Extreme Prejudice

There's at least one thing that the liberals have been saying about Republicans that IS true. Republicans absolutely DO have a tendency to cannibalize/marginalize the moderates amongst them. I mean, just ask Chuck Hagel, for Christ. Just ask Colin Powell. Just ask Jim Jeffords. I'm damned pretty sure they'd be willing to talk to you about it - Lincoln Chaffee, too................................................................................But to all of the liberals who say that the Democrats don't do the same thing to THEIR moderates (i.e., require that they, too, walk in lock-step) , THAT I'm pretty sure is bullshit. I mean, just take a look at what MoveOn.Org is saying about Mary Landrieu. Or, better yet, take a gander at Senator Ben Nelson nailing the grand-prize worst person award from Olbermann. Talk to them with some truth-serum in their system. Hell, me-buckos, even Senator Clinton took a fair share of lumps from the left (this, I'm saying, during the primaries versus Obama)............................................................................I don't know, to me, it looks like a third party is pretty nearly a necessity at this point. Or, better yet, folks, how 'bout we go back to what our very first president advocated - i.e., getting rid of these political parties altogether? I'm absolutely willing to take a look at that. FO SHO.

The Edumacation of Irony

Boy, did the "left" ever have a field-day with Senator McCain's transcripts; the fact that he finished at the bottom of his class at Navy, etc.. It was kind of like, "Gee, folks, how in the hell could we ever let a fellow who so tanked so miserably in college (never mind what he was able to do subsequently, of course) be President of the United States?" They then, of course, compared this academic record to that of Senator Obama (this, undoubtedly, to make Mr. McCain look even more like an idiot).............................................................................Now, to the left's credit, once they found out that Obama running-mate Joe Biden's academic standing (bottom 10% at a tier-three law school) wasn't that appreciably better, a lot of them ceased and desisted here. Yeah, that's right, suddenly academic standing wasn't as important a factor in judging these politicians. They ultimately concluded that it had more to do with character and, yes, as such, they decided to attack Senator McCain on these grounds instead (his marital problems, etc.)............................................................................But, please, before we move on completely here, I ask that you grant me just this one additional indulgence. This, me-buckos, in that, yes, I was examining right-wing fire-brand Ann Coulter's academic record and started comparing THAT to V.P. Biden's. While Biden got his undergraduate degree at the University of Delaware, Ms. Coulter ultimately landed at Ivy-League Cornell (where, yes, she graduated cum laude). I also became aware that, while Biden graduated (76th out of 85) from tier-three Syracuse Law School, Coulter ultimately emerged from the tier-one University of Michigan Law School (the ninth best law school in the country - this, according to U.S. News and World Report). Here she achieved the Order of the Coif and was an editor at the Michigan Law Review................................................................................The bottom-line, folks - all I could think of was, wow, the left is really going to have to discredit and belittle academic performance now. I mean, seriously, what in the hell other option do they have at this point?

Hide and Boink

Everybody's pissed off at Governor Sanford for cheating on his wife. And, while, yes, I agree that this was an extremely shitty thing for him for him to do and all, aren't we also kind of missing the bigger picture here? I mean, I don't know about you guys, but I'm a little more peeved by the fact that this governor took off for 4-5 days and failed to tell a frigging soul of his whereabouts. Seriously, folks, he's the frigging governor, for Christ's sakes. He can't just be disappearing like that. I don't know, to me, it's THAT that ultimately disqualifies him from running for president - not the fact that he got a little extra nookie, for Christ. It even (in my opinion) beats the shit out of that hypocrisy thing.

