When One Man Rules....

Ever since his death in 1999, Jordan's King Hussein has become increasingly more revered. Even a lot of the leaders in Israel have pointed to this man as a benchmark for effective Arab leadership. And, yes, folks, I'd be forced to agree with much of this; the fact that Hussein finally made peace with Israel, the way that he liberalized large segments of Jordanian society, etc..............................................................................But while, yes, he did do these things and should in fact be commended for them, I also think it's important to look at this man's total record. Hussein, for all of his strengths, made numerous decisions that often proved tragic. His first huge mistake was his decision to enter the '67 War. Israel had made it perfectly clear to Hussein that they much prefered not to engage Jordan. But Hussein didn't listen. He instead caved in to Arab pressure and ended up losing a large chunk of his kingdom (the part that HE annexed after the '48 War)...................................................................................The second tragic event occurred because of his decision to so bloodily squash the 1970 Palestinian uprising. Granted, the PLO was causing trouble for him and all but, please, for HIS government to have so ruthlessly slaughtered thousands and thousands was purely disgusting......................................................................................And, finally, folks, let us not forget that King Hussein ended up throwing his support to Saddam Hussein during Desert Storm. I mean, I know that it was largely a political decision on his part. But, still, based on the massive amounts of aid that the kingdom had long been receiving from the west (that, and the fact that the west GAVE him his kingdom), that truly was a slap in the face. Big time..................................................................................P.S. It should also be pointed out that NOT ONCE did King Hussein (from 1952-1967) EVER offer the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Jordan a state of their own. Yeah, huh? So much for Palestinian autonomy from one Arab's perspective. And, yes, this whole lifting of martial law stuff in the early 90s (that, and the instituting of other rudimentary freedoms), that only took him, what, four decades?

"Attention" to Detail

I'm going to be honest with you here, folks. "The Kissing Bandit", with Frank Sinatra and Kathryn Grayson, BITES BAD! And, believe me, when I tell you that it's bad, I don't mean that it's just a bad movie musical. It's bad MOVIE, period! Don't believe me? Try watching it, I dare you.....................................................................................But fellas (and, yes, at this stage, I'm talking mostly to the gentlemen out there), there is one small sequence near the end of this torturous experience that YOU might like. There's this dance number in which Ann Miller and Cyd Charrisse are dancing (you're sitting, right? - I much prefer you be sitting for this)....TOGETHER!! Yep, that's right, folks. And, yes, they're even kind of "dueling" with each other. Now, granted, it's over Ricardo (fine Corinthian leather) Montalban. So damned if it doesn't suck in that regard. But, come on, use your imagination. I sure as hell know that I've done so.

Al Groh, Continued

Here's another example of just what a shitty job this guy's been doing. Of the top 18 high-school football players in the state of Virginia (this, according to Rivals.Com - class of 2010), 9 of them (the latest being all-state safety, Nick Dew) have signed to play for Virginia Tech. You know how many of them have signed to play for the University of Virginia? Let me give you a clue here. It's a small number and it rhymes with hero. Yeah, that's right, folks, none of them have committed to Virginia (the other 9 have committed to other schools throughout the country, or are still unsigned). Not a damn one! I mean, come on, how frigging embarrassing is that? Pretty damn, huh?

A La Egypt and Israel

Could it possibly be - the O'Reilly-Olbermann feud - OVER? Seriously, that's what I've been hearing lately. And, yes, based on what my own eyes and ears have been witnessing, that just might be the case here. I mean, sure, Olbermann will still on occasion put Mr. O'Reilly on his worst person list/O'Reilly still take a periodic swipe at G.E. (that's code-talk for Olbermann - he still refuses to call the fellow by name). But, yes, overall, there seems to be a marked cooling of the vitriol............................................................................Not that either one of them is lacking in people to talk about/criticize. Olbermann has more than been able to fill in his gaps with Glenn Beck yada-yada (the latter seemingly putting his foot in his mouth daily). As for O'Reilly, well, let's just say that dude has the entire planet at his beckon call. And probably will so "forever", too. Barney Frank, anyone?

