Rethinking the Concept of a Corporate Income Tax

Raising corporate income taxes is one of those things that makes us feel good (we're nailing the rich folks, right? - or at least trying to). But is it good? At least from what I can tell, a lot of tax experts have concluded that the taxes that are placed on businesses are ultimately paid for by ordinary folks - not by the businesses targeted..................................................................................................I'll cite specifically the Minnesota Tax Incidence Study. According to these folks, more than half of the state of Minnesota's corporate income taxes are ultimately paid by consumers, workers, and shareholders. They also say that consumers end up paying a significant portion of the taxes that are exported outside of the state. Contrast this, I ask you, to the actual owners of the corporate capital. Those folks end up only paying for 5% - 5 per-frigging-cent!!..................................................................................................And, no, it isn't just conservatives who think that high corporate income taxes are bad. Liberal economist, Robert Reich - he actually wants to get rid of corporate income taxes all-together. He thinks that, not only would it enhance American competitiveness but it would also get rid of this notion that large corporations have constitutional rights (one of the rationales for the hotly contested Supreme Court decision, "Citizens United v Federal Election Commission"). And he isn't alone. Liberal bloggers from the Star Tribune, Firedoglake, and Salon have also been bouncing around this idea of greatly eliminating or reducing corporate income taxes. Firedoglake and Fox Business agreeing - who'd have ever thunk a that, huh?..............................................................................................P.S. Just a final piece of information here. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, there's a very strong correlation between higher corporate income tax rates and lower wages (not necessarily a causal connection, mind you, but an interesting factoid nonetheless). That I also find to be compelling.

A Sobering Cure

I often wonder (as a lot of my colleagues probably also do) what a Hillary Presidency would have looked like. I especially wondered about it back when President Obama was floundering. Would she, folks, have been a better choice than Mr. Obama? And, yes, I'll flat-out admit it to you here that maybe, MAYBE, she would have been better?...............................................................................................I'll admit to it, that is, until I flash on back and take a look at this little quote form Jerry Zeifman (a lifelong Democrat who ended up firing Mrs. Clinton from the Watergate Committee staff back in 1974); "She was a liar......She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee, and the rules of confidentiality." I'll read it (this, about as damning an indictment from a serious person as I've ever seen) and then, yeah, I start to feel a little bit better about Mr. Obama. The grass, me-buckos, isn't always greener.

Revisionism Hannity-Style

Look, folks, I'm not saying here that Sean Hannity isn't a dude who's capable of charm/affability. But, PLEASE/come on here, some of the stuff that this fellow has been saying of late is just absurd. Take, for instance, that recent Fox special on George W. Bush and Tony Blair, their unique and special relationship, yada yada ( yes, with Mr. Hannity narrating it). My God, by the time that frigging Hannity was done with the damn thing, you'd have probably though that you had just got done watching something on Roosevelt and Churchill, for Christ!........................................................................................................I's like, dude (this is me talking to Hannity now), all that these two frigging clowns basically did was to attack a country that LITERALLY had nothing to do with 9/11. But, even worse than that, they (sorry for the cliche here) took their eyes off of the big prize; letting Saddam Hussein and his despicable minions escape, strengthening the hand of Iran by extending a strong Shia crescent etc.. And, yes, the saddest thing of all is a realization that this whole "victory in Iraq" thing (replete, of course, with its 4,400 dead American soldiers) is ultimately going to unravel, America finding itself back at square one. Frigging square one!!! Yeah, put 'em both on Rushmore, dude.

Note to Mr. Olbermann 3

Dude, you do know, don't you, that if President Obama had done what you and your brethren over at MSNBC had wanted him to do (i.e., grit his teeth/snarl/pound his chest for 5 weeks to get a better deal on the tax package - a deal that probably wouldn't have even been possible), we probably wouldn't have gotten rid of DADT, ratified the START treaty, or even passed the aid to 9/11 first responders bill? I mean, you do frigging know that, right?

The New Sheriff of Charlottesville

As some of you folks already know, I was never a huge fan of former UVA football coach, Al Groh (currently the defensive coordinator at Georgia Tech). I never found him to be a particularly effective recruiter and, even on those occasions when he was able to get the top talent, he often wasn't able to develop it. Of course, the most damning evidence of all against Mr. Groh is his record on the field. While, yes, he did get off to a reasonably good start (leading the Cavs to a spate of decent bowl games), the overall wins and losses just didn't add up (three losing seasons in his final four)...........................................................................................So, yes/damn square, I was exceedingly ecstatic when Virginia decided to can Groh's sorry ass and replace him with a rising star, Mike London (at that time just one year removed from leading Richmond to the FCS championship). It had to be a major-league improvement, no?..........................................................................................Well, folks, here we are. It's been, what now, pretty nearly a year since Virginia made this change? How well is the new coach, Mr. London, doing? Well, apart from the fact that it's obviously way too early to tell, I would probably have to say that he's doing pretty good. Sure, he only won one more game than his predecessor did (4, as opposed to 3). But it was also clear that the toughness and competitiveness of the team were far better. And, yes, in terms of his recruiting ability, a major thumbs up. London, folks, has already landed 13 of the top 30 prospects in the state of Virginia for 2011. Included in this haul are such bell-ringers as speedy running back Clifton Richardson, behemoth offensive lineman Jay Whitmire, coveted quarterback David Watford, sleeper defensive end Thompson Brown (watch this guy, folks - he's 6'4" 225 and runs a sub 4.6 forty), and phenom corner Demetrious Nicholson. And it isn't just in Virginia where he's finding success. He's also landed a slew of Maryland's top 20 prospects; Brandon Phelps (ATH), Kelby Johnson (OT), Vincent Croce (DT), Marco Jones (DE), and Jordan Lomax (ATH)............................................................................................Now, obviously, one recruiting class doesn't a program make. But if Mr. London can continue to recruit like this AND develop the talent, UVA just might become the football power that a lot of us thought they were capable of being. No, not an Alabama or an Ohio State maybe but a consistent top 20/8-9 wins a year type of program -a good enough program for me, in other words.

Play it Again, Marilyn

I was watching "The Misfits" today and I'm telling you here, that scene between Marilyn Monroe and Montgomery Clift, outside the bar at night, his head all bandaged up from a fall at the rodeo earlier that day, her trying to comfort him, THAT, folks, is one hell of an incredible scene. I especially liked it when he asked her, "Who do you depend on? WHO?" and she responded with, "I don't know. Maybe all there really is is just the next thing, the next thing that happens. Maybe you're not supposed to remember anybody's promises."......I'm telling you here, folks, it was almost visceral, the entirety of it. Kudos, all around, to Clift, Monroe, Arthur Miller (the screenwriter), and John Huston (the director). Like they often say in Hollywood....and elsewhere, they just don't make 'em like that anymore.

"Where's My Baseball Bat?"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear those wretched words, 'Jersey Shore'?"

Miscellaneous 50

1) I have no doubt in my mind that if in fact this START treaty had instead been proposed by a Republican President (replete, of course, with copious amounts of bipartisan support from every single former/living President and Secretary of State), fellows like Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl would not only be supporting it but supporting it vociferously. I mean, come on here, let's just call it for what it is; flat-out and despicable partisanship.....and be done with it.............2) West Virginia's newly elected Senator, Joe Manchin - let's just say that he isn't exactly off to a courageous start. This, folks, in that instead of casting the difficult votes for (or against) the Dream Act and for (or against) the repeal of don't-ask/don't-tell, Mr. Manchin headed home for a Christmas party (please, keep in mind, Mr. Manchin has only been on the job for a couple of weeks here). He apparently didn't want to risk alienating either a) the base of his party for voting AGAINST these things or b) the socially conservative residents of his state for voting FOR them. I mean, yeah, I understand the delicacy of his situation and all......but, damn, isn't he also getting compensated here?............3) Looking for another BCS buster in the not too distant future? Try SMU. Yeah, you heard me eight. June Jones, folks, has taken this perennial doormat, a team that had never really rebounded from those 1987 "death penalty" sanctions, and has since delivered them to two consecutive bowl games. And the future is only going to get brighter. This, in that Jones has recruited as well as any nonBCS conference school (yes, I'm including TCU here) out there. After flirting with a great recruiting class for 2009 and 2010, Jones has really stepped it up for 2011. Of his 24 verbal commits thus far, 17 of them are three stars or better. Included in this haul are three of the top 100 from Texas (OT Carter Wall, DE Stephon Sanders, and RB K.C. Nlemchi), two of the top 100 from California (DE Davon Moreland and OG Dontae Levingston), and even a couple of studs from Louisiana; speedsters James Richardson (DB) and Jermaine Sams (WR). Add to that a real sleeper quarterback (Connor Preston from California) and, yeah, I'm telling you, don't be surprised to see a 13-0 SMU squad by 2012 or 2013 - yet another fly in the ointment, so to speak.

UCan't?

Nobody (including those of us who live in Connecticut) thinks that UConn has a prayer against Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl. The disparity in the level of talent and raw speed is just too much of an obstacle. And, really, what is it that UConn has truly accomplished this year? Yes, they won the Big East. But the Big East was very much down this season. And of their four losses (they were 8-4 overall), two of them were to Temple and Louisville (26-0 in that game). They don't have a 14 carat gold resume, in other words.......................................................................................................But, yes, it is in fact a game and they DO have to play it. And I can even see a scenario here in which the Huskies can keep it close. Here, though, is what has to happen. a) They can't turn the ball over. b) They need to force at least two Oklahoma turnovers. c) They mustn't drop passes (something that has plagued them a lot this year). d) They need to keep penalties to a minimum (five or less, I figure). e) They need to prevent the big play (including on special teams). Make Oklahoma go on 80 yard drives and try to hold them to field-goals. e) Jordan Todman, Jordan Todman, Jordan Todman - keep him hydrated and let him tote it as many times as he needs to (obviously you need to throw in some play-action, too). And f) if none of that works, yeah, you might want to try a prayer after all.....I mean, it can't hurt!

