A Question Pertaining to the Palestinians 1

If Western Palestine (i.e., what we presently consider to be Israel) had such a long-standing population of indigenous "Palestinians" residing there for centuries, then why did the United Nations Relief and Work Agency feel the need to alter their definition of "refugees" to include all of those who had lived in Palestine for only a minimum of TWO YEARS prior to the 1948 conflict? Hm, could it possibly be due to the fact that they wanted to hide the reality that a great number of these so-called refugees had originally come from Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Albania, Transjordan, Cyprus, and dozens of other countries? That's kind of what I'm thinking that it was.

Despicable Alan

Former Florida Congressman, Alan Grayson, in one of the most despicable campaign ads in U.S. history, referred to his opponent, Daniel Webster, as "Taliban Dan". I mean, I know that it was hyperbole and all and that, yes, Mr. Webster evidently IS a Bible-thumper of sorts, but to compare him to the Taliban was not only vile but abjectly stupid.............................................................................................For instance, Mr. Webster has never advocated that women wear burqas. He's never said that they shouldn't be able to work. He's never said that they shouldn't be allowed an education after the age of eight. He's never said that they shouldn't be allowed to be treated by male doctors (not that there ARE any female doctors) unless accompanied by a male chaperon. He's never said that they should face public floggings and executions for breaking religious laws. He's never advocated for forced marriages or the marriages of girls under 16. He's never advocated that women not speak loudly in public. He's never advocated for a severe restriction of movement for women. And he's never advocated that women not be allowed on radio, television, or at public gatherings. For Mr. Grayson to have even intimated that the admittedly doltish Mr. Webster (I'm afraid that you're going to have to call him Congressman Webster now) is analogous to these vile creatures was completely/totally over the line, IMO............................................................................................P.S. And, yes, Mr. Grayson absolutely DID splice tape. He took some isolated words from what was an essentially benign speech by Mr. Webster and made it sound as if he was saying something far more sinister. Mr. Grayson tried to justify it by pointing to other speeches by Mr. Webster and his voting record. But even if in fact that's true, you still don't splice and dice and engage in sleaziness. Nope, you take the ACTUAL words from the ACTUAL speeches and laws and attempt to make your point from those. You do it the old-fashioned honest way, in other words.

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=588619

An interesting article on the new Rhode Island voter ID bill. You just might want to check it out.

Miscellaneous 103

1) Ed Schultz is insane. The man actually thinks that CNN's Anderson Cooper ( a person whose pencil Mr. Schultz couldn't even carry) and GQ Magazine are conspiring against him. And he doesn't just think it, folks, he says it (on the frigging air, no less)! HE SAYS IT!! How anybody could give even an ounce of credence to this Hannityesque lunatic is astonishing.............2) And, no, splicing tape in order to make a person who you happen not to like look bad (as Mr. Schultz and his staff absolutely did to Governor Perry) isn't an "error" or a "mistake". It's a willful act of character assassination and Schultz should have apologized (not to his audience, I'm saying, but to Mr. Perry) IMMEDIATELY.............3) Hm, let's see here, who do I pick; the Thomas Edisons, Steve Jobses, Henry Fords, Walt Disneys, Eli Whitneys, Oprah Winfreys, Dorothy Gerbers, Alexander Graham Bells, Clarance Birdseyes, Samuel McIntires, Robert Fultons, William Randolph Hearsts, Charles Goodyears, and John D. Rockefellers of the world, or the idiots who gave us the Alien and Sedition Act, the Missouri Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Act, the Enlarged Homestead Act, Strategic Hamlet (not to mention the Vietnam War in general), Prohibition, Watergate, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ethanol subsidies, the Shah of Iran, Amtrak, nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, Cash for Clunkers, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, etc., etc., etc.?....Ah, yeah, that's a really tough one. NOT!............4) Look, folks, I'm not saying that there isn't a role for government in the economy. There definitely IS a role, a significant role. But it has to be more along the lines of a facilitator and collaborator, not along the lines of a dictator....At least that's the way that I see it anyway.............5) As I was watching Sean Hannity lob one softball after another at Rick Perry and Ed Schultz doing something very similar to one of his guests, I couldn't help but lament out loud, "Man, do I ever miss Tim Russert." Yeah, huh?

On the Current Mess in North Korea 1

I'm still waiting for a Kim Jong Dung.

My New Favorite Dennis Miller Joke

On Barnie Frank - he's Nancy Pelosi with a spittle problem.