Statistical Dead-End

For the last two or three years of the Bush administration, the President's approval ratings had basically flat-lined. And, yes, by the very end of it, they were all but in the toilet-bowl. Not that you would have ever known this by watching Fox news, of course. I, personally, can never even remember it on Hannity and Colmes, for example..........................................................................Of course, now that President Obama's approval numbers are starting to dip a little, Mr. Hannity suddenly seems to be finding religion with data such as this. And, yes, if you think that that's bad, me-buckos, get yourself a man-sized helping of THIS. After having approval ratings well over 60%, President Obama finally fell below that mark (56%, I think it was). How did Mr. Hannity characterize this? He said that the President's approval ratings were in the "gutter". "In the gutter', he said!! Man, I'm thinking, if 56% is in the gutter, then where in the hell was President Bush back then - in the sewer?................................................................................Seriously, though, folks, it's actually gotten to the point in which such partisan language is now the norm (especially on all of those cable shows). I mean, just the other day, Hannity referred to President Obama's "tepid response" to the Iranian crisis. Which is fine - obviously. That's his opinion. But when you're hosting a cable news show and you're allowed to make such comments as if in fact they were MORE THAN YOUR OPINION, that to me represents an extremely shitty format. An EXTREMELY shitty format.

Perfect Shmerfect

I'm watching the Michael Jackson coverage, right. And they're interviewing this record producer who used to work with Jackson. They asked him, "So, how would you go about describing Michael Jackson as an artist?" The producer responded by saying that Mr. Jackson was a "perfectionist"...........................................................................Well, let's just say that I pretty much lost it at that point. I mean, I know that the poor bastard just frigging died and all but, really, think about it here. If repeating the words, "I'm bad", 80-90 times during the course of some mediocre pop song is somehow perfection, wouldn't you really much prefer to stay imperfect, flawed, etc.? I sure as hell know that I would..........................................................................And the fact that the media itself is doing a one-eighty here - kind of like they did with Richard Nixon. Remember after Nixon died - they were frigging talking about him like he was Washington, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts combined? Well, that's exactly what they're doing with Michael Jackson. I mean, it was just a couple of years ago, for Christ sakes - he was constantly being made fun of (wacko-Jacko), hit like a pinata with a rush of these child-abuse charges, etc.. This, I'm saying, but, no, now he's suddenly a wonderful man again. Give me a frigging break. Maybe a little real news, too.

What Do You Say We ALL Keep Our Powder Dry Here?

Ann Coulter actually made a pretty decent point last week. She reminded us of how liberals (after 9/11) were quick to point out that we, as a society, shouldn't stereotype Muslims. She then compared that to how these same liberals are acting now - i.e., running absolutely roughshod over the pro-life movement; specifically, stereotyping THEM, etc................................................................................Now, obviously, being that it's Ann Coulter doing the talking here, so, too, was there a certain degree of hyperbole involved. Clearly, not ALL liberals are doing this. And even some of the ones who have been vocal, have also been quick to point out the distinction between the legitimate pro-life movement and wackos.............................................................................But think about it, folks. If you're going to go around condemning Bill O'Reilly for the lunatic who killed Dr. Tiller, shouldn't you also condemn the 95% of the Saudis, ages 25-40, who supported Osama bin Laden in 2001 (Globes, April 26, 2005)....or all of those Palestinians who did their victory dances as the towers came tumbling down? I'm just asking.

Sabreless Rattling

I have to admit it, folks. Even after everything that's happened recently, I still have a fair level of respect for McCain. I respect his service to the country and, yes, the fact that he hasn't just talked bipartisanship but walked the walk, as well. But on this Iranian situation, I have to tell you, in my opinion, he is flat-out wrong. The United States of America has ZERO credibility in Iran (our unquestioning support of the Shah, the fact that we supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq War, all of that "Axis of Evil" nonsense talk by President Bush, etc.)......................................................................And, besides, what does Senator McCain mean when he says that the Iranian people need to know that we're standing with them? In 1991, the first President Bush (in what was one of his FEW foreign policy blunders) led the Iraqi Shiites to believe that we were "standing with THEM". And, yeah, that's right, folks, they ended up getting slaughtered, roasted on a shishkabob, etc.. Obama is absolutely the clearer thinking person here. At least that's the way I see it.