The Wahoo Blues

One of the most overpaid people in America is University of Virginia football coach, Al Groh. Groh, who's basically been mediocre throughout his career, has absolutely stunk it at Virginia (especially of late). In his eight-plus seasons at UVA (yes, at a salary of nearly 2 million a year), Groh's record currently stands at 56-47 (19-21 since the start of the 2006 season). And with a tough road still to hoe in 2009, his "winning" percentage is sure to dip even lower. Add to that the fact that he hasn't won a bowl game since 2004/has a 1-7 record versus arch-rival Virginia Tech and, yeah, you kind of understand the situation...............................................................................As to why Mr. Groh is STILL coaching at Virginia, that can basically be answered via one word; MONEY. Yeah, that's right, folks, in order to get rid of this fellow, the university will have to contend with a monstrous buy-out clause. Yikes, huh/not very likely? In the mean-time, you have a great university with a better than average gridiron tradition/recruiting base losing to teams like William and Mary (2009), Western Michigan (2006), Wyoming (2007), and Duke (2008). Al Groh WILL GO, eventually. But probably not until the students and alumni have to suffer for another 14 months or so.

Book/Dog Ends

I have to make a confession here. As much as Sean Hannity grates on me (and, believe me, folks, he does), Keith Olbermann is actually starting to irritate me more. I don't know. I think it might have to do with the fact that 1) he uses such crude ad hominems on people: wack-job, idiot, etc. (Hannity, as bad as he is, even HE doesn't use language like that) and 2) the frigging guy is smarter and absolutely should know better a) not to be such a frigging a-hole and b) that complex issues don't necessarily always lend easily to these pat and hackneyed approaches. I'm going to be honest with you, folks. In my opinion, neither one of these jerks deserves their own show - rat's ass or not about the ratings.

What Happened Didn't JUST Happen

The evidence is clear, folks. Israel, during the earliest stages of the '67 War, made numerous/substantial overtures to King Hussein. And, yes, one of those promises was to NOT attack Jordan unless they attacked Israel first. They also made it clear that Israel DIDN'T have designs on the West Bank, or even on Jerusalem. It was only when Jordan began shelling Israeli cities (cities, as opposed to military targets)/sent its air force to bomb civilian targets that Israel responded. And, yes, when you couple that with the fact that Jordan then proceeded to ignore a cease-fire proposed by U.N. negotiators and, yeah, it isn't at all surprising that territory might have slipped form A-hand to B-hand.................................................................................This, of course, isn't to imply that Israel couldn't have handled the aftermath better. They clearly could have. The Alon Plan (named after the general who advanced it), which proposed that Israel immediately withdraw from West Bank population centers/annex only unpopulated territory needed for buffer, in particular, would have been a far better way (politically AND morally) to go. Not that it would have necessarily ameliorated all the criticism, mind you, or even have reduced terrorism but, clearly, it would have ended, up-front, the occupation. And, yes, me-buckos, so, too, the talking point.

Some Great Movie Lines

"All train compartments....smell vaguely of shit....(barely perceptible chuckle) It gets so you don't mind."....Al Pacino, "Glengarry Glen Ross"....."Eddie! Your mother! She smells like carpet cleaner!"....Mickey Rourke, "Barfly"....."You're like a cookie filled with arsenic. I'd like to take a bite out of you."....Burt Lancaster, "Sweet Smell of Success"....."You can't put fancy clothes on an ape and make him your dancing partner (to which he is immediately slapped by Julie Harris)."....Jackie Gleason, "Requiem for a Heavyweight"....."You....owe....me....MONEY!!"....George C. Scott, "The Hustler"....."Fasten your seat belts. It's going to be a bumpy night."....Betty Davis, "All About Eve"....."It's a madhouse, a MADHOUSE!!"....Charlton Heston, "Planet of the Apes"....."Go round up the usual suspects.".....Claude Rains, "Casablanca"............................................................................If I can think of any more, I'll share them later.