Miscellaneous 49

1) Jimmy Carter has, on several occasions, provided significant praise to Howard Baker and Bob Michael (the Senate and House minority leaders during his Presidency). He actually feels that they were every bit as helpful to him as his fellow Democrats were. I ask you, folks, compare THAT to the current situation in Washington (increasingly loathsome clowns such as Kyl and McConnell opposing the President for nothing more than what seems to be naked political gain). I mean, I know that there's always been gambling going on down there, but this - this is absolutely fucked!............2) It's been an interesting week, hasn't it? DADT gets repealed 65-31. The START treaty passes 71-26. And just yesterday the aid to 9/11 first responders bill gets passed unanimously......Hm. Can you say Mitch McConnell isn't as powerful as he thinks he is?............3) I was watching MSNBC the other night (I don't even remember which show it was) and they had on this liberal economist (yeah, I know, no big fat frigging surprise there - no, I don't remember that fellow's name, either). I almost turned the channel but, damn, this guy was good. He had this one idea, in particular, which I thought was especially brilliant. He said that, instead of bailing the states out again, we do for them what we did for Wall Street - i.e., provide them a bunch of low interest loans (a la TARP). This way, the states can get some needed relief AND the federal government can get the bulk of the money back, some of it quite possibly with interest. Sounds like a total win-win situation to me. You?

Dana Plato (With Apologies to Alyssa Milano)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite jail-bait specimen?"

Miscellaneous 48

1) O'Reilly, folks, is to Fox what Matthews is to MSNBC. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, he basically sticks with the "program".....until he doesn't - this Sarah Palin interview simply being the latest example of that.............2) Speaking of the former Alaska Governor, I have to admit it, she is NOT...AT ALL wearing well with me. I mean, she's taking shots at the poor first lady now; joking on her reality show that Mrs. Obama is trying to "outlaw dessert". First of all, it's frigging bullshit. Nobody is trying to outlaw anything. But, even more important than that, just the whole concept of some rogue (admittedly rogue) politician taking shots at the first lady of the United States (who's probably a damn sight more popular than even her husband right now) - that, to me, is pretty nearly as low as it gets.............3) Poor Wake Forest - it's apparently happened YET AGAIN. Remember last week how I told you about Mike Rose decommitting? Well, apparently lockdown corner, Devin Gaulden (out of Florida), has decided to follow suit. Just frigging peachy, huh, if in fact you're a Deacons fan.

Miscellaneous 47

1) Here's an interesting statistic, folks. I've heard that recent studies on don't-ask/don't-tell have indicated that some 80% of the gays currently serving in the military have also said that they actually plan on staying in the closet (for the lack of a better way to put it). So, yeah, all of this "disruption" stuff that people like John McCain are talking about is nothing but rubbish....Not that he's ever going to stop bitching - obviously.............2) Did any of you see Mr. O'Reilly's interview with Sarah Palin last week? It was kind of interesting, I thought. I especially liked the way that O'Reilly started busting her about this reality TV gig of hers. Of course, it didn't get real awkward until he asked her if she'd ever consider putting fellow reality diva, Kate Gosselin, in her cabinet....Let's just put it this way. She didn't look all that happy.............3) I've known for a while that the junior Senator from the state of New York was a gal by the name of Kirsten Gillibrand. Other than her name, though, I really didn't know that much about her (something about the NRA liking her - that's about it). Well, I finally got to see her (on Hardball) and, guess what, the lady's frigging hot (apologies if you already knew this)! So hot, that, yes, it prompted me to do some research. It appears, folks, that the lady has lost some 40 pounds since being appointed a year and a half ago. Not that she was all that bad before, mind you, but, now, with this new-found/size 4 svelteness, all that I can really say at this moment is booyah!!!!....Gillibrand in 2016!!!

A Chink in the Clunkage

As it turns out, "Cash for Clunkers" probably wasn't the best way for the U.S. government to spend $4,000,000,000. a) It pushed the cost of used cars higher. b) It markedly reduced the number of cars donated to charity. c) It negatively effected the auto recycling industry (certain parts were destroyed in the process of disabling the engine, thereby creating a shortage of them). d) It provided only a short term surge of car sales. e) The environmental benefit was minimal, at best (yes, the newer cars were more fuel efficient, but, yes, so, too, were they probably driven more). And f) it was all done on borrowed money....To say that this is a good example of "The Law of Unintended Consequences" is probably accurate (the purity of the motivation for it, aside) here.

Closet THIS, John McCain

There isn't a lot that comes out of Washington (D.C.) these days that inspires me. But I have to confess it here, the fact that the Senate voted 65-31 this morning to end that insidious policy of don't-ask/don't-tell, I did get a little bit of a lump in my throat overall. I mean, sure, I'm still a little pissed off that it took the better part of two decades to make this change (not to mention the fact that 31 recalcitrant Republicans continued to try and derail it) but, still....Overall, folks, a very good day for freedom in America.....................................................................................................Alright, now let's pass the START Treaty. We're on a roll here.

The Greasy Kernel Gets the Cash

In order to secure the votes of Iowa Senators Grassley and Harkin, the Senate apparently had to insert copious amounts of ethanol subsidies into that tax compromise. Excuse me here....just for a minute....WHILE I VOMIT!.....................................................................................................But, seriously, though, I ask you; if this little fact doesn't convince you that this country has an absolutely wretched and corrupt political system, then, BOOM, what in the bluest of blazes would I have to show you? I mean, we're talking ethanol here - ETHANOL, perhaps the biggest boondoggle in many, MANY, decades of boondoggles (this, in that it's bleeding the treasury, increasing food prices, and destroying the environment - yes, folks, it's even worse than gasoline!!) - and two United States Senators (one from each political party) still trying to protect it. Unbe-frigging-lievable.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 7

Say what you want about John McCain (and, yes, I often have - that the man's a flip-flopper, Bush on steroids, frequently unstable, etc.), folks. At least this individual had the good sense to see what was an obvious powder-keg brewing. Yes, I'm referring to Mr. McCain's decision to sign on as a co-sponsor The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. And while, no, it was clearly not a perfect piece of legislation (some say that it ceded too much in terms of authority to the FED), it was at least an attempt to reign in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This was what the Senator himself had to say about a) the impending crisis and b) the proposed legislation: " For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - known as government sponsored entities or GESs - and the sheer magnitude companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GESs need to be reformed without delay.............I join as a co-sponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."......................................................................................................Wow, huh? And all the while we thought that this character was clueless, nothing but a frigging broken clock, etc..

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 6

According to the New York Times (yet another publication that's not exactly hostile to Democrats), in 2003, "Bush proposed the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." The paper also went on to say that "A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors and critics have said that Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates."................................................................................................What was the Democratic response to Bush's proposal? Barney Frank's was simply to state that "These two entities - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - are NOT (my emphasis) facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Congressman Watt from North Carolina added that, " I don't see much other than a shell-game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."..................................................................................................And on and on it dribbled - partisans like Maxine Waters and Gregory Meek saying that everything was AOK at Fannie and Freddie. Hell, folks, you even had Lacy Clay say that the proceedings were themselves a "Political lynching of Franklin Raines"......................................................................................................Look, folks, if Mr. Frank finally came to his senses and eventually proposed a meaningful compromise, and if in fact the Republicans rebuffed him, then, yes, shame on those very same Republicans. I NEVER said that the Republicans weren't culpable. But to constantly spin for a bunch of folks who attempted to turn large parts of the banking industry into more or less frigging social work, THAT I CANNOT COMPREHEND.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 5

This, folks, from former President Clinton (Good Morning America, 2008); "I think that the responsibility that Democrats have may rest more in resisting any efforts by Republicans or by me when I was President to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."............And these more recent quotes from Barney Frank; a) (2005) "This is not a dot com situation. We will not see a collapse that people see when we talk about a bubble." b) (2006) "Fundamentally, I don't think that there's a crisis." c) (2006) "We had a degree of meltdown in the housing field that very few people foresaw." d) (2008!) "I don't think that Fannie and Freddie are financially insolvent. I don't think that they need a large bailout."............Again, President Clinton seemingly much more willing to accept reality here (this, though, yes, Mr. Frank ultimately did fess up during the 2010 campaign).

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 4

Perhaps my colleague is referring to a piece of legislation that I'm unfamiliar with. If, however, he's strictly referring to Congressman Frank/the Congressman's relationship to Fannie and Freddie, then, yes, he is markedly rewriting history here. The truth, folks, is that Congressman Frank has never (well, except for maybe a few days in 2002) taken a responsible posture toward these institutions..............................................................................................For instance, it has been reported by the Boston Globe reported that Frank, as early as 1991, had pushed these agencies to loosen regulations on mortgages for two and three family homes, even though they were defaulting at twice to five times the rate of single family dwellings. They also reported that in 1994, President Clinton's Department of Housing and Urban Development tried to impose stiffer regulations on Fannie....and that they were thwarted by Mr. Frank. Yes, in 2002, Mr. Frank was seemingly coming to his senses on these types of loans but, alas, it didn't last. Get this quote, folks: "I do think I DO NOT (emphasis courtesy of me) want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in OOC and OTS. I want to roll the dice a little more in this situation toward subsidized housing."....................................................................................................I think that we really need to face it here, folks. Barney Frank's name probably SHOULD have been on that Time magazine list, perhaps even more so than Mr. Clinton's.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 3

The Boston Globe (not exactly a publication that's been hard on Democrats over the years) summarized their most recent interview with Barney Frank thusly: "He missed the warning signs because he was wearing ideological blinders. He said that he had worried that Republican lawmakers and the Bush administration were going after Fannie and Freddie for their own ideological reasons and would curtail the lenders' mission of providing affordable housing."...............................................................................................And like I've said in the previous posting, Congressman Frank's own words are themselves a mea culpa; "I was late in seeing it, no question."