Should Come With a Warning

Beauty, folks, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think that there's any question about that. I certainly have no desire to foist upon the population my conceptions of it. "Lust and let lust" is and always will be my battle-cry.............................................................................Of course, neither would it be me if I didn't request from the leaders at least one indulgence. And so I shall. I'm specifically issuing this challenge to all of the male readership out there. I'm requesting that you go to YouTube and watch those Cyd Charisse dance numbers from "Silk Stockings" and "The Band Wagon". Watch them and decide for yourself. And then ask yourself, is that not one of the sexiest frigging female bodies (never mind what in fact she's doing with it) EVER?...................................................................I don't know, folks, in my opinion, if watching those two dance numbers (in succession, say) doesn't get a fellow's juices flowing, he just might want to get himself checked under the hood. That, or, yes, maybe get those "eyes" of his examined!! LOL

Possibly Some Good Change Here

Obama's supporters are quick to credit him for the positive results coming out of Lebanon last week (i.e., the fact that Hizballah was defeated and a far more pro-Western party emerged). And, you know what, folks, on this one, I think that those supporters may be right. President Obama has clearly put forth a more conciliatory tone and, yes, it's entirely possible that the Arab world (selected segments of it, at least) is responding favorably to it. I mean, I know it drives partisans like Hannity crazy to hear this President speak with some humility overseas (and, yes, seemingly especially to the Muslim world) but, come on here, maybe a little less arrogance (a modicum, I'm saying) is exactly what we need - especially in the Middle East!!..........................................................................And I also think that the conservatives need to take a break from this "Obama is soft on terror" schpeel of theirs. Obama is continuing the occupation in Iraq. He's expanding our mission in Afghanistan. He's still heaving drones into Pakistan. He's sticking with warrantless wire-taps, certain applications of rendition, military tribunals, indefinite confinement for certain captives, etc.. I mean, if anything, folks, Mr. Obama has kept an excess of his predecessor's policies................................................................................And like I stated in a previous piece, Obama hasn't done anything remotely close to an "apology tour". Yes, he's admitted to some of America's mistakes over the past 50 years (a huge epoch only by America's standards). But he's also taken the Arab world to task on certain things (a tendency on their part to unfairly stereotype the West). I don't know, folks, I just wish that these guys (Sean and Rush) would knock it off with this drip, drip, drip. I mean, seriously, they're actually starting to sound like those people (Slade Leeds, etc.) who used to blame Bush for everything - the same people that Sean and Rush used to complain about!!

Rationalize This, Mr. Arafat

To those bloggers who say that Arafat turned down the Barak/Clinton peace proposal because of water concerns, one word; BUNK! I mean, just check the records, for Christ. U.S. negotiator, Dennis Ross, clearly put a stipulation into the agreement that granted the Palestinians access to desalinated water from inside Israel....................................................................And the thing is, folks, if in fact this ever was a stumbling-block, why didn't the Palestinians mention it during the negotiations? Better still, why didn't they make a counter-offer to the Barak/Clinton proposal? Why? Why? I'll tell you why. Mr. Arafat walked away from the peace talks for one reason, and one reason only. If in fact he had signed this peace agreement, he would have also had to have given up his lifelong goal of destroying Israel. That was something not in his DNA, apparently...............................................................................Which leads ME to ask a question, folks - why is it that some people still have an affinity for this clown? Seriously, explain it to me. I'm all ears.

All Anti-Semetic Zionist Pigs, Please Report for Duty

Conservatives have had a major rough go of it lately. And, yes, clearly, a lot of their wounds have been self-inflicted (nation-building in Iraq, deficit spending at home, etc.). But, I'm telling you, on some of the other issues, folks, those poor people just can't seem to win..........................................................................Take, for instance, the conservatives' relationship with Jews. On the one hand, conservatives are constantly accused of being TOO beholding to the Jewish lobby (compared to the far-left, which is very pro-Palestinian). "They're in the tank for Israel." I hear it all the time. This, while, on the other hand (and, yes, very paradoxically), the conservatives also get blamed when some flaming anti-Semitic lunatic goes on some shooting spree. It's like, what, they love the Jews so much that they want to kill them, too? Evidently, huh?