The Bomb de Jur Revisited

Do you folks remember how Fox News used to berate the other networks for their supposedly showing only negative stories coming out of Iraq? Well, guess what? Now that the Iraq and Afghan wars are President Obama's problem/responsibility, Fox News suddenly doesn't find such bad news objectionable any more. In fact, they seem to reporting on a great deal of it lately. Hm, could it possibly be that bad news from of a war zone is only a bad thing to report on when it's a Republican President who suffers from it? That's what it appears to be, in terms of Fox's thinking anyway.

Lime-Light Disease

When it comes to Jimmy Carter, folks, I TRY VERY HARD 1) to be patient and 2) to be respectful. I do so because I think that, deep down, he's a fundamentally decent man. But, even more so than THAT, I feel very sorry for him. I mean, think about it. Who, other than George Bush 2, has been more consistently maligned than this fellow? Granted, some of his status as a failed President was earned (his inability to handle the economy, especially). But, still, I do in fact persist in having sympathy for him.....................................................................................And, yes, me-buckos, that indeed is precisely why it's sometimes difficult to criticise him. But, please, PLEASE, enough is enough. For the former president to say that the "overwhelming portion" of the criticism that President Obama is now receiving is racially motivated - that, my friends is taking it a little too far. I mean, come on, THE OVERWHELMING PORTION? Where's his frigging evidence, for Christ? Certainly some of it is. But for him to so recklessly indict such a large swath of the American public, the fellow really should be ashamed of himself. I'm thinking he should go back to building houses, personally.

Scoop Jackson and the Iraq War - Two Words

BLAME HIM!!!..............................................................................................P.S. Obviously, I'm being facetious here. And, yet, think about it, folks. Where did a good chunk of these theoretical warriors (AKA, neocons) get their tutelage from? I believe it happened in a certain Senator from Washington's Senate office quarters. Not, of course, that anyone could have foreseen the emergence of another; a certain serial (albeit, amiable) bungler from Texas, gullible enough to absorb, hook, line, and sinker, not just the essence of....but the specifics from Scoop. So, yes, to that extent, I'm clearly willing to cut the Scoopster some slack here. Just a little, though.

The Kabuki Factor

Ann Coulter's appearances on "O'Reilly" are extremely curious/bizarre. Some of them actually have kind of good cop/bad cop texture to them. On the one hand, you have Coulter, who, in her inimitable attack style, goes straight for the President's throat (sometimes making valid points, sometimes not). This, of course, and then, on the other side, you have O'Reilly (fair and balanced, but only by comparison). It is his job (in what is an obvious attempt to come across as reasonable) to put up resistance. But as one can plainly see, it's obviously token resistance (this, in that he no doubt agrees with a reasonable chunk of it) - comical in fact. And a little bit deft, too. As we all can clearly attest, O'Reilly totally hates to lose an argument. And he technically doesn't here, either (never allowing the president to look too good, obviously!!). Bill O'Reilly, ladies and gentlemen, talk about a frigging master, huh?

Dunce to the Chief

Congressman Wilson's behavior the other night wasn't just rude. It was extremely idiotic as well. And, yes, me-buckos, he absolutely should be censured. As the President himself so articulately put forth, all of us need to be far more civil in regards to our political discourse..................................................................................Unfortunately, though, that advice alone doesn't get us to the meat/heart of the issue. No, folks, President Obama didn't lie. There is nothing in his healthcare plan which says that illegal aliens will be eligible for free/subsidized coverage. Nothing at all. But (and, yes, folks, this is a very BIG but) neither is there a mechanism in the program which verifies an an enrollee's citizenship. They're not, for example, subjected to the S.A.V.E. program - a process, determining citizenship, that people need to go through for literally every other federal entitlement.................................................................................So, yes, theoretically illegal aliens could indeed get this benefit - should they decide to game the system. This, of course, this isn't to excuse the idiot Wilson's behavior. The Republicans had (as they always do with Presidential speeches to Congress) an opportunity to rebut (or at least attempt to) the President after his speech. That would have been the time to point out this discrepancy, not DURING the speech!!!