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 2

Look, folks, I'm not in any way attempting to say that there's equal culpability here. The financial meltdown DID occur under a Republican administration. It also occurred under a Republican FED chairman (Alan Greenspan) and a Republican heading the SEC (Christopher Cox). The Republicans absolutely DO deserve more of the blame................................................................................................I'm just saying here that they don't deserve ALL of the blame. a) The policy of this more relaxed lending started under the Clinton administration. b) Barney Frank, once the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee and, yes, ultimately the chairman of it has himself admitted that "Yes, I was late in seeing it, no question." And c) Fannie and Freddie were themselves heavily populated with Democrats; Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Jamie Gorelick (all of whom President Obama has either sought advice from or courted for his administration)...........................................................................................................Oh, and to all of those who happen to think that Mr. Frank has gotten a raw deal in this analysis, this. In 2000, Mr. Frank said that concerns about Fannie and Freddie were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability whatsoever". In 2002, he said that "I do not regard Fannie and Freddie as problems" and that he regarded them as "great assets". In 2003, he said that there was "no federal guarantee to Fannie and Freddie's obligations". In 2004, he said that Fannie and Freddie were "no real threat to the treasury". Add to this the fact that Mr. Frank received $40,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie and even had a romantic relationship with one of its executives and, yeah, it really does sounds to me like Mr. Frank may have at least some explaining to do.

On Blaming the Republicans Solely For the Financial Meltdown Part 1

"Selling Fannie and Freddie as a purely partisan issue - it doesn't really work. Both parties bear plenty of responsibility." Jonathan Koppell, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University/The New America Foundation......Hm, OK, let's see hear, who do I believe? Do I believe a respected and nonpartisan professor from a respected university/respected and nonpartisan think-tank, OR do I believe a spate of highly partisan web-sites and publications whose very continuation is dependent upon their not "being convinced"? Gee, that's ballbustingly difficult one - NOT!!!!

Miscellaneous 46

1) Sean Hannity has just (this past week) surpassed his own world-record for chutzpah. It happened, folks, during one of those patented reminisce/kumbaya sessions of his and, yeah, as I recall, it sounded a little something like this, "Remember how back during the 2008 campaign Mr. Obama was attacking me?"...Of course, the fact that he continues to say this crap with such a smirk on his face, THAT, I'm saying................2) Speaking of Hannity, it seems to me as if the fellow may have essentially boxed himself into a corner here. I mean, he's basically demonized Obama as much as he can, right? My question is - what in the hell is he going to do if Mr. Obama ends up getting primaried from the left in 2012? What, pray tell, is he going to say about THAT person? That the fellow/woman's worse than................3) I have no reason to think that Hillcrest High's (Simpsonville, South Carolina) star defensive-end, Mike Rose, isn't a good kid. Hell, for everything that I know, he might even be a typical high school student (for better or worse, I'm saying). But, I have to tell you, he did something this past week that is unfortunately becoming all too common these days. Seven days ago, Rose made a solid verbal commitment to go to school/play his college ball at Wake Forest University. Needless to say, it was a monstrous "get" for a Demon Deacons squad that just suffered though one of its worst seasons in recent memory (3-9). All was well - well, until, that is, Sunday, when Mr. Rose decided that he wanted to go to North Carolina State instead. I mean, yeah, the fact that he "flipped" relatively soon was significantly better than had in fact led the Deacs on for weeks/months but, still....I don't know, folks, I just wish that these kids (and, yes, that in fact is what they are - kids!) wouldn't commit at all until they were absolutely sure. I mean, it does involve more than just them, you know.

Really (As in Extremely) Bogus

I'm trying very hard to figure out how a lot of this "reality" shit gets concocted. Like with this whole "Sarah Palin's Alaska" stuff - what, pray tell, was going through the minds of THOSE producers? Was it, folks, essentially along the lines of, "Hm, let's see, what can we do to make this individual look more appealing to the Republican base, all of those clingers/tea-partiers out there, etc.?...Hey, I got it. Let's have her go on this hunting trip....with a bunch of dudes and have her blow away some poor unassuming moose. I mean, it'll be easy. We can have some of our flunkies flush the moose out into the open and BOOM!...Oh and, YES, we can punctuate the whole thing by having her high-five the fellas'. Perfect, no?"? Or was it just to frigging titillate, in general? I just can't frigging decide here.....................................................................................................Yeah, I'm probably better off not knowing, huh?

Nancy Grace and the NHL

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, are the two things in America, the popularity of which, you find most inexplicable?"

"I Think That We Basically Run a Clean Program", Ron Meyer (SMU Football Coach, 1982)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, is the most ludicrous/laughable statement EVER from the world of sports?"

To All of Those Who Think That a Progressive Challenge to President Obama in a 2012 Primary is a Good Thing, This

You're crazy. a) A sitting President has rarely successfully been challenged in a primary before (Buchanan's victory over Pierce in 1856 - that being the most recent example). And b) whenever a sitting President has been challenged like this, he tends to end up losing in the general election (Ford, Carter, and Bush 1 - the three most recent examples). And, folks, I'm also telling you here, if by some incredible miracle event, President Obama does lose in a primary, this nation would never, EVER, elect a Bernie Sanders or a Dennis Kucinich President. They just flat-out wouldn't do that (this and, yet, I've also said that about Sarah Palin, huh?).

Note to Mr. Olbermann 2

Dude, if you have to use a gun (and, yes, apparently it's necessary), can you at least have the decency to use a bullet, and not this frigging buckshot of yours? For instance, when you criticized (yes, with some degree of justification) Brit Hume for his implication that Valerie Plame may in fact have lied under oath, did you really have to take down Chris Wallace, too (remember how you lumped them together in your "Worst Persons" segment?)? I mean, think about it. All that Mr. Wallace was doing was moderating the discussion. And, besides, when he did ask Mr. Hume, "So, are you saying that she was lying under oath", it was IN RESPONSE to Mr. Hume's accusation AND he was pressuring him....I mean, I know that you totally hate Fox News and all (I'm obviously not a big fan of it, either) but, please/like I said, use a frigging bullet. Alright?

Miscellaneous 45

1) Man, oh, man, is that Sean Hannity dude ever predictable? I'm telling you here, folks, as soon as President Obama and former President Clinton stepped up to that podium together, I knew it, I KNEW for a fact that Hannity would try and make some hay about it; that the President was being rescued by Mr. Bill Clinton, yada-yada. And, yes, me-buckos, it really leads me to ask out loud: WHY do we even need to watch it any more. I mean, it's not like it's "The Wizard of Oz" or anything/wears well with repeated viewings.............2) If you had to give Bill O'Reilly credit for something, it would probably have to be for the fact that all of the profits for that merchandising of his go to charity (a la Paul Newman). But, still, STILL, I still don't think that I'd ever be willing to go anywhere wearing a "the spin stops here" cap or a "please don't taze me, bro" t-shirt....You know what I'm saying here, right?............3) Could it possibly be, folks - a rift of some sorts over at MSNBC? That's how it certainly seems to this blogger at least. On the one hand, you have Chris Matthews and Lawrence O'Donnell seemingly supporting President Obama's tax-cut compromise. On the other, you have Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz (the latter two, vociferously so) opposing it. I mean, clearly, they all have separate shows and all and so, no, we really haven't seen any sparks a flying yet. The green-room/hallways, though - too bad there aren't any cameras there.............4) Speaking of Rachel Maddow, I've been getting a total laugh-attack over this most recent commercial of hers. On it, folks, she goes off spouting about the importance of "looking for all of the disparate facts", putting them all together yada-yada. Yeah, huh? I think what she REALLY meant to say was "looking for all of the facts that support my ideology and ignoring the rest."...Just a hunch, I'm saying.

Some Surprising Wisdom From MSNBC Prime-Time

Lawrence O'Donnell said something this week that made an extraordinary amount of sense. He said that the Democrats have made a very huge mistake in lumping folks who make $251,000 a year with those individuals that make tens/hundreds of millions a year. They're not, in his (or especially in my) opinion, even remotely comparable. The former group is a group that works and contributes mightily to society. And, yes, depending upon where in fact these individuals reside, they're not necessarily always wealthy, either (a lot of them still paying off student loans, etc.). Compare this, I ask you, to the latter group of people, many of them probably living off investments, estates, bloated corporate salaries, bonuses, etc...........................................................................................................Another excellent point that O'Donnell made is that this $250,000 template was derived back in 1993. When you adjust it for (reverse) inflation, this only adds up to $165,000 in 1993 dollars. O'Donnell feels (and I whole-heartedly agree with him) that had in fact the Democrats adjusted this threshold upward (my suggestion has always been between $300-400,000), they more than likely would have gotten much more in terms of public support....Oh well, it's all probably too late now, huh?..............................................................................................................P.S. This is not meant to imply that individuals who currently make under this threshold won't eventually have to pay additional taxes, too (for deficit reduction, infrastructure, etc.). They totally in fact might. I'm just talking in terms of this immediate discussion. That's all.

"He's Got a Noseful of Dimes"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite description of former O.J. Simpson defense-team lawyer, Barry Scheck?"

On Ashleigh Banfield Subbing Tonight for Joy Behar

Three words: MAKE...THIS...PERMANENT!

Miscellaneous 44

1) Alright, now that I've criticized Mr. Obama, let me a minute or two to defend the guy, for Christ. a) This is probably the best deal that the fellow could have gotten these days. And b) even if in fact the President had played some "hardball" with Republicans, the time/political capitol involved, who knows, he probably would have also blown an opportunity for START and don't ask/don't tell, too. I mean, I know that guys like Schultz and Olbermann (yes, that love affair finally appears to be over) are pissed at him and all but, come on here. He, the President, has a different job from them - a much, MUCH, different job.............2) Gee, what a surprise. Sean Hannity was wrong about President Obama....Remember how he was constantly saying that Mr. Obama is a far different guy than Bill Clinton was when he was President, of how Mr. Obama was far too ideologically rigid to compromise, move to the center, etc.? I mean, I certainly do....There, now if we could only get an admission from the douchebag - NOT!!!............3) I really hope that Sarah Palin ate that moose that she killed. Because, if she didn't, and she only killed it to make some asinine political point on television, then that woman is flat-out despicable....I mean, come on here, people, just the frigging high-fiving alone, the fact that it apparently took a contingent....