I Gave at the Office

Is Senator Ensign a hypocrite? Of course he is. Anybody who criticizes someone for having an affair with an intern....and then goes out and has an affair with an intern himself, that, my friends, is textbook hypocrisy...............................................................But you know who else is a hypocrite, folks? I'll give you a clue. His name is Joe Biden. Yeah, that's right, THAT Joe Biden. I mean, what else would you call a guy who 1) constantly preaches compassion, 2) made in excess of $300,000, and 3) gave less than $1,000 of that reported income to charity? I'd certainly call him a hypocrite (though, yes, I'd still like to have a beer with him)................................................................I don't know, folks, maybe what the conservatives have been saying about some of these people (i.e., the liberals) is true. Maybe they do like to be generous with other people's money....and not so much with their own. You sure as hell get that idea via these statistics (three tenths of one percent, I believe it works out to be).

Brewskis, Anyone?

So, Sean Hannity would like to have a beer with the President, huh? Talk about an interesting proposal. Not that it's ever going to happen, obviously. But, yeah, you've really got to give Mr. Sean Hannity some credit here. THIS is some damn interesting stuff....................................................................Of course, what really cracked me up was when his guest (ex-Senator Thompson's wife, I believe it was) suggested that he keep a running tally of how many days it takes for the president to take him up on his offer. I found this funny, not just because of the absurdity of it (Obama wasting valuable time by spending it with Sean Hannity) but because it brought me back to that bogus proposal of his to be water-boarded......................................................................It's like, yeah (I want to tell him), put up a running tally of how long it takes the President to have a beer with you. You can put it right next to the tally of how long it's taken you to be tortured. And, yes, Mr H., it absolutely is torture. Just ask your conservative buddy, Mancow. He'll tell you exactly what it feels like.

By Comparison

Alright, I'll admit it, folks. Rachel Maddow is starting to win me over a little. I mean, sure, she's a little bit (perhaps a lot) farther to the left than I am/can also be a little overly-sarcastic from time to time. But at least she's a mostly nice person. This, I'm saying, in that, at least when I watch her, she never seems to take a maximum dump on people. She also seems to treat her guests (even those she disagrees with) respectfully (Contra O'Reilly is right!). Add to that the fact that she actually has people on her show who DO have a contrary opinion. Youza, huh? I mean, seriously, when was the last time that Keith Olbermann could say that?

Paper-Thin Skin/Comparison

As far as I know, folks, Edward R. Murrow never took to slandering media writers who criticized him. In fact, I would go as far as to say that it probably never even occurred to him. If you're looking for at least one distinction between him and Mr. Olbermann, what do you say we start with that one? That one, and we'll work our way forward?

A General Pattern

When it comes to Colin Powell, conservatives seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths. On the one hand, you have Rush Limbaugh saying that Powell's support of Barack Obama was strictly because of race. It had absolutely nothing to do with politics. At the same time as this, you have a fellow like Cheney saying that General Powell has gone so far to the left that he probably isn't even a Republican anymore. It (Powell's endorsement of Obama) had EVERYTHING to do with the issues..........................................................................I don't know, folks, it seems to me like the Republicans just might want to do a little self analysis here. This, I'm saying, in that, instead of spinning like a top on General Powell, calling into question his motivation, etc., they just might want to figure out some of their own mistakes......................................................................And, no, I'm not necessarily saying that they would have to do a major-league revamping here - not at all, me-buckos. What I am saying, though, is that they absolutely need to update the message some. They especially need to stop beating up on Hispanics. That (whether the right likes it or not) is a huge and continuously growing demographic. The Republicans can't afford to indefinitely offend them - not, that is, if they want to win some elections in the future.