The Skeptics 1

1) Ivar Giaever - Nobel Prize winner for physics.............2) Dr. Joanne Simpson - atmospheric scientist, first woman in the world to ever earn a PhD in meteorology.............3) Dr. Kiminon Itoh - environmental physical chemist.............4) Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck - chemical engineer Abo Akademi University of Finland.............5) Dr. Pal Brekke - solar physicist and senior adviser to the Norwegian Space Center in Oslo.............6) Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera - researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.............7) Geoffrey Duffy - professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering University of Aukland.............8) Dr. William Briggs - climate statistician at the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee.............9) Andrei Kapista - Russian geographer and Antarctic ice-core researcher.............10) Dr. Will Happer - physicist Princeton.............11) Dr. Miklos Zagoni - Hungarian physicist.............12) Dr. David Gee - geologist Uppsala University Sweden.............13) Dr. Philip Lloyd - nuclear physicist and chemical engineer.............14) James Peden - atmospheric physicist and formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.............15) Dr. Phil Chapman - astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut/M.I.T. physics professor.............16) Delgado Domingos - environmental scientist and founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast Group.............17) Dr. Takeda Kunihiko - vice chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research Chuba University Japan.............18) Dr. Eduardo Tonni - paleontologist at the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires.............19) Dr. Art Douglas - atmospheric scientist Creighton University.............20) D. Patrick Frank - more than 50 peer reviewed articles.............21) Jack Schmitt - astronaut (Apollo 17)/geologist and formerly of the Norwegian and U.S. geological surveys.............22) Dr. Richard Keen - climatologist University of Colorado.............23) Dr. G. LeBlanc Smith - Principal research scientist with Australia's Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.............24) Dr. Arun Ahluwalia - geologist Purijab University India.............25) Dr. Roy Spencer - climatologist University of Alabama (formerly of NASA).............26) Dr. Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist M.I.T. 27) Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds more..............................................................................................Look, folks, I'm not saying that there isn't global-warming, or even that man hasn't played a role in it. I'm just saying that MAYBE we need to show a little bit of prudence, for Christ (the fact that Boone Pickens couldn't make a go of it with windmills, the fact that even with an $8,000 tax credit nobody really wanted those crappy electric cars, Solyndra, etc.).

Michael Crichton on "Scientific Consensus"

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus."............This, to all of the people out there who think that the global-warming debate is settled.

Angelina JoWHO?

Faye Dunaway, circa late 60s - early 70s.

College Football Tidbits 1

1) Finally some decent news for beleaguered Maryland football coach, Randy Edsall. The fellow actually struck it rich on the recruiting trail this week. Abner Logan (the 24th best outside linebacking prospect in the country/3rd best prospect overall from the state of Massachusetts), in a move that fully surprised everybody, said NO to N.C. State and verbally committed to Maryland. It was a humongous get for Mr. Edsall and it apparently gave him some major mojo, too....Yeah, you got, it later in the week, he landed yet another bell-wringer. Dallas Griffiths (an awesome name for a baller, no?), a heat-seeking missile of a linebacker out of Tallahassee Florida, also committed to Maryland. Two major gets in one week. Maybe Randy Edsall CAN recruit after all.............2) Looking for a sleeper for next year's Heisman Trophy race? You just might want to take a look at T.C.U. quarterback, Casey Pachall (pronounced Paul-Hall)? The dude (who'll only be a junior next season), in what was only his first year as a starter, was absolutely sensational this year. He ended up passing for 2,921 yards (a 66.5 completion percentage), 25 touchdowns, and only 7 interceptions. He also led the Horned Frogs to an 11-2 record, a Mountain West Conference championship, and, YES SIR, even a victory over Boise State, AT BOISE (the frigging Broncos hardly ever lose at home). If Mr. Pachall can duplicate these accomplishments next year, don't be surprised to see him in New York City next January.

"Alan Keyes Is Foaming at the Mouth" (With Apologies to "Alan Keyes's Head Is Exploding")

What would be my answer to the question, "So, would do you think that Mr. Keyes's program SHOULD have been called?"

On Me and My Preoccupation With All Things Alan Keyes 1

Let's just refer to it as a cottage industry of sorts.

On Rachel Maddow 1

Her uncritical acceptance of anything that Paul Krugman and other stoogely Keynesians say is borderline frightening.

On Sean Hannity 1

He makes Gomer Pyle sound like a cross between Alfred North Whitehead and Karl Popper.

"Alan Keyes Is Making Sense"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, is the most inappropriately titled program in television history?"