Low Art

Let me just say something about President Obama - briefly. He, in my opinion, is an extremely honorable person/American. He's also a good, decent, and respectful family man. And, yes, folks, I really and truly wish that guys like Hannity and Limbaugh would give him a break. I mean, sure, I know that they have some issues with him and all but, come on, this has almost gotten pathological. Compare this to even guys like Lou Dobbs and O'Reilly. While I'm sure that these guys aren't totally in love with Obama, either, at least they come up for air once in a while...............................................................................And it's not just the constancy of it. It's the hyperbole, too. I mean, my God. There making it sound like Obama is single-handedly bringing on the "end of days". And, please, don't get me wrong here. I have some issues with Obama, too; runaway spending, his build-up in Afghanistan, "don't ask/don't tell", etc.. But I do try to be respectful. I certainly try not to demonize the man. Kind of like I said before, I think he's a good one.

Prevent Defense

Can somebody please explain something to me? How does this Obama/Gates troop build-up, over in Afghanistan, significantly differ from the one that Nixon/Kissinger implemented (Melvin Laird actually pushed for troop reductions) back in '69, during Vietnam? I mean, I know that they're different countries with different topographies and all, the Taliban having had the temerity to harbor Al Qaeda, etc.. But now, as we speak, I'm saying, how are they at all different? Educate me, please.

A Stooge Too Far

The record is clear, folks. I have given the President a total pass on Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.. I did it 1) because I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and 2) I just didn't think that these idiots were relevant (the Ayers association, in particular, I saw tangentially - the fact that there were a fair share of Republicans on that board, etc.). Granted, the Reverend Wright association may have been embarrassing to Mr. Obama at times. But even that I saw far more as political opportunism than anything sinister. Never, for example, did I EVER think that Mr. Obama shared the reverend's views (the generational distinctions alone)....................................................................................But now, unfortunately, here it is, yet another situation; a fellow by the name of Van Jones (advisor, czar, green jobs expert, yada yada). And, while, yes, I still really want to give the President the benefit of the doubt here, this one, I'm afraid to say, is significantly more troubling. This, in that not only has Mr. Jones engaged in a lot of incendiary language, the fellow actually went as far as to sign a petition that implicated President Bush in 9/11 ( a 9/11 truther, he basically is). I mean, I know that a lot of people don't like W. and all but, really. This is as far and away over the top as you can pretty much get. And in my opinion, it really has to disqualify you from public service (especially absent a mia culpa).....................................................................................As to the Obama administration's culpability here, I'm sorry, it really doesn't look all that good for the President. The administration either didn't vet this guy. Or they did vet him, and none of it mattered. Either way, it's all kind of a blot on the President's record/judgement.

Pretty Face/Stupid

CBS News foreign correspondent, Lara Logan, made a hugely erroneous accusation yesterday (9/7/09). While a guest on CNN's "Reliable Sources", Ms. Logan implied (strongly implied) that syndicated columnist George Will's only reason for opposing Obama's Afghan policy is because Mr. Will is a conservative. She further asked the show's host, Howie Kurtz, "Would Will be expressing these same concerns if President Bush had taken these actions?"......................................................................................I mean, I know that Ms. Logan has spent a great deal of time out of the country and all, but the fact that she was unaware of Mr. Will's staunch and consistent opposition to President Bush's foreign policy is embarrassing. It's like, "Yes, Ms. Logan, George Will WOULD be opposing President Bush if it was he who had advocated this surge in Afghanistan. HELLO! I mean, do you just not know the difference between a traditional conservative (many of whom have advocated a limited military agenda) and a neo-con? George Will, as a traditional conservative, doesn't like nation-building. And it doesn't really matter WHO is sitting in the White House. It's a little something called principle, lady. You might want to learn to appreciate it.".........................................................................................The bottom-line here, folks. Lara Logan really needs to make a correction here. An apology wouldn't hurt, either.