At Least Ted Baxter was Lovable

Would somebody please ask Keith Olbermann to take his licence out and look at it. And, yes, when I say "look at it", I mean, literally, have him inspect it. Point out specifically that the name on it says, Keith Olbermann, NOT Edward R. Murrow. Not that he's necessarily going to believe what he sees, mind you, but, hey, it's got to be worth an effort here.....................................................................Oh, and if you think that I'm over-exaggerating, think again/watch the son-of-a-bitch for yourself. Seriously, folks, this frigging guy actually thinks he's Edward R. Murrow; the cadence in his voice, the highly charged indignation in his tone, and, yes, YES, YES, YES, especially the way that he turns away from the camera at the end of the show and imitates Murrow, "Good night and good luck." It's creepy, I'm telling you - absolutely creepy...........................................................................P.S. And the thing is, folks, it's extremely hard for me to fathom that Murrow himself would approve of this shit; the way that Mr. Olbermann mocks and imitates people, the fact that he only presents one (namely, his) side of a news story, etc.. In fact, I'd be willing to wager that Mr. Murrow is looking down and cringing, AS WE SPEAK. I sure as hell know that I would be.

Incoming!

I have to admit it, folks. I usually don't find Ann Coulter all that humorous. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that 1) she always seems to have an axe to grind, 2) she tends to think only in terms of black and white, and 3) she's constantly spinning. I mean, sure, the woman can often be amusing (yes, predominantly in a provacative sense) and even entertaining at times. But funny? I don't find her particularly funny....................................................................But, I have to tell you, I did get a chuckle from her this week. She was on one of the Fox shows (Hannity's, I think it was) and they were talking about the Palin-Letterman feud. Ms. Coulter, obviously siding with her fellow conservative hottie here, took it upon herself to take the gloves off quickly in this interview. She went off. And not only did she go off on Letterman himself, she went off on the comedian's wife, too. In Ms. Coulter's inimitable style, she simply asked the interviewer, "So, have you seen THE WIFE?"...........................................................................Yes, folks, I lost it. I mean, I totally lost it. And then the next day, when I actually saw a picture of the wife, I laughed some more. Not that I'm necessarily proud of it, mind you, but, yeah, I totally cracked up. People who live in bowserly houses, I'm gathering.

Stripes and Swipes

Why do we constantly have to affix the terms "left" and "right" to all of these murderous lunatics out there? Some whacked-out douche-bag murders an abortion doctor and we automatically have to label him a right-winger? I don't know, folks, that sounds a little politically opportunistic to me. This ass-wipe isn't any more of a plausible member of the right as Lee Harvey Oswald was a plausible member of the left. And to label him so is nothing more than taking advantage of a tragedy......................................................................And the thing is, folks, the conservatives aren't going to simply sit back and take it. For every anti-abortion nut-faced stooge that you throw in their direction, they will in fact counter with something; animal rights extremists, ecoterrorists, etc.. I mean, it could frigging go on forever, I'm thinking.........................................................................My suggestion is that we pretty much stick to the game-plan here. Demonize the evil-doers and, sure, if you also want to take a shot at Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. for occasionally fanning the flame, fine. But to say that some freaked-out lunatic represents one side or the other, I don't know, I really don't think that that accomplishes very much........................................................................But, as usual, I could be totally wrong here.