Note to President Obama

I have to tell you, Mr. President, it isn't just the "progressive" wing of your party that doesn't like this tax-cut compromise. Blue-dogs and deficit-hawks, like myself, don't particularly care for the "arrangement", either. I mean, yes, I do admire you for your willingness to compromise/work across the aisle but, please, Mr. President, this end-result is the exact mirror opposite of what it clearly should have been. The optimal compromise, IMHO, should have been to a) sunset the tax-cuts for wealthier Americans (the threshold also being the result of negotiation - somewhere between 250,000 and a million) and b) to "pay for" the unemployment compensation (possibly from unspent stimulus money and/or waste at the Pentagon). This way, Mr. President, we would have not blown yet another big hole in the deficit AND helped to maintain the recovery (this, via an extension of the middle-class tax-cuts). I mean, I know that the Republicans basically had you by the balls and probably wouldn't have agreed to such a proposal. But, really, couldn't you have at least proposed this sucker?

The Best Summation of the John and Elizabeth Edwards Saga Ever - Courtesy of Chuck Todd

"She should have been the candidate, not him."

How 'Bout a Hall of Fame For Hyperbole?

In what would have to be one of his most bizarre "Worst Persons" segments EVER, Mr. Olbermann opted this time to take on, OF ALL PEOPLE, the Baseball Hall of Fame Veteran's Committee. It seems, folks, that Mr. Olbermann (a person who's seemingly already on the record as wanting to transform Baseball's most hallowed institution into the Hall of the Very Good) has for a long time wanted former Chicago Cubs third baseman, Ron Santo, to be granted induction into the Hall. And, yes, with Mr. Santo's recent passing, the ascerbic Olbermann did what he always seems to do these days - get indignant ("Mr. Santo didn't live long enough to see himself get honored, yada yada")...................................................................................................Now, don't get me wrong here. Mr. Santo was in fact a very good player, and a reasonable case could be made for him. But a big slam-dunk he is not. Mr. Santo's numbers, for example, are actually worse than those of other borderline players who have made it; Jim Rice, Orlando Cepeda, Tony Perez, etc.. And while, yes, Santo has power numbers much greater than some of the other marginal Hall of Famers such as Nellie Fox and Richie Ashburn, those fellows had a great many more hits and a significantly better batting average. And what about a guy like former Boston Red Sox right fielder, Dwight Evans? He scored far more runs than Santo (1470-1138), had significantly more hits (2446-2254), and exceeded him in the following other categories, too; doubles (483-365), triples (73-67), home-runs (385-342), runs batted in (1384-1331), stolen bases (78-35), walks (1391-1108), on-base percentage (.370-.362), and slugging percentage (.470-.464). If anybody deserves another look from the Veteran's Committee, it's him (not that even he's a slam-dunk, either)...................................................................................................Look, folks, there are a lot of really good players out there that one could argue for. I mean, just look at the frigging pitchers alone. Tommy John won 288 games. Bert Blyleven won 287 (not to mention had 3,774 strikeouts). Jim Kaat won 283. None of those guys are in the Hall of Fame, either. Is Mr. Olbermann going to make a conniption when they die, too. If, I'm saying, he had even one ounce of consistency in his bones (and we all flat-out know that he doesn't), he would.

"I'm Pretty Sure That He's Lying"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what do you think about Charlie Rangel saying that he didn't know that he could have started a legal defense fund?"

Yes, Dudes, We DO Play Football, Too

What is it with UConn running backs and the sporting press? Two years ago, Donald Brown led the entire nation in rushing with 2,083 yards and 18 touchdowns, and he didn't even make the top ten in the final Heisman Trophy voting. Worse than that, he didn't even finish in the top three for the Doak Walker Award (to the best running back in college football)....Oh, and, yeah, he did all of this on a team that basically couldn't throw the ball to save themselves (opposing defenses obviously being able to focus on him)..........................................................................................................Well, guess what - it's happening all over again. UConn junior running back, Jordan Todman is currently second in the nation in rushing (148.1 yards a game). The fellow has a total of 1,481 yards and 14 touchdowns (this, despite having missed one game and being banged up in several others). And, yes, he, like Mr. Brown, plays on a team that struggles mightily in the passing game. All of this and he didn't even make it in the TOP TEN(!!!!!) of the Walker voting. I mean, I know that it's hard to get outraged over a football story (you know, with everything else that's been going on) but, still, what, I ask you, does a UConn running back gotta do to get some love here? Run for President of the United States or something?

More Rain, Same Parade

It was one thing, folks, for David Stockman (Reagan's former head of OMB) to come out and poo-poo on Reaganomics. He, after all, is little more than a disgruntled individual with an axe to grind. But, when former FED chairman, Alan Greenspan, came out and basically said the same thing (i.e., that tax-cuts DO NOT pay for themselves), that, my friends, should at least be a little harder for the "right" to deal with. I mean, the fellow is an economic guru, isn't he (not to mention, a Republican)?...............................................................................................As for what my feelings on this issue are, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Stockman. This, folks, in that, yes, in my opinion, the Republican Party (as its presently constituted, at least) really and truly should be ashamed of themselves. They continuously put front and center people like Marsha Blackburn and LITERALLY have these individuals say NOTHING. "Yes, we're going to cut spending but, no, we're not at this point prepared to tell you specifically WHAT we're going to cut. Trust us, though."................................................................................................I mean, it's basically turned into a type of shell-game. And, seriously, does anybody really think that we're going to be able to shrink this national debt significantly with spending cuts alone, that there's even going to be enough political will and courage to attempt it? I really think that we have to face it here, folks - the Republicans are doing nothing but "kick the can"....................................................................................................P.S. Please, do not in any way take this criticism of the Republicans as an endorsement of the Dems. This, folks, in that, no, not a lot of what they've been doing the last couple of years has made a lot of sense, either (I point to elements of the stimulus package, the health-care bill, cap and trade, etc.). I was just hoping that somebody, ANYBODY, would have the courage to step up to the plate and give it to the American people straight - a Paul Tsongas type, if you will (Man, I knew that we should have cloned that guy).

Don't Be Principled/Don't Be Consistent/Do Tell

Death, taxes, and......Senator McCain moving the goal-posts yet again. I mean, seriously, folks, isn't that basically what it's all come down to here? We got what? First-off the fellow says that, once in fact the leaders of the military recommend an end to "don't ask, don't tell", he, too, would also acquiesce. THEN, when that finally DID happen (this in the form of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen), he switches his criteria to being one of which - what will the Pentagon study ultimately say? NOW, now that the Pentagon study is finally out and it says that a repeal of "don't ask/don't tell" wouldn't at all hurt the military, what does he want? HE WANTS ANOTHER FRIGGING STUDY!!!! I mean, why doesn't he just frigging admit it here - he doesn't want gays in the military EVER?...Wow, huh? And to think that I did at one time admire this individual (1999-2001).

"That's a Doctor Who Works With People's Assholes, Children"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite "Chef" ("South Park") line (this, Mr. Chef's answer to the children's rather awkward query, "What's a proctologist, Chef?")?"

Miscellaneous 43

1) I'm pretty sure that Bill O'Reilly was full of garbage last night. When Alan Colmes pointed out (correctly so, in my opinion) to him that the right didn't seem to care very much when Valerie Plame's identity got leaked by the Bush administration, O'Reilly countered this by saying that it did in fact bother him....Hm. I mean, I'll admit that I haven't seen every single minute of every single show, but I do know FOR A FACT that I personally have never seen Mr. O'Reilly express one iota of outrage over this whole blowing of Valerie Plame's cover....Now, if anybody out there has any footage of this, I'd be more than happy to check it out....And, yes, if need be, I will in fact stand corrected.............2) I'm telling you, if there's anybody out there who is more out of touch than Newt Gingrich, I FEEL SORRY FOR THEM. I do. This guy - he goes on "Hannity" tonight and says that there really isn't anything of an emergency nature that this lame-duck session of Congress needs to address and that, yes, it would in fact be a much better thing for the country if they just adjourned and went home. Yeah, huh? I mean, what here - we got close two million people who's unemployment insurance is about to run out and THAT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY? Talk about an SOB.............3) Now, this isn't to say that the Republicans don't make a good point in saying that the extension of these benefits should in fact be paid for. They probably SHOULD be paid for/off-set. But for this increasingly loathsome Gingrich character to so cavalierly say that there "aren't any emergencies out there" - that is really, really low.

Note to Mr. Olbermann

It did NOT, Mr. Olbermann, take (former head of Reagan's OMB) David Stockman 28 years to realize that Mr. Reagan's economic policy was flawed - deeply so. He said so in his memoir - you know, the one that he wrote....back in 1986!!! And the thing is, dude, you didn't even really need to read the book to realize this. All that you really needed to do was read the title of it; "The Triumph of Politics: Why the Reagan Revolution Failed". No?

I've Heard of Losing Money in Reno, But This is Ridiculous

You want to know just how bad major intercollegiate athletics has gotten these days? I'll tell you how bad it's gotten. The University of Nevada (at Reno) just pulled off one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of their athletic department. Yeah, that's right, I'm talking about their football team's thrilling upset victory of heretofore undefeated and 4th ranked Boise State (34-31 in overtime). Hm, what, pray tell, could possibly be wrong with that, you ask? I'll tell you what - one point nine million. Yep, that's how much money the university probably ended up losing by their winning of this football game. How so? It's a little something called revenue sharing. Boise State, had they in fact defeated Nevada, were poised to play in a BCS (Bowl Championship Series) post-season bowl game (one of the bigger ones, in other words) - a scenario that clearly would have ended up bringing in a lot of cash, not just to Boise State University but to the entire WAC (the Western Athletic Conference - a non BCS automatic qualifying conference). Nevada's cut of that particular pie would have been, yep, you got it, 1.9 million dollars....Talk about raining on somebody's parade.

My First Question to Senator McCain Would Probably Be....

At what point, Senator, did you ultimately conclude that Chairman Mullen and Secretary Gates were NOT the leaders of the Military (this, obviously in reference to the Senator's once having said that if in fact the leaders of the military concluded that "don't ask/don't tell" was no longer necessary, HE, Mr. McCain, would no longer support it....and now his having flip-flopped again)?

