily would have voted for him, mind you (he wanted to blow up a few too many things, in my opinion), but at least it would have been a hell of a lot less agonizing to watch..............................................................Oh, and, yes, folks, the senile dementia that those on the fringe so amateurishly and mean-spiritedly diagnosed him with (during the campaign) - that seems to have cleared itself up nicely. In fact, he's making a hell of a lot less gaffes than the Vice President currently is. Hm, which makes me want to ask you, how old is Biden getting to be these days?...I'm kidding!!

Decisions, Decisions

While I have been critical of the President's spending from time to time, I have to say, the fellow has also impressed me on several occasions with his decisiveness. As I hope you recall, I've already given him some solid credit regarding the Somali Pirate crisis. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that he handled that event close to perfectly. And then, yes, just this week he did some very prompt damage-control when he fired the guy (moron, to be more accurate) who supposedly ordered that photo-op of Air Force One in NYC. Once again, a job very well done by Mr. Obama...................................................................There, now if we could only get him to tighten the purse-strings a little more, refrain from feeding SO MUCH the dreaded beast in Washington, etc.. That, and I'd probably grade him up to a B.

Waste, Lather, Repeat

Can somebody please explain to me why the Obama administration and Congress want to spend 13 billion dollars on "high-speed" railroads? I mean, come on, railroads haven't been profitable in years. And even with this supposedly faster version (which is only really slightly faster, by the way), transportation via the rails will still be significantly slower than air travel...............................................................I don't know, folks, wouldn't it be better to take that money and use it to fix bridges and tunnels that are presently under code (necessary infrastructure spending, in other words)? This, I'm saying, as opposed to picking winners and losers subjectively. I mean, think about it. If high-speed railroads were in fact a good investment, the private sector would have already taken clear advantage of that opportunity. And it hasn't..................................................................P.S. My conservative friends would probably suggest that the 13 billion be used to pay down the debt/reduce the deficit. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, either.....................................................................P.S. #2 By conservatives, I mean, honest conservatives - not people like Dick Cheney. Isn't he on the record as saying that deficits don't matter? I think he is.

The Dance With Nance

Keith Olbermann's job description appears to have grown, YET AGAIN! Yeah, that's right, folks. The bastard's apparently now the official spinmeister for Pelosi. I mean, seriously, did you see his show last night? He was spinning like a washer for our dear Speaker - practically defending her, for Christ! Talk about giving somebody the benefit of the doubt - and, yes, for a person who's obviously lying her socks off, too................................................................And, no, folks, I'm not buying any of this "the speaker was sworn to secrecy" bullshit. This, I'm saying, in that, while, no, she may not have been able to say anything in public, she certainly could/should have raised objections at the briefings. SHE DIDN'T! She's not even admitting to the frigging briefings, for Christ! I mean, I hate to say it, folks, but this drooling/moronic partisan wouldn't know the truth if it bit her on the backside. At least Senator Rockefeller has had the calm decency/good sense to keep his mouth shut. That's something. At least it is in this day and age.

The Man Who Did Too Much/Little

Herbert Hoover, folks - a "uniter", if ever there was one. This, I'm saying, in that, think about it. Here's the one individual who liberals and conservatives BOTH seem to despise. The liberals hate him because they feel that it was him (more than anybody) who 1) caused the Great Depression and 2) once it got rolling, didn't do damn near enough to help us get out of it. The conservatives hate him because they think that he actually did TOO MUCH and, yes, because of this, made the Depression worse - much, much worse. The guy can't frigging win, in other words..............................................................But what about it, though? Was he as bad as historians and others have made him out to be? Possibly, but I don't know. To take a line from our present president, that's a wee-bit "beyond my pay-scale". What I will say, however, is that the caricature of Hoover as strictly a free-marketeer/a person who sat idly by during the Depression - that assessment is totally off the mark..................................................................One, he worked with the Chamber of Commerce to set up the National Business Survey Conference (an entity that sought to obtain pledges from business that they maintain wages/undertake new investments). Two, he set up a new division in the Commerce Department to speed up federal construction projects (infrastructure, Rachel Maddow). Three, he pushed through a temporary tax reduction. Four, he worked with Congress to increase, by 400 million (probably a lot of money for back then), public works expenditures (yes, Rachel Maddow, MORE infrastructure!). Five, he authorized the establishment of the Federal Farm Board (this, to make low interest loans and to purchase grain when prices were falling). Six, he advocated for and signed (bone-headedly, in the opinion of most economists) the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill. Seven, he established the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (the attempt being to stabilize the banking system). I could definitely go on here but I think I've gotten my point across.................................................................Now, clearly, one could be highly critical of each of these measures, Hoover's overall approach to the economy, etc.. But to say that the guy was a Nero, fiddling as the economy was burning, that, me-buckos, is demonstrably wrong. I mean, just read a history book, for Christ.