The Pile on Palin

Sarah Palin, folks. I'm going to be honest with you here. I personally didn't vote for the woman. First off, I found that her experience, while it wasn't as scant as some of her detractors tried to paint it out to be, was insufficient for national office. Secondly, I found her to be lacking in an intellectual curiosity (certainly not an idiot, mind you, but, still) and rigor - a trait that, yes, after our previous commander in chief, I found to be a little disconcerting. And, finally, I didn't vote for her because of her running mate. This, I'm saying, in that, while I certainly respect Mr. McCain (and in many ways long for his 2000 persona) as a person, his bellicose tone and lack of logic with foreign policy I found very off-putting....................................................................But that was it, folks. I have/had absolutely nothing against Governor Palin personally. In fact, she and her family, while they've certainly had their difficulties over the years, seem like nice people to me. Let's put it another way. I'd rather have them as a neighbor as I would two clowns like Olbermann and O'Reilly. I mean, seriously, folks, can you even begin to imagine living in close proximity to those two guys? I CERTAINLY can't..............................................................................P.S. I should also point out that I had some areas of disagreement with Mrs. Palin on the social issues; gay marriage, abortion, the teaching of evolution, etc.. That was probably a factor in my not having voted for her, too.

O'Reillyistics

And where in the hell does O'Reilly get these "facts" of his? Me, I'm beginning to think that he simply makes them up (some of them anyway). I mean, just yesterday (for example), he said that 40% of the population is conservative (40% moderate, 20% liberal). Compare this to the recent figure which states that only 21% of the U.S. population identifies itself as Republican and, yeah, Mr. O'Reilly's numbers do seem to stretch credulity a tad or two..................................................................P.S. And, yes, folks, I do understand that conservatism and Republicanism aren't necessarily always the same. But, really, even if you throw all those blue-dog Democrats and those of a Libertarian nature into the mix, I'm not really seeing that 40% here. Maybe if Obama and the Democrats continue with the deficit spending and all. Maybe then. But not now.

Over HIS Dead Body

Mr. O'Reilly, folks - he wants to know why the New York Times has never had a problem with the fact that this Tiller fellow has allegedly aborted some 60,000 fetuses over the years (this, I'm saying, as a counter-balance to the outrage over Tiller's murder). He apparently sees this as yet another example of liberal bias in the media......................................................................Of course, what Mr. O'Reilly has conveniently left out is the fact that abortion is currently legal in the United States. So, the fact that Dr. Tiller performed up to (according to O'Reilly) 60,000 of them, all that that means is that this particular doctor has taken part in 60,000 STILL LEGAL acts (Mr. O'Reilly's and others' opposition to abortion, notwithstanding)..........................................................................I mean, sure, the fact that Dr. Tiller apparently had had a cottage industry performing all of these later term abortions, too - that has undoubtedly created (perhaps deservedly) some nausea/yuck here. But, yes, me-buckos, even here, the doctor was seemingly operating within the laws of Kansas. It's like, what, what does Mr. O'Reilly want the Times to do here - change their position on abortion, just so that they can be more in sync with him? I don't think that they're going to be doing that, I want to tell him. I mean, think about it. There's probably about as much of a chance of that happening as O'Reilly changing his views. Irresistible force - meet Mr. Immovable object.

Calling All Hillary Brokers, Please Report to My House

My favorite Clinton scandal of all? That's an easy one, folks. It's got to be the cattle-futures fiasco...................................................................For those of you who don't remember it, Hillary (more than likely operating on some inside information provided by a Tyson Chicken honcho by the name of Jim Blair) purchased ten cattle futures for $1,000 and, yes, when all of that nasty dust settled, left the table with $100,000 - a 10,000% return on her investment...................................................................Of course, what's even more incriminating than that is the fact that Hillary, at a time when her account showed a deficit of $20,000, was never subjected to a margin call. Any other investor at this investment house (and through the Chicago Mercantile Exchange) would have been forced to cough up $137,000 (the margin call of $117,500 plus the $20,000 loss). Not Hillary, though. She was instead allowed to make (actually, somebody made them for her - she was overseas) a spate of additional trades that, low and behold, never created a paper trail to follow..........................................................................Hillary's rather extraordinary explanation for all of this was, "Hey, I was lucky." Lucky is right, I say. According to the Journal of Economics and Statistics, the odds of somebody (absent insider information, of course) turning $1,000 into $100,000 on their initial commodities trade is one in 250 million. Youza, huh?

How Many Angry Liberals Does it Take to Screw in a Light-Bulb?

