A Heck of a Job, Janet - NOT!!

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

This I Found To Be Very Interesting

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

More Out of the Mouths of....

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

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

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

R(D)inos

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

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

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

The Lengthy Stench of Victory

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

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

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

The Debauchers Hall of Fame (Debut Members)

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

To the Level of Her Audience

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

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

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

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

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

Remote Choices

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

Well Dressed Man

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

Comparative Deception

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

Getting (Though Not Necessarily) What You Pay For

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

Out of the Mouths of....

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

His Own Private Idaho

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

Kentucky Douche-Bag

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

Gambling With a Partial Deck

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

The Lessons of (a Little) More

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

The Manliest of Crushes

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

The Stains of Coincidence

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

Ad....Homonym

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

Miscellaneous

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

The Trains Were Frigging Scared, For Christ!

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

To Shine or Not to Shine

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