On the Job Straining

Let me start off by saying that I like President Obama. I think that he's both a good and decent family man and a patriotic American (he's especially proven effective at smoking terrorists). And, no, I don't think that he's been nearly as bad a President as some of my conservative colleagues have alleged. But I do think that he's been hampered by at least a couple of factors this term. a) The fellow had zero experience as an administrator (he's never, for example, been a governor, a mayor, or an executive of any kind) and b) he had perilously little experience in the private sector. In my opinion, had he had these experiences in his background, he probably would have been far better capable of marshaling a significantly better health-care plan, stimulus package, etc.......................................................................................................Now, is this to say that John McCain, or even Hillary Clinton, would have done a better job had they been elected? No, not at all (Mr. McCain especially seemed erratic back then). It just means that maybe, just maybe, a little more seasoning (I mean, really, what in the heck was he; a college professor, a community organizer, a state senator, a victor over the idiot, Alan Keyes?) wouldn't have hurt.

On Ron Paul 1

I just wish that there was a "Ron Paul Lite" out there (i.e., a person who shared Mr. Paul's positions on foreign policy and civil liberties but one who wasn't quite as draconian in terms of scaling back the social safety-net and regulations).

Now THIS Was a "Power Trio"

I mean, I don't know about you folks, but I'll take Montgomery Clift, Burt Lancaster, and Frank Sinatra over George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and Matt Damon ANY DAY.

Republican Candidates and Whether or Not I Trust Them With the Nuclear Button 2

Daniels (had he gotten in) - yes. Haley Barbour (had he gotten in) - yes.

The Fact That He Claims to Have Made Eleven Holes in One at His Very First Attempt at Golf

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's your all-time favorite Kim Jong Il exaggeration?"

I'd Say Probably Around Six Seconds/As Long as it Takes For the Ink to Dry

What would be my answer to the question, "So, how long do you think that it will take for the Progressives in Washington and on the blogs to totally eviscerate the Ryan-Wyden Medicare Reform Proposal?"

Inimitable (With Apologies to Iconoclastic)

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's the first word that comes to mind when you hear the name, Christopher Hitchens?"............R.I.P. (providing, that is, he's capable)

......AND Widens

"The consequences of the Hawley-Smoot Bill have been tremendous (as in, terrible), both directly and indirectly."............Franklin Delano Roosevelt 1932.............Wow, I guess that FDR thought that Smoot-Hawley was contributing to the economic downturn, too. How inconvenient. Oh well, I guess that FDR was just being one of those "useful idiots" for right-wing propaganda (not that this is necessarily surprising, mind you, in that the Republican Party was the true party of Progressives back then; T.R., LaFollette, Hoover, Charles Evans Hughes, etc.).

......And Widens

"The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies (policies designed to improve one's own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations.............U.S Department of State...............http://future.state.gov/when/timeline/1921_timeline/smoot_tariff.html...............So, yet another perspective; it didn't cause the Great Depression but it may in fact have exacerbated it.

The Conspiracy Widens

"The bill really satisfied no one and raised a storm of protest when President Hoover signed it in June, 1930. With Tariffs at an all-time record high, there came an unexpected wave of retaliatory actions from America's customers abroad, with the result that U.S. foreign trade took a sharp turn downward and the depression worsened worldwide."............"The Reader's Digest Family Encyclopedia of American History" (enter theme tune from the "Twilight Zone" LOL)

Republican Candidates and Whether or Not I Trust Them With the Nuclear Button

Huntsman - yes. Romney - yes. Gingrich - no. Perry - no. Bachmann - no. Paul - yes. Santorum - probably. Johnson - yes. Karger - yes. Roemer - yes. Cain (had he stayed in) - no. Pawlenty (had he stayed in) - yes. Christie (had he gotten in) - yes. Palin (had she gotten in) - no. Trump (had he gotten in) - HELL NO!