"Paul Bunyan's Axe"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, of all of these college football rivalry trophies (this one going to the winner of the annual Minnesota/Wisconsin game), which of them, in your opinion, is the coolest one?".......................................................................................................P.S. A close second would have to be the "Keg of Nails" (this one to the annual winner of the Louisville/Cincinnati game).

The Battle-Lines are Being Somethinged

To those of you who think that all of the invective comes from the right, this I share. "I have good news to report; Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide - I'm hoping that he does it on camera; suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies toward self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months."...This little ditty, folks, comes courtesy of left-wing radio host, Mike Malloy....So......

Enhanced Demonization

I have never been a supporter George W. Bush OR water-boarding. Hell, folks, I wouldn't even mind a fact-finding investigation that ended up with Mr. Cheney (especially) being "cuffed" for a while. But, please, can we at least have a little perspective here? During WW2, Churchill and Roosevelt ROUTINELY targeted major population centers in Germany, Italy, and Japan. According to MIT's John Dower, possibly up to 1.2 million civilians were slaughtered during these attacks (and, no, this doesn't even include Hiroshima and Nagasaki). So, yeah/no/I don't know, this sounds a hell of a lot more like a war-crime than Bush Inc. water-boarding a bevy of lunk-heads (and, no/again, I'm not in any way excusing it).

Man WHAT?

This, folks, from the recently defeated Tea Party candidate, Christine O'Donnell (excerpted from an interview with right-wing radio host, Mark Levin, and taking place during her Republican primary run against Mike Castle): "You know, these are the kind of cheap, underhanded, unmanly tactics that we've come to expect from Obama's favorite Republican, Mike Castle....You know, I released a statement today, saying, 'Mike this is not a bake-off, get your man-pants on'." Wow, huh? Talk about sleazy. And it's not like this was the only homophobic parley that was directed toward Castle. O'Donnell backers had on several previous occasions implied (not to mention, spread rumors and innuendo) that the former Congressman and Governor was gay. And to think that there are still people out there who were caught off guard when the woman got routed in the "general"...................................................................................................Of course, it wasn't just O'Donnell who was spouting this crap. You also had Palin (saying that President Obama didn't have "cajones") and the barely sentient Angle (telling Harry Reid to "man up") spewing similarly. And, really, think about it here for a second. What if the frigging shoe were on the other foot; male candidates telling female candidates to act 'like a lady"? I'm thinking that we'd all be going majorly ballistic...............................................................................................P.S. Oh, and, yeah, for the record, it was this triumvirate, Palin, O'Donnell, and Angle, who were more-so showing the cowardice; Palin quitting the Governorship and all of them avoiding the media (Angle literally running from it). They, folks, were the ones who really needed to "man-up".

Ralph Towner (guitar, piano), Jan Garbarek (saxes, flute), Eberhard Weber (bass, cello), Jon Christensen (drums, percussion)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, was the greatest European jazz quartet ever?"

Miscellaneous 42 (Murkowski, Olbermann, Hannity)

1) Looking for one Republican who isn't afraid of Sarah Palin? You needn't look any further than Mrs. Palin's own back-yard. Yeah, that's right, folks, I'm talking about Lisa Murkowski. According to the current (and, yes, I'll say it, future) Senator, "I just do not think that she (Mrs. Palin) has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies.....I want somebody that goes to bed at night and wakes up in the morning thinking about how we're going to deal with our national security issues, how we're going to deal with our economy, how we're going to deal with providing better education or peace in the Middle East."...Ouch, huh? Oh and, yes, here's to hoping that this is just the beginning. I mean, seriously here, don't the Democrats deserve a Republican that does to fellow Republicans what Senator Lieberman has been doing to them? It's only frigging fair, no?............2) Edward R. Murrow covered the London blitzkrieg in 1940 - out on those very same London city streets, day after day after day. What, folks, has Mr. Olbermann ever covered (other than his ass, I'm saying)? I mean, seriously here, has he ever even been out of the studio?...That, me-buckos, is at least one major distinction between these two news "reporters".............3) And then, of course, there's also Mr. Hannity. I mean, have you seen this guy lately? He's suddenly become this strongly principled libertarian dude. "How dare those miserable TSA workers take to violating our privacy (I'm paraphrasing here)." It's like, where in the hell did this come from? I certainly don't remember him being concerned about civil liberties during the Bush administration; warrantless wire-taps, etc.....Oh well, so much for this mamby-pamb/blankety blank being a principled conservative.

Kenny Wheeler

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who, in your opinion, is the most underrated jazz trumpet player ever?"

Miscellaneous 41

1) The programming commercial for tonight's' "O'Reilly Factor" was one that heavily promoted/promised its viewers a stellar, "all-star lineup". Of course, it then proceeded to tell us who these individuals were. The lineup specifically consisted of Brit Hume, Glenn Beck, Bernard Goldberg, Mary Katharine Ham, Juan Williams, and John Stossel (five conservatives and one moderate/exceedingly tame liberal, in other words). Now don't get me wrong here. Those are some fairly decent guests (Mr. Beck, possibly excepted). But collectively, NO, it doesn't even remotely resemble a fair and balanced itinerary (something, I'm sure, that even Mr. O'Reilly himself would have to admit - you know, after a couple of brewskis or so).............2) Mr. O'Reilly also refrained from showing that tape in which Barbara Bush states how she wishes that Sarah Palin would simply "go back to Alaska". His excuse for this was that he didn't know the "context" and proceeded to give some boneheaded reason pertaining to how he didn't want to get "burned again" after that whole Shirley Sherrod episode....He lied, in other words.............3) I mean, come on, let's face it here. The real reason that Mr. O'Reilly didn't show that tape was the same reason that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity didn't show it. He didn't want to embarrass a fellow conservative (a co-worker, no less). It's as simple as that, folks.............4) Speaking of Sarah Palin, if I were an Obamaite, not only would I be rooting for her (to get the Republican nomination in '012), I'd be frigging campaigning for her (undercover, obviously). I mean, come on, think about it. Of all the prospective Republican nominees, who has a lesser appeal among moderates and independents than Sarah Palin? And even if the economy doesn't get any better in the next two years, I don't know, I just can't see the electorate of this country making that woman President....Let's just call it the Sharron Angle/Christine O'Donnell Syndrome.

My New Favorite Old Expression

"A politician uses history the same way that a drunk uses a lamp-post; for support, not illumination."......While I'm not entirely sure who initially coined the phrase, I can give MIT history professor, John Dower, a shout-out for sharing it with C-Span's audience tonight. Thanks a lot Professor Dower.

What Obama's "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones, Probably Should Have Said

"Alright, here's the deal - straight up. Yes, folks, I'll admit it, I have been a rabble-rouser in the past. I've associated with some radical people, entertained some ridiculous notions, and said some inflammatory things. But that was the past, OK? I am a much different person now. I'm older, more mature, and, yes, I've finally recognized that I can make a much more constructive difference by working inside the system. I also strongly believe in President Obama and I definitely think that my extensive knowledge relative to climate change, the environment, technology, and green jobs can be a big help to him and his administration. So, yes, I'm asking of you, the American people, to focus on me NOW, on what I've become as a person AND as a professional, and to give me this chance. I promise not let you/the President down. Thank you.......Alright, now let's go to work here."

Miscellaneous 40

1) No offense to Mr. Bush, but don't you think that it would have been far better for him (not to mention the country) had he, rather than seeking his foreign policy advice from a supposed "higher father", learned the difference between a Sunni and a Shia first? I'm just asking here.............2) And while we're at it, what about those WMD? Why didn't this higher power tell the former President that there wasn't any? That's a little something else that needs to be answered.............3) To those of you out there who think that the right has overreacted to the civilian trial/verdict of Mr. Ghailani, I'd probably have to agree with you. I mean, the guy did get 20 years and maybe life. But I can also understand the consternation to this degree. The guy, in addition to his being found guilty on that one conspiracy charge, was also exonerated on the other 280-something other charges. I can absolutely see how that might stick in the craw of certain people; the victims, especially (those folks undoubtedly having an interest beyond the number of years).............4) And on this same topic, I have another question. If, as Mr. Olbermann and others have pointed out recently, this Ghailani character WOULD NOT have been released had in fact a "not guilty" verdict been rendered, then what, pray tell, was the trial itself for? Was it just a show? I don't get it.............5) Speaking of terrorist trials, it appears as if Mr. Obama has decided to kick the KSM one down the road for a while. Hm, could it be that the President is afraid of offending somebody (the right if he decides to have a civilian trial in New York City, the left if he opts instead for a military one)? I mean, that's what it looks like to me.............6) And, yes, folks, that's exactly why I like Mayor Bloomberg. That frigging guy doesn't give a shit! He'll do/say whatever he thinks is right and the hell with these opinion polls....Well, that and Mr. Hannity doesn't like him.

Moderately Entertaining, Exceedingly Weird/Paranoid

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your overall assessment of Glenn Beck?"

The Bigger the Fish, The Smellier it Tends Toward

The way that I see it, folks, there are at least two forms of active deception that partisan cable/radio hosts have been utilizing of late; a) bald-faced lies and b) ridiculous/asinine hyperbole (cherry-picking I consider to be much more along the lines of a passive/border-line unconscious phenomenon). Lying is obviously the more egregious of the two offenses (and, yes, let us hope, too, the lesser utilized) and, yes, it needs to be castigated whenever in fact its detected. But, I also have to admit it to you here, folks, all of this hyperbole is really starting to get to me, too................................................................................................Take, for example, this little (very little, actually) kernel of "truth" from my brand-new best bud, Rachel Maddow. Maddow, in characterizing the career of soon to be retiring Senator Evan Bayh, referred to the fellow as a person with NO legislative record, and a dude who has also, since he announced his retirement, done "nothing" but "bash" his fellow Democrats. It was an absolutely ludicrous statement/accusation. But, because it also happens to be her perception of things, you can't really call it a lie................................................................................................And, please, don't get me wrong here. I am not in any way saying that this a tactic specific to Maddow only....or even to all of these partisans in general. Not at all. Hell, folks, we ALL do it from time to time. All that I'm saying that they seem to do it more so - to the point of it being a staple, I'm saying....................................................................................................P.S. Just for the record, some of Mr. Bayh's legislative accomplishments include a) the first ever property tax deduction for home-owners who do not itemize, b) a new federal enforcement network to crack down on foreign competitors who are stealing American innovations through piracy and counterfeiting, c) trade adjustment assistance for workers who have lost jobs when U.S. companies move operations overseas and/or close do to foreign competition, and d) a bill to improve pediatric health-care. He has also been a strong voice against pork-barrel spending....Why don't we just face it here, folks. Mr. Bayh is a dreaded moderate, and that's the reason why Ms. Maddow unloaded upon him - purely and simply.