Sorry, haven't quite come up with a punch-line for this one yet.

Professor Turley, On Sabbatical from Countdown

The claim that Sonia Sotomayor is an intellectual lightweight would clearly seem to be a partisan one. I mean, just look at the individual's credentials, for Christ. She graduated at the top of her class (#2, I believe) at Princeton, went on to Yale Law School, and, yes, has had a distinguished legal career (as a prosecutor, on the bench, etc.), to boot. How could it frigging NOT be partisan?...........................................................................Two words, folks; Jonathan Turley. Yeah, that's right, Professor Turley (not exactly a right-wing partisan, he) has stated that, in his opinion, Sotomayor's legal arguments have been pedestrian, at best. He's also gone on to say that this particular jurist is apparently lacking in a strong and over-arching judicial philosophy. Not exactly a Felix Frankfurter type, in other words...........................................................................Now, does this in any way make me think that people should vote against her? Absolutely not. I mean, even if Professor Turley is accurate here, how many extraordinarily great justices have we truly had? Not a whole head of a lot of 'em, I'm thinking. And like I've said before, Mr. Obama won the election last fall. He has the right to whoever he wants on the bench, period (well, almost period).

On the Controversial Sotomayor Quote

I think we all need to try and cut through the bull-crap here. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, when Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, said that, in her opinion, a wise Latina woman would reach a better decision than a white man, she was in fact being stupid. At the very least, she was being extremely impolitic. But, come on, folks (my conservative friends, especially), it was just one statement. And as the President pointed out, if you go as far as to look at the totality of her speech, you'll see that even this was mediated somewhat - her admission that she, too, had prejudices that needed to be held in check, etc......................................................................If the Republican party and conservatives wanted my advice (not that they ever would, of course), I would tell them to knock it off with this shit. I mean, it's not like she doesn't have an actual record or anything. Focus on that, for Christ. If Republicans find her opinions objectionable, fine, vote against her. But to try and play gotcha with ten year-old quotes and demonize her with them, I don't know. I'm thinking that they just might want to reconsider that - all those unelected Republicans, especially.

Girth 'n Mirth

Let's face the facts here, folks. That was a fish (some flesh) that Retch probably would have rejected anyway (just that frigging jelly-belly alone, I'm thinking). I mean, think about it. Who in the hell in his or her right mind (not that Retch is constantly that, of course) needs such exposure, such flat-out mean-spiritedness, especially? This, I'm saying, and, yet, the fact that Retch can sometimes be a pompous ass himself, tends to leave those doors at Sassy's open, etc., what if not for a little perspective there, too? I'm just saying.

Neil Simon on Acid

It just kind of dawned on me, folks. I haven't seen the Reverend Al Sharpton on the O'Reilly Factor lately. Gee, I hope that those two little love-birds haven't had a falling out or anything. This, I'm saying, in that, damn it, yes, that was some pretty God damned entertaining shit, those two....................................................................As for all of you people who thought that these two clowns/characters represented an odd-couple pairing of sorts, think about it. What is it that Al Sharpton likes more than anything else? Face/air time, right? And what about O'Reilly? What is it that that son of a bitch likes more than anything? I'll give you a clue. He brags about it all the time and it rhymes with hatings. Yeah, that's right, high ratings. Who do people love to love/hate/watch more than the Reverend Al Sharpton? I mean, seriously, folks, talk about a win-win situation, huh? Strange bedfellows? Those be damned in television, apparently......................................................................P.S. And, yes, so, too, did they apparently have another type of arrangment. This, I'm saying, in that they never seemed to overtly criticize each other. Sharpton never criticized O'Reilly about that stupid comment O'Reilly made about black people acting civilized in a restaurant (and of how he, O'Reilly, was surprised by it) and O'Reilly, reciprocally, seemingly went easy on Al most of the time. Yeah, you bet, it was all kind of strange stuff. I wonder what ultimately happened.