Debunking Yet Another Myth

In May of 1930, 1028 economists (from across the political spectrum, from Irving Fisher to Rex Tugwell) penned an open letter to President Hoover pleading with him to veto the Smoot-Hawley tariff legislation. They subsequently had the letter published in the "New York Times" editorial section. Here, folks, is a sample of the language............."We are convinced that increased restrictive duties would be a mistake. They would operate, in general, to increase the prices which domestic consumers would have to pay. By raising prices they would encourage concerns with higher costs to undertake production, thus compelling the consumer to subsidize waste and inefficiency in industry. At the same time they would force him to pay higher rates of profits to established firms. Few people could hope to gain from such a change."............These same economists went on to predict that "many countries would pay us back in kind" and that we simply "cannot increase employment by restricting trade.".................................................................................................And it wasn't simply those in America who were attempting to warn old Hoover. "Le Quotidien" in Paris published an editorial entitled, "Can Mr. Hoover Limit the Catastrophe Which American Protectionists Are Preparing?" Amongst the meatier elements of this missive was an admonition which stated that, "There will be nothing for us to do but to resort to reprisals, and that would mean war." Another predictive warning came from GM's European director, Graeme K. Howard. In a telegram sent directly to the White House, Mr. Graeme sternly predicted that the passage of Smoot-Hawley "would spell economic isolation for the United States and the most severe depression ever experienced."...............................................................................................And on and on it went. Now, is there an argument to the contrary here? Yeah, I suppose so. But to say that the belief that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act contributed to the Depression is nothing bit a right-wing myth is absolutely and categorically incorrect. Paranoiac is essentially what it is.

Lost Comments

I had 10 comments that I thought I published. They disappeared. I may have hit delete instead of publish and, if so, I apologize.

Donna Reed Circa 1953

The most underrated sex-symbol ever, IMHO.

On How Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (More than Likely) Contributed to the Financial Collapse

1) Fannie and Freddie purchased billions of risky loans (nearly 3/4 of new mortgages were going through F & F by 2008) and bundled them to investors. The money that went to these banks allowed them to make even more risky loans. The end-result was that a lot more mortgage lending than would have otherwise taken place DID take place (the bubble argument, in other words).............2) Being that Fannie and Freddie were at least quasi governmental entities, most investors and lenders (justifiably, as it turned out) took for granted that the lines of credit would more than likely be unlimited....AND that they (Fannie and Freddie) would probably be bailed out if necessary.............3) Fannie was deeply involved in the highly political move of lowering lending requirements in an attempt to more adequately meet the needs of disadvantaged groups. They specifically eased the credit requirements on the mortgages that it was purchasing from banks - the end-point being (this, according to the New York Times, September 1999) to encourage banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit hadn't been good enough to qualify for conventional homes......So, no, me-buckos, nobody was "holding a gun to these bankers' heads" (and, yes, there were in fact some very questionable practices - no doubt), but if the government is a) enabling you and b) encouraging you AND you're more than likely going to get bailed out in a worst case scenario, wouldn't you also (in the words of Congressman Frank) be willing to "roll the dice a little"?

Prime Vulgar

According to a 1996 study by the Congressional Budget Office, it was found that mortgage behemoth Fannie Mae had pocketed about a third of the subsidy which the government was providing (this, as opposed to them passing it on to the homeowners). This same study also goes on to say that James Johnson, the initial executive at Fannie Mae, personally took home nearly $100 million (his successor, Franklin Raines, didn't do too badly, either). For individuals to still say that Fannie and Freddie didn't play a roll in the financial collapse is astonishing.............http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/books/review/book-review-reckless-endangerment-by-gretchen-morgenson-and-joshua-rosner.html?pagewanted=all

Caught Off Guard

I'm normally not a big fan of smack-talking in sports (it is significantly better to do your talking on the court/field, I'm thinking), but when Jason Terry proclaimed in the middle of this year's NBA finals that Lebron James couldn't guard him, and then proceeded to prove it over the rest of the series, that, my friends, was impressive - VERY IMPRESSIVE. Not that I necessarily should have been surprised, mind you. Jason Terry has been a difficult "guard" for 13 years now. The dude isn't just one of the most underrated players currently. He's one of the most underrated players in history. And, yes, folks, he in fact DOES have the stats to prove it. During his 12 year career with the Hawks/the Mavericks, Jason Terry has scored close to 16,000 points and dished out over 4,500 assists. And, not only that, the dude is a flat-out warrior (he's only failed to suit up 23 times in his entire career). With all of the prima donnas in sports these days, damned if it wasn't good to finally see one of the good guys hoisting the trophy.

Top 15 Athletes to Never Win a Title (Basketball, Baseball, Football)

15) Tony Gwynn............. 14) Jim Kelly............. 13) Carl Yastrzemski............. 12) Ken Griffey Jr.............. 11) Fran Tarkenton............. 10) Charles Barkley............. 9) Earl Campbell............. 8) John Stockton............. 7) Dick Butkus............. 6) Karl "the mailman" Malone............. 5) Elgin Baylor............. 4) Barry Sanders............. 3) Ty Cobb............. 2) Dan Marino............. 1) Ted Williams........................................................................................P.S. I've been told that Napolean Lajoie was bangin', but I'm afraid that I'm probably going to have to pass on him. Patrick Ewing, Harmon Killebrew, and Ernie Banks would instead be my honorable-mentions.