Uneducated, Pushing 60 (And Looking Every Inch of It), and Gruff

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what do you remember most about that battle-axe, Corrine?"

Miscellaneous 39

"False equivalence" is one of those phrases that Olbermann and Maddow have been utilizing a lot lately. They especially like to use it against people like me - people, folks, who've taken their criticizing, not only Fox for it's increasingly divisive/partisan presentation but to MSNBC for its (indiscretions). Olbermann and Maddow feel that we have unfairly lumped the two cable news stations together and that there is literally NO comparison. They're the good network, the network of truth, a network that, even though it does in fact have a viewpoint, is an operation that is solely determined by facts. Fox, they on the other hand, are strictly a propaganda wing of the Republican Party that a) lies profusely and b) engages in character assassination. There isn't, in other words, any equivalence...................................................................................................Of course, it is getting harder for them. This, folks, in that, not only have Jon Stewart and the folks at "Saturday Night Live" taken them, MSNBC, to task but, so, too, have such journalistic stalwarts as Campbell Brown, David Zurawick, Howard Kurtz, and Ted Koppel. Hell, folks, even Senator Jay Rockefeller has taken note of their mean-spiritedness and called them on it. It's like, what, all of them are full of bull-crap, too?......................................................................................................And, really, what if they're at least partially right about Fox being worse than them, more depraved, etc., does that in any way signify that they've been good? Of course, it doesn't. It doesn't, for instance, change one iota the character assassinations that Mr. Olbermann perpetrated on David Zurawick, Senator Brown, etc., the bald faced lies that he told about Major Jacobs, Joe the (admittedly mentally challenged) Plumber, etc.. And it certainly doesn't change the absolutely bald-faced lie that Maddow recently told about Congressman Stockman (her saying that he had received advance notice that the Oklahoma City bombings were going to happen)......................................................................................................How 'bout this for a compromise, folks? On a scale of 1-10, Fox is a 2, MSNBC, a 3.5.

A Break From the Chatter

I saw Rachel Maddow's interview with Jon Stewart the other day. And, yes, I have to admit it here, it was an extremely good one. Ms. Maddow (still evidently put off by Stewart's having lumped MSNBC and Fox together) was very gracious and her questions fair. She also let Mr. Stewart talk and fully explain himself (take a lesson, Mr. O'Reilly)............................................................................................As for Stewart himself, so, too, does he, the guest, deserve some credit. This, in that, rather than being taken in by Ms. Maddow's charm (which, I'll admit, can be palpable at times) and cow-towing to her, he gave it to her straight - pointing out that MSNBC has in fact heightened the dialogue to a very troubling degree. But, yes, me-buckos, so, too, was he civil...............................................................................................Overall, I'd have to say that it was a very good example of what cable-news CAN BE, if in fact it wants to.

Ann Miller and Cyd Charisse (Circa 1953) 2

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what (or, in this case, who) are you thinking about right now?"

There's MoreThan One Way to Skin a Critic

The increasingly thin-skinned Olbermann is at it YET AGAIN. This time, though, it's Ted Koppel who's apparently pissed Mr. Prima Donna off. Yes, folks, I'm pointing specifically here to the fact that Olbermann didn't at all appreciate Koppel's op-ed column in the Washington Post - a piece, evidently, in which Koppel had the unmitigated audacity to criticize Olbermann's shameless advocacy/preaching to the choir form of journalism. But this time, instead of simply slapping Koppel on the wrist (as he did to John Stewart for a similar criticism), or adding him onto his worst person's list (as he did to Campbell Brown for ditto), Mr. Olbermann put forth an entire special comments segment - not only criticizing Koppel's criticism, but hammering the venerable journalist as well (even going as far as to blame him for his not being able to uncover, a priori, the Bush administration's "lies" about WMD). I'm telling you here, folks, it was actually quite creepy - the entirety of it! I mean, he even took a pot-shot at Anderson Cooper, too....Collateral damage, I gather.

Open Mouth - Open Mind

Looking for another reason to NOT lump Chris Matthews in with Olbermann and Maddow? Hows about look no further than to Mr. Matthews' reaction to that just released report from Obama's deficit commission. Instead of immediately dismissing it as being cruel, extreme, heartless, etc. (basically what his colleagues, Maddow and Olbermann, did), Mr. Matthews praised it for being balanced and helpful. It seems, folks, that, yes, in spite of that sometimes partisan outer-skin of his, this fellow is at least willing to consider ideas and approaches that fail to pass muster with a rigid ideology. Who knows - maybe that crazy son of a bitch SHOULD have run for the Senate this year. I mean, really, could he have been any worse....

YOU'RE MOTHER WAS RIGHT, YOU COULD NEVER COMPETE WITH LLOYD BRAUN!!!

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite verbal rampage from Frank Costanza?"

By Hook or by Schnook

Sean Hannity is either a bald-faced lying fool....or he's delusional (a person of supreme idiocy is no doubt also a possibility). When characterizing the fact that the Democrats are currently opposed to people making over $250,000 a year getting a tax-cut extension, this fellow literally utters, "small business owners, in other words." I mean, COME ON, I thought that everybody in his right mind knew by now that a scant 2-3% of small business owners make a quarter of a million a year? But, NOOOOOOO, continue to perpetuate this Republican talking point...................................................................................................Look, folks, I thought that I had put forth a reasonably good compromise. Yes, extend the middle-class tax-cuts (a reasonable thing to do during a recession). But this time raise the threshold to 300-400 thousand a year. This way you basically hit ALL small businesses and, yes, better yet, you take a way the talking-point (forcing them to use the class-warfare one instead). I'm thinking that the Democrats should put this forward and dare the Republicans to reject it.That way we can see if THOSE individuals have some "cajones" (palinologically speaking).

Maria McKee

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who, in your opinion, is the greatest folk/country singer of all time?"

Maria McKee

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who, in your opinion, is the greatest rock and roll singer of all time?"

Note to Joe Miller

Dude, ya' lost. And you've apparently lost decidedly, too. Don't you think that maybe it's about time that you, you know, "manned up"....and accepted it?....For the will of the people (a central tenet of the Tea Party - no?), I'm saying..................................................................................................P.S. Sorry to spell it out for you like this....Get it - "spell it out" for you? LOL

Ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

What has been the general response of the Republicans to the question, "So, what, specifically, do you plan to cut?"

"Can I Get Back to You on This One?"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what do you find more irritating; Sarah Palin's inane and often divisive 'commentary', or the smarmy/'holier than thou' critiques of this commentary by left-wing radio and cable hosts?"

Fitting the Bill/Bull

I can't believe it. The right is STILL trying to tar Mr. Obama with this whole Bill Ayers thing. Yes, folks, I cite specifically that same old bromide that Mr. Obama launched his political career in the living room of Mr. Ayers, unrepentant terrorist, yada yada. It's bullshit. And, yes, anybody who's taken the time to research this topic knows that it's bullshit.......................................................................................................First of all, Mr. Obama (in his quest to be a state Senator) was the hand-picked replacement of his predecessor, Alice Palmer. Secondly, Mr. Obama made his official announcement (that he was running) at the Hyde Park Ramada Inn on 9/19/95. Thirdly, Mr. Obama's initial "coffee" was NOT at the home of Bill Ayers but at the home of local rabbi. Yes, folks, there ultimately was a coffee at the Ayers house but it was supposedly for Palmer and not for Mr. Obama (though, yes, the future President was introduced to those in attendance)..................................................................................................In my opinion, this whole mess has been ginned up by the right in an effort to marginalize/demonize Mr. Obama....He served on a board. So what! There were a lot of Republicans who served on that same board and some of them even praised Mr. Ayers's contribution to local education. But, no, focus in on this one individual in an effort to bring him down. It's extremely sad, I think........................................................................................................P.S. And as far as this whole "I wish I had done more" comment attributed to Mr. Ayers, so, too, has that been gussied up. Ayers was talking in a general sense (he wishes that he had done more to opposed the Vietnam War). He wasn't saying that he wishes that he had blown up more property........................................................................................................."Palling around with terrorists", my ass.

On Why I Don't Consider President Obama to be a Radical

1) The health care plan of President Obama (while obviously flawed) is essentially the same as Mitt Romney's MA plan, the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett plan (a plan that as many as 9 Republican co-sponsors), and the 1993 Republican alternative to Hillary-care. It did NOT contain a public option and, yes, actually gave more power to the insurance companies.............2) The TARP bailout program that Mr. Obama supported was also supported by President Bush and dozens of Republican Senators.............3) The stimulus package (which I've freely admitted here to be flawed) contained in it some 300 billion dollars in TAX CUTS (a concept that the Republicans usually warmly embrace).............4) The President has sent 30,000 additional troops to the Afghan theater.............5) The President has seriously amped up the drone attacks into Northern Pakistan.............6) The President continues to use rendition, warrentless wire-tapping, and GITMO.............7) The President has shown virtually zero leadership in getting rid of don't-ask/don't-tell.............8) The President has actually INCREASED defense spending.............9) Etc., etc....................................................................................................I mean, don't get me wrong here. President Obama no doubt IS a liberal. But he really doesn't seem appreciably different than a lot of the other mainstream Dems. At least he doesn't seem to be from what is my essentially centrist perspective.