Thanks but No Thanks

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, Mitchy McConnell and John Boehner - THOSE....are my options? I mean, seriously, folks, THAT'S IT? That's the frigging rubbish you're expecting me to be sifting through now? Seriously?.............................................................Well, guess what there, me-buckos? I ain't buying either of those two sorry-assed choices. I mean, think about it. McConnell and Boehner (option A) - those two sons of bitches were part of the crew that 1) got us bogged down in Iraq, 2) emboldened Iran and the rest of the Shiite world, and 3) allowed that piss-ant bin Laden to scurry off (nice job, fellas). Option B, the drooling and moronic Pelosi and Reid "squad" - that, on the other hand, is spending us into bankruptcy. Rapidly!...............................................................I mean, I hate to say it, folks, but that raving lunatic, Ross Perot, is starting to look damn good by comparison. This, I'm saying, in that at least the guy had some common sense and, yes, knew how to balance a frigging check-book from time to time. Reid, Pelosi, McConnell, and Boehner - I'm not really thinking so.

Both Ways Cheney

There's this one thing that I just don't get about the Cheney/O'Reilly position on water-boarding, enhanced interrogation techniques (torture, if you prefer), etc.. According to Bush administration officials, they actually haven't used these methods for years. Water-boarding, in particular, they haven't used since 2003 (supposedly). So, the fact that Obama says that HE isn't going to use them, either - how in the hell is that a huge departure for us, an act that is supposedly going to make us less safe....from terrorism, etc.?..............................................................And the thing is, folks, I really want to ask the former VP, "So, when was it that YOU GUYS suddenly decided to make us less safe? Yes, Mr. Vice President, or were you in fact 'keeping us safe' all along, only to be lying about it repeatedly in public?" You see what I'm saying here, right, folks? It's either got to be one or the other. They were either using these techniques all along (this, as part of their rugged anti-terror program) and lying about it OR they weren't (thus compromising security - this according to Cheney's own logic). Either way, it's (please, pardon the pun) torturous.

The Argument Within an Argument

Even the depression of 1938 (the depression within a depression) has been a topic for debate. Those on the left say that it occurred solely because FDR tried to cut spending and balance the budget (he tried to be a conservative, in other words). Conservatives, they, on the other hand, blame this second slowdown on 1) the Fed's increase in reserve requirements (an action that considerably tightened the money supply) and 2) a rapid rise in labor costs due to unionizing (less money available for investment). The President's LIBERAL policies, in other words................................................................And the fact that both sides are always so certain about everything (damn it), tend to put on display such exorbitant levels of arrogance, etc.. Hell, folks, I'd even go as far as to say is that it's probably that that infuriates me more than anything - the knuckle-dragging certitude, especially.

The Truth, As They Say, Is....

Economics isn't exactly a hard science, folks. It's comprised mostly of correlations, ex-post facto analysis, and, yes, intervening variables up the poop-shoot. To say with any certitude that any particular policy is the cause of ANYTHING is pure guess-work, period. Of course, this doesn't stop politicians, economists, economic historians, etc. from boldly trying to establish not just causality, mind you, but metaphysical certitude.................................................................Take the New Deal, for instance. On the one hand, you have most liberals saying that, yes, no question, Roosevelt and his policies worked/helped to get us out of the depression. On the other hand, you have conservatives saying the absolute opposite. The New Deal not only DIDN'T get us out of the depression, it made the depression worse, caused it to last a lot longer, etc.. I mean, talk about a differing interpretation on the same event. It doesn't get any more polar opposite than that..............................................................And like I said, it isn't just academicians who are gloaming onto these oversimplifications. Politics and demagogues are also involved. The bottom-line, folks, FDR and the New Deal was a mix (as is the legacy of virtually every president, frankly). I.E., it was probably a good thing that Roosevelt instituted the bank holiday early in his term. By most accounts (yes, even by those highly critical of Roosevelt), that was an act which seemed to restore the public's trust in the system. The Agricultural Adjustment Act - that, on the other hand, was probably a bone-headed move. First of all, a lot of food was wasted. And, second of all, it primarily helped wealthier farmers, not the impoverished people who really needed the help.................................................................Look, folks, all I can do is give you the numbers here. These are unemployment rates from the bureau of labor statistics, 1933-1942; 1933 - 24.9%, 1934 - 21.7%, 1935 - 20.1%, 1936 - 17.0%, 1937 - 14.3%, 1938 - 19.0%, 1939 - 17.2%, 1940 - 14.6%, 1941 - 9.9%, 1942 - 4.7% (the reduction in the early 1940s, more than likely - again, a guess - due to the draft and an increase in weapons production). They clearly indicate a reduction in unemployment from 1933-1937 (still light-years away from full employment, though), an increase in 1938 (the depression within a depression), and incremental reductions afterwards. Did FDR's policies cause these reductions, or did they in fact retard them? Correlate away, my friends.

Bad Example

While I feel that Obama overall did fairly well at his press-conference, the fact that he ended up inserting Churchill's name into the torture discussion - that, me-buckos, was extremely moronic. I mean, sure, maybe Churchill was in fact opposed to torture. But come on here, this is a guy who willfully (after the war was clearly over, mind you) incinerated over 100,000 civilians (the fire-bombing of Dresden). I mean, if that isn't a war crime, folks, then, seriously, nothing is.................................................................And to hold up Great Britain as some sort of entity that benevolently treats it's prisoners, give me a frigging break. Ever heard of the Irish Republican Army? The frigging Brits used to beat the crap out of those bastards - un-frigging-mercifully. And the fact that the British army was administering rifle butts to the heads of Holocaust survivors as late as 1947. Little stuff....like that, my friends..........................................................I don't know, folks, I'm thinking that maybe Obama should have researched this little analogy more so. What do you think?