Dotless Connections

That whole notion of Saddam Hussein giving his WMD to Al Qaeda - you remember that one, right? Well, guess, what, it still frigging perplexes me. I mean, seriously, folks, how could we have ever been so stupid? Saddam Hussein would have NEVER given his WMD to terrorists. That, for Christ sakes, would have been as sensible as Bambi delivering guns to the hunters. Suicidal, in other words. The frigging terrorists hated Saddam Hussein! If in fact they were ever able to acquire such weaponry, frigging Hussein would have been one of the ones in the cross-hairs. But, no, we just had to take the son-of-a-bitch out.............................................................................................Look, folks, I have no idea why Bush made the particular decisions he did. My suspicion is that he wanted to look proactive (possibly macho, too) after 9/11 and that he actually DID think that Iraq represented an easy mark (obviously ignoring the multi-ethnic aspects to that region). I also agree with Scott McClellan in that there was obviously a great deal of group-think that took place within the administration, with contrary thinkers like Colin Powell and Richard Armitage not particularly listened to. I mean, I know that some people have come up with far more sinister theories to occupy their time, vilify Bush, etc.. Which is fine - don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that, personally, I prefer the lesser conspiratorial theories, that's all......................................................................................P.S. Just to be clear here, I am not in any way a pacifist. If Bush could have proven to me that there were in fact weapons of mass destruction, I wouldn't have had any objection in using our military to take them out. I wouldn't have even had a problem in smacking the bastards around a little (but not too much in that we needed Hussein as a buffer against Iran). My only problem was with (well, other than the fact that there weren't any WMD) the nation-building stuff, regime change, etc.. That, my friends, isn't why we have a frigging military. The last time that I checked anyway.

Someday Someday Comes

Chris Matthews made a point last night that I totally agree with (and have actually been knocking around in my own head for weeks). He said that President Obama has basically painted himself into a corner regarding Afghanistan. As part of an effort to 1) distance himself from Bush and 2) show that he himself was just as strong on defense as the Republicans, Matthews posits that Obama took to concocting this "good war" strategy. The only problem? Now that Obama actually IS president, he has to follow through (or at least he thinks that he does) - i.e., try and go out and win this Afghanistan war......................................................................................And the frustrating thing, folks, Obama isn't at all a stupid man. He had/has to have known the wretchedness of that particular region - the fate that has previously befallen lots and lots of other powers; the French, the Brits, the Soviets, etc.. It's like, what, he never thought that he'd ultimately have act on this particular promise or something. I don't for the life of me understand it........................................................................................As for all of this talk about the economy potentially being Mr. Obama's downfall (if in fact he ever ultimately has one), I respectfully say no. If this president ends up in the dustpan of American history, mark my word, it'll be because of Afghanistan.

The Arab League's 1946 Definition of the Term, Arab

"An Arab is a person whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, and who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples.".................................................................................According to this framework, anyway, the genealogical aspect (as opposed to the linguistic and political components) is no longer considered significant. This, combined with the fact that the Palestinians themselves refer to themselves as Arab, is probably an indication that they are. Now, granted, some of the people who now refer to themselves as Palestinians (a term that was rarely used prior to 1920 - mainly because of its Jewish and Christian connotation) may in fact have a centuries old association with the area (predating the initial/2nd century spread of Arab culture into what we now call the "Middle East") , and in that sense may be seen as only fitting 2/3 of that older definition of Arab. But it is in fact the OLDER definition.................................................................................As to the argument that these indigenous "Palestinians" predated the Jews of the region, 2 two points. 1) The Jewish diaspora occurred as far back 800 B.C.. I don't know, folks, that was pretty darn early, too. And 2) That part of Palestine which is now Israel (especially the part that was offered by the Peel Commission in 1937) was basically swamp land/essentially uninhabited prior to the Jews building it up.....................................................................................Look, folks, I'm not saying that there shouldn't ever be a two state solution. In fact, I'm saying that there HAS TO BE. But it has to be accepted by both sides. The fact that the Arabs not only rejected the Peel Commission offer but subsequently contemplated a second holocaust - those to me are frightening components. I'm sorry but they are.

Behind Every Good Man....

I'm telling you, folks, as great as Jimmy Stewart was in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" (the way that he stuck big-time it to those pompous Senators, especially), I actually have to make a confession here. To me, this movie works just as much for the way that the incomparable Jean Arthur cheered him on, etc.. I mean, sure, that might have been (still be) partly due to the fact that I sometimes wish it was me she was cheering on....but, STILL! And, besides, WHO WAS IT who got the top-billing in Mr. Capra's classic? Yeah, that's right, my friends, it was Jean Arthur - the great Jean Arthur.