"I Don't Know, It Would Probably Be a Toss-Up Between Betty Grable and Jayne Mansfield"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who, in your opinion, is the most overrated sex symbol in history?"............P.S. I was going to say Pia Zadora, but I'm not entirely sure if most people ever really thought of her as a sex symbol (the normal ones, I'm saying).

"It's About Time That Those Mother Effers Ate a Little Crow"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your reaction to those Texas Longhorns being only 4-5 so far this year?"

Miscellaneous 38

1) Just for the sake of argument here, let's just say that the global-warming deniers are right; that there isn't global-warming, and/or if in fact there is, it isn't in any way caused by human activity. Does that then mean that we shouldn't in any way curb pollution, or that we shouldn't at all conserve? I'm just asking here. I mean, it just seems like we're constantly getting involved in all of these preposterous either-or/black-and-white free for alls and, yes, constantly missing the enormous areas of common ground. Seriously, shouldn't we ALL want to curb air pollution (this, to cut down on lung cancer, asthma, etc.)/preserve our natural resources. Granted, we would want to do it in a way that wouldn't totally disrupt the economy. But that's where the compromise and negotiation come in - you know, all of that good stuff that LBJ and Everett Dirksen used to do, the stuff that Reagan and Tip O'Neal used to do.............2) There's this blogger out there who's constantly trying to convince me that tax rates and economic activity are completely unrelated, and that most of our economic activity is strictly dependent upon other factors; demographics, interest rates, etc.. My response to him has always been that, while, yes, there may in fact be a whole host of other factors involved, there has to be at least some interrelationship between taxes and economic growth. For instance/I would ask him, if a person and/or business has been paying X taxes in state/country A, would there not be at least a semblance of a chance that that individual/business would move to state/country B if the taxes in that state/country were say X/2? Yes, of course, there may in fact be other factors such as education and productivity to consider but, in addition to those, I'm saying....Needless to say, I haven't had a lot of success in convincing him.

Donna Reed (The Pre "Donna Reed Show" Era)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who, in your opinion, is the most underrated sex symbol in history?"

Jon Stewart NAILING IT!!

"You can't defeat Fox by becoming what they say you are. The only way you can defeat them is by an earned credibility, not an earned partisanship. They're (MSNBC) making a mistake by becoming an equivalent to Fox rather than a brand new journalistic organization."

Miscellaneous 37

1) Michele Bachman, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and, yes, a whole host of others, have recently hit the airwaves with this little ditty. They're claiming that President Obama's upcoming trip to Asia will ultimately cost the American tax-payers 200 million dollars PER DAY....Seriously, folks, this is what they're saying (now, please, keep in mind here, President Obama's 30,000 soldier troop surge in Afghanistan is "only" costing the tax-payers 82 billion a day - the "Christin Science Monitor"). Hm, it kinda sounds like bullshit, doesn't it?............2) Add me to the list of people who's really starting to like Meghan McCain. I mean, sure, she does sound a little like a "Valley Girl" and all but, damn it, I really am starting to like that spunkiness (I, of course, especially liked it when she took on Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham SIMULTANEOUSLY!)....While this is probably not a fair and/or apt analogy (this, in that the woman is still quite young and inexperienced), the way that this McCain has taken on the right-wing of today's Republican party/movement, to me anyway, seems at least somewhat reminiscent of the way that Margaret Chase Smith took on Joe McCarthy in the 50s/Lowell Weicker took on the Nixon administration during Watergate. One, me-buckos, can only hope that this is a portent of more good things to come.............3) Fox's election coverage was obviously biased. Yes, they did have more than the one (nominally) liberal commentator, Ed Schoen (so, yeah, you're right, Mr. O'Reilly, Dana Milbank in fact DID lie about that) but, still, it wasn't nearly enough. a) They continued to have far more conservative commentators. b) The liberals/Democrats that they did have on were either pseudo-liberals (Schoen and Pat Caddell) and/or ineffectual (Alan Colmes, Kirsten Powers). c) The narrative was continuously one of always having the Dems on the defensive....But, yes, I'm telling you here, as bad as it was over at Fox, it wasn't anywhere near as bad as that absolute stench that their competition, MSNBC, had. That network, folks, featured 6 of their most virulently partisan ramrods (Olbermann, Schultz, Maddow, Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Eugene Robinson), not only doing the commentary but the moderation part as well....Worse than even that, though, they had ZERO conservatives on - no fairness/balance whatsoever. Bottom line, it had to be one of the all-time worst displays of propaganda journalism ever. Whoever the person in charge of that network is should be deeply ashamed.

The Specifics of Nothing

I have no idea how effective the new Republican Congress will ultimately be. As a patriotic American citizen, I'm hoping that they're extremely effective (I, unlike Mr. Limbaugh, root for the country to do well whoever is in charge). But, I also have tell you here, if the Republican Party is in any way typified by Kentucky Congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, then, yeah, we could definitely be in for a rough go of it. Blackburn, folks, went on national television last night and tried to argue that we could majorly reduce the budget deficit solely by reducing discretionary spending (something less than 10% of the Federal budget). It was (IMO) absurd!..........................................................................................Look, folks, I know that the old-style/rank and file/moderate Republican of the past is highly out of style these days. But at least those mellow fellows (Howard Baker, Bob Michael, Gerry Ford, etc.) could count. They could count. You know what I'm sayin'?

Note to Jim Demint

Dude, no offense here, but you beat a frigging tree-trunk tonight. Did you really, REALLY, need a victory speech/celebration to punctuate it? I mean, come on. Alright? Enough.

Beauty, Talent, Style, Class, And Fitness

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what are the top 5 things that you like (as in most turn you on) about Ann Miller and Cyd Charisse (circa 1948-1957)?"

Miscellaneous 36

1) While I like Charlie Crist and probably WOULD vote for him if I lived in Florida, I do have to admit it here, folks, some of the stuff that they've been saying about him (i.e., that he's a weasel, an opportunist, etc.) may in fact be true. For instance, I was watching part of one the recent debates down there, and Mr. Crist went on to say that, even if he had won the Republican nomination, he still would have left the Republican Party....Now, I don't know about you people, but, to me, that just doesn't pass the smell-test (leaving a political party right after you had won the nomination of that party). And, yes, me-buckos, add to that the fact that he STILL won't tell the public which party he intends to caucus with. I mean, I really hate to say it here, but, yeah, damned if it isn't starting to smell like some rank opportunism - or at least that's the way that I'm beginning to see it (though, yes, like I said, I'd still probably vote for him).............2) I saw an interesting "60 Minutes " piece a few weeks ago. They had this expert on who was saying that Medicare fraud has now eclipsed drug dealing as the number one crime in all of Southern Florida. I don't know, I guess that Medicare has basically become little more than a check-writing enterprise. You've got a lot of these fly-by-nights/bogus store-fronts who are literally billing Medicare for nothing. And they don't get caught because a) Medicare still has very little in terms of fraud prevention and b) by the time that suspicion does arise, the bastards have moved on to yet another scam/neighborhood. President Obama said that Medicare fraud was going to be one of his priorities. Hopefully, folks, it will continue to be so....P.S. But just for some added inducement here, hows about this one? If President Obama can significantly reduce Medicare fraud, not only will I vote for him again, I will personally carve his likeness onto Rushmore.

Ann Miller and Cyd Charisse (Circa 1953)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who are the two women that you'd most want to see naked....together?"

Listen to Me, I'm Always Right 22

Rachel Maddow and Paul Krugman are just flat-out geniuses. Not, mind you, because they necessarily know what they're talking about, but because of this fool-proof form of logic that they've somehow/incredibly constructed (a system of argument in which they simply cannot be proven wrong)................................................................................................Here, me-buckos, is basically how it works (and, yes, I'm obviously referring here to their somewhat radical views on deficit/stimulus spending). If and when, on those sporadic occasions when government spending does stimulate the economy, there they are, Ms. Maddow and Mr. Krugman, obviously (and, yes, perhaps legitimately so) claiming that they're right. But, when in fact it doesn't work, they can also claim to be right by simply saying that the spending wasn't large enough..............................................................................................So, for instance, when somebody points out that the Japanese stimulus programs of the '90s didn't work, they can simply counter this by saying that that was only because the packages weren't large enough. They can also say that the reason Roosevelt never got us out of the Great Depression was because he didn't spend ENOUGH, that the reason Mr. Carter never really got the economy going (in the '70s) was because HE didn't spend enough, that the reason the latest U.S. stimulus program (all 862 billion of it) hasn't been effective (some conservatives would say that it hasn't been effective at all - I personally wouldn't go THAT far) was because IT wasn't big enough.............................................................................................You do see what I'm saying here, right? You simply cannot beat them. Well, unless, that is, you take a shot and maybe point out the absurdity of it . Not, of course, that they're ever going to admit to....

Sentries

This is probably going to piss off both sides BUT, in my opinion, one of the major reasons that we had continuous peace and prosperity in the '90s was BECAUSE of divided government. The Republican Congress kept a check on the Clinton administration, and vice versa. Now, absolutely, we weren't able to accomplish everything (a reform of the health-care system, the most obvious omission). But think about it here, 20 million new jobs and four consecutive budget surpluses - does that not look like a pretty good record?...............................................................................................Of course, the question is, can something of a similar nature occur if the Republicans take control of the Congress this year? A great many people say no. They point to the fact that Obama appears to be far more of an ideologue than Clinton and, hence, he may not be able to triangulate like the latter. "They" also point to the increasingly strident nature of the Tea Party movement, the fact that this movement has more or less co-opted the Republican machine (the implication being that they're not going to want to be bipartisan, either)...........................................................................................Hopefully, though, there will be more cooperation. I mean, think about it, we've got what on the horizon; immigration reform, entitlement reform, deficit reduction? I personally don't see any of these things that can be solved by one party alone.....The way that I see it here - get something substantively done, and then argue over who gets the credit afterwards.

