Broken Clock Syndrome?

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

Throw the Script at 'Em

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

Common Sense From a Thuggish Source

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

I'll Bet Even Jefferson is Smiling

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

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

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

Do as I Say

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

Views From the Moon

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

Some Things to Rally Around

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

Mindless Set

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

Even Poor People Can Count

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

Clif, the Rabbi

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

Intensive Medicare, Part Two

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

Something in the Vents Over at Fox, I Guess

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

Word Salad This, Slade

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

Free the Slave

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

What Happens When You Watch JFK Too Many Times

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

The High Price of Consensus/Letter to Lydia

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

Winter-League Diplomacy

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

Poop-Shoots

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

Human Phlegm

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

Now THAT was Rock and Roll

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

The "Return" of Hardball

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

The Starkness/Humanity of It

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

Imperially Speaking

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

Always the Jews

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

Just the Right Balance

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

His Own Personal Safety-Net

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

Robert E. Who?

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

The Other Book (Dog)-End

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

Mirror, Mirror on the Stall....

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

Dung of a Rectum

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

Keen Discernments of the Sweetest Kind

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

Disagree to Agree

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

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

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