Miscellaneous 35

1) Yes, folks, I voted for Mr. Obama. But I voted for him, not because I thought that he was the "next Lincoln"....or the "next JFK"....or the "next FDR"....or the "next Ike"....or the "next Truman". I voted for him largely because his opponent, Mr. McCain, was talking like a crazy-man (sing-songing about devastating aerial attacks, engaging in a litany of bizarre 180s, etc.) . I, in other words, was voting for the lesser of the inadequate choices. Never once, folks, did ever buy into this whole "he's a new brand of politician" nonsense. Just for the God-damned record, I'm saying.............2) I have to admit it here, I've never really cared that much for Barbara Boxer. But when that individual went out of her way to get the General to address her as "Senator", man oh man, I'd probably have to say that it was THAT that really put me over the edge. I mean, talk about some severe pomposity!....And, yeah, I'll flat-out say it here, ignorance, too. Ma'am and Sir. That is HOW the military is directed to talk to civilians. It's like, what, she didn't frigging know that?....I actually kind of hope that Fiorina beats her. If nothing else, she's easier on the eyes.............3) Tony Perkins (he of the Family Research Council) went on National television last week ("Parker-Spitzer, I believe) and proclaimed that getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" would allow for "open homosexuality in the military." He told a bald-faced lie, in other words. Getting rid of "don't ask, don't tell" would do literally NOTHING to the current code of conduct in the military. It would still be against protocol to fraternize. This Perkins dude is either an idiot or he's trying to gin-up fear. Either way, he was clearly being a dick.

Miscellaneous 34

1) I live in (supposedly) the tough part of town. And I have to be honest with you here. When I'm out late at night walking, and I see some young people (they're almost always white - so, please, do not go there), I DO tend to get nervous. Does this mean that I'm stereotyping/sliming all of the young people in my neighborhood? I sure as hell hope that it doesn't. And, yeah, this is exactly why I'm willing to give Juan Williams a break on his recent controversial comments on Muslims (that, and, plus, if you listen to the entirety of Mr. Williams's comments, he was basically defending Muslims).............2) I also have to wonder here. What if Mr. Williams had made a similarly disparaging/stereotypical comment about the Tea Party people? Would NPR have fired his sorry ass for that? I personally don't think that they would have. Hell, folks, they might have even given him a raise/contract extension.............3) They say that even a broken clock is right twice a day. To which I would always counter by saying, "Yeah, well what about Tom Tancredo?" Well, guess what, folks? It looks like I finally might have to add Mr. Tancredo's name to the adage. I was watching Fox the other day and in this interview he said that, GET THIS, we really need to look at legalizing marijuana, that the "war on drugs" is failing, and that the legalization of pot would be one effective way to neutralize the drug cartel. Wow, huh? Let's just say that I couldn't frigging believe it....You go, Mr. Tom Tancredo.

If Sisyphus Had a Shovel

One of the things that bugs me most about Mr. O'Reilly is the fact that he NEVER....STOPS....DIGGING! It's like with this whole "Muslims attacked us on 9/11" situation. All that the SOB really needed to do was simply say, "Yeah, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that all Muslims had some culpability here. I probably should have clearer that it was the extremists who were responsible." And, yes, me-buckos, that clearly would have been that. But nooooooooooo, he had to dig in his heels and get all defensive about it."......................................................................................................And he's continuing to be defensive about it. I mean, he's even going as far as to try and rationalize away some of the more unimpeachable criticisms. When, for instance, Barbara Walters (quite correctly, in my opinion) pointed out (to him) that the analogy between WW2 Japan and today's Islamic terrorist situation isn't a correct one - that Japan is a specific nation and Islam a world-wide religion - he's even been trying to rebuff that (granted, it took him a couple of days to come up with something). He pointed out that Afghanistan (this, in that it harbored Al Qaeda) and Iran (in that it continues to sponsor terrorism) are in fact Muslim countries, countries to which we've had a lot of trouble with....and, hence, it is a good analogy......................................................................................................Of course, what he doesn't tell us is that a) Afghanistan and Iran are only two of what are a lot of Muslim countries (several of which we've supposedly "liberated") and b) a lot of the Iranian population is actually quite PRO western. And, yes, folks, even with the Taliban - yes, they gave safe sanction to Al Qaeda and, yes, they've treated their people like garbage. but THEY THEMSELVES didn't attack us on 9/11. We could have very easily gone in their, annihilated Al Qaeda and left. As it turned out, we've probably created more of these mother-frigging terrorists. Atta boy, Mr. O'Reilly.........................................................................................................And to think that I was defending this guy only a couple of weeks ago.

"This Has All the Excitement of a Spanish Silent Movie"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's you all-time favorite Howard Cosell commentary during a heavyweight title fight (Muhammad Ali vs. Alfredo Evangelista, 1977)?

Some Interesting Quotes

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al qaeda - worse for society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."....Keith Olbermann, "Playboy" magazine (2007)............"Olbermann's become O'Reilly on the left - completely predictable, unfunny, and arrogant."....Michael Kazin, Georgetown University............"To my mind, what he (Olbermann) does is no different from Hannity and O'Reilly....At least Hannity and O'Reilly engage with the other side (if merely just to yell at them). Olbermann is just an echo chamber."....Michael Cohen, New America Foundation............"A man (Olbermann) of middling intelligence who imagines himself as Goethe."....Some anonymous blogger over at hotair.com.

Stephanie Seymour, BY FAR!!!

What would be my answer to the question, "So, who's your all-time favorite supermodel?"

The Truth About True Colors

The next two years have the potential to be very informative. I especially think that we're going to have the chance to see a) President Obama and b) the Tea Party in some very new and unique situations (potentially, I'm saying)...........................................................................................................For Mr. Obama, I especially see this in terms of "don't ask, don't tell". This, in that, clearly, after the election, even more so than now, the Democrats will surely NOT have a veto-proof majority. And, yes, me-buckos, because of this, the only way that President Obama will be able to halt, en masse, the discharges that result from the policy (yes, I know, he needs the Congress to pass a law to permanently eliminate it - but, just to halt the God-damned bleeding, I'm saying) is an executive order. Will he, my friends, have the political courage to do it? Me - I'm not entirely sure. My suspicion is that, if he thinks that it'll hurt him politically, he won't. Obviously here, I hope that I'm wrong..........................................................................................................As for the Tea Party, their big test will be if the Republicans ends up nominating Mr. Romney. Will they, as the clearly have with Mr. Obama, take the former Massachusetts Governor to task for his (let's face it here, VERY) liberal record (his hugely expensive health-care policy, in particular)? Or, folks, will they (in a move that would clearly indicate something FAR beyond politics) give him a pass? I don't know but, either way, it should be interesting, huh?

Miscellaneous 33

1) I don't always agree with Fox News's/syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer (especially so when it comes to foreign policy). But, I do have to tell you here, he did say something the other day to which I TOTALLY agree with. Mr. Krauthammer suggested that both parties AND the media come to an agreement which states that life officially begins for candidates AFTER COLLEGE. So, yeah/no, no more of this idiotic witchcraft, bearded Marxist, bowing down to "Aqua Buddha" bullshit. All candidates get a pass.....Better yet, we all get a break.....Very good suggestion there, Chuckster.......2) Considering that Kathleen Edwards actually comes from Canada, it probably shouldn't come as a surprise that the songwriting genius will, from time to time, throw into the mix a hockey metaphor. But, folks, I'm telling you here, on "I Make the Dough, You Get the Glory", damned if she didn't even surprise me/take it up another notch. The woman actually bellows out to some horseshoe-up-his-ass lover/douche-bag, "You're the 'Great One', I'm Marty McSorley." I mean, talk about some major-league sarcasm.......3) Just the other night, O'Reilly did this segment in which he asks his viewers (the tease), "Does President Obama have a trust problem with the American public?" O.K./fine, fair question.....But then I started thinking about it. Did Mr. O'Reilly ever do a similar segment on President Bush (you know, being that THAT President got us into a shitty war, racked up humongous deficits, etc.)? Hm. I personally don't recall there being one. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Miscellaneous 32

1) I am NOT a violent human-being. And I especially do not condone violence against women. But, I really have to tell you here, during that recent Nevada Senate debate, when Sharron Angle tried to slime/tar and feather Harry Reid with all of that, "So, Harry, where did you get all of that money on a Senator's salary?" bullshit, there is, folks, at least a possibility that it wouldn't have bothered me if somebody had bitch-slapped her. I mean, yes, I really do hate to admit it BUT, damn it all, that was just flat-out despicable, even for Sharron Angle.......2) Oh, how utterly predictable these partisan "news" cable shows have stunningly become. Just tonight, for example, Sean Hannity focuses like a frigging laser on Jack Conway (running for the Senate in Kentucky against Rand Paul), the fact that Mr. Conway's recent ad against Mr. Paul was disgusting/slimy (and it was), etc.. This, while, at the same time, he totally ignores the apparently thuggish actions of the Miller campaign up in Alaska. Dud, huh?....Oh, and, yeah, Olbermann, that guttersnipe -he, of course, does the exact/mirror opposite; focuses like a laser on Miller and totally ignores Conway. I mean, come on here, FOLKS, is this not getting ridiculous, cartoon-like, etc.?

Really? Yeah, Right

Some of these situation comedies on television are absolutely hilarious. Not because they're necessarily funny, mind you, but because of the absurdity of the assumptions involved. I mean, just look at the ridiculousness of some of these married "couples"; Jim Belushi with Courtney Thorne Smith ("According to Jim"), Kevin James with Leah Remini ("The King of Queens"), Michael Chiklis with Julie Benz (the upcoming "No Ordinary Family"), Cheryl Hines with Larry David ("Curb Your Enthusiasm"), all of those idiotic/ridiculous combinations in "Yes, Dear", "Still Standing", etc.. Do, folks, ANY of these combinations sound plausible? And it's frigging been like this FOR EVER; Elizabeth Montgomery with Dick York ("Bewitched"), Larry Hagman with Barbara Eden ("I Dream of Jeannie"), Whitney Blake with Don DeFore ("Hazel"), etc., etc.!....................................................................................................I mean, don't get me wrong here, folks. I wish to hell that life DID work this way (and, yeah, I guess that in some instances it ultimately does; Felicity Huffman and William H. Macy come to mind). But, come on, the absurdity of it, I'm saying - the pure, unadulterated absurdity of it.