Busted

Ralph Nader is another of those liberal firebrands whose always shouting his mouth off about union rights and THEN doing the exact opposite in his personal life. Get a load of this one, folks - "Ralph talks big about democracy and even unions. But when his own workers at one of his magazines, Multinational Monitor, got fed up with cruel working conditions and started agitating for a union of their own, Nader busted the union with all of the hardball techniques used by corporate owners across America. Workers at Public Citizen, another Nader group, also tried to form a union because of 60 to 80 hour work weeks, salaries that ranged from $13,000 down, and other difficult working conditions and were blocked by Nader, who remains unapologetic to this day.......Nader says "I don't think there is a role for unions in small nonprofit 'cause' organizations any more than ... within a monastery or within a union."......When ringleader Tim Shorrock filed the union recognition papers, Nader immediately transferred ownership in the Multinational Monitor to close friends who ran an organization ("Essential Information") that Nader had set up. When Shorrock showed up for work the next day, he had been fired, the locks were changed, and management called the police to charge him with theft (of his own work papers.) That charge was thrown out of court, but management fired the two supportive editors and sued the three of them for $1.2 million, agreeing to drop the intimidation suit only when they dropped their NLRB complaint. All of these action are straight from the hardball anti-union playbook, and Nader makes no apology.......According to Nader, "Public interest groups are like crusades�you can�t have work rules, or 9 to 5." Shorrock, with his "union ploy," became an "adversary" according to Nader. "Anything that is commercial, is unionizable," but small public interest organizations "would go broke in a month," Nader says, if they paid union wages, offered union benefits and operated according to standard work rules, such as the eight-hour day. Remember that Nader's well-funded organizations were amassing tons of extra money that Ralph has been playing the stock market with during all these events."......Nice, huh? realchange.org/nader.htm

Gene Hackman's Turn as the Sadistic Sheriff in "Unforgiven"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, is the SECOND (this, after having already selected Anne Baxter as number one) most under-appreciated Oscar-winning performance in U.S. movie history?"

Malevolence

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what's the first word that comes to mind when you hear the name, Newt Gingrich?"

The Priviliged Spew

To anybody out there who still doesn't see the importance of a free and independent press, you obviously didn't see that recent "60 Minutes" piece on insider trading and Congress/the aftermath. For those of you who didn't witness it, Steve Croft did an amazing segment on how it's apparently still legal for elected officials in Washington to capitalize on knowledge derived from pending legislation to trade on various stock opportunities (I.P.O.s especially). He specifically focused in on those who've presided in leadership positions; former Speakers Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi and current Speaker John Boehner. It was a totally eye-opening expose' and, I'm telling you, folks, if you weren't exceedingly jaded before it, you sure as hell would have been after it..........................................................................................................Thankfully (and, yes, precisely because of this segment), Congress has responded quickly. Congressman Tim Walz (one of the good guys), who, when he previously put forth legislation to stop this lunacy, couldn't himself get arrested, this time got over a hundred co-sponsors and it appears that Congresspersons will eventually be subject to the same laws that ended up putting Martha Stewart in prison. In the words of the inimitable Howard Cosell, "It's been long overdue!"

Some Serious Takes on Gary Sick, Etc.

For those of you who haven't kept up, Gary Sick is one of those sickos who's been most responsible for that October Surprise conspiracy theory; the one which alleges that Reagan cut some sort of deal with Iran to delay the release of the hostages until after the election. It's a patently absurd allegation and here are what some of the more serious people are saying............. 1) "The New Republic" - According to "Wikipedia", Steven Emerson and Jesse Furman of The New Republic, also looked into the allegations and found “the conspiracy as currently postulated is a total fabrication”. They were unable to verify any of the evidence presented by Sick and supporters, finding them to be inconsistent and contradictory in nature. They also pointed out that nearly every witness of Sick had either been indicted or was under investigation by the Department of Justice. Like the Newsweek investigation they had also debunked the claims of Reagan election campaign officials being in Paris during the time-frame Sick claimed they had been, contradicting Sick’s sources.............2) "The Village Voice" - Again, according to "Wikipedia", "Retired CIA analyst and counter-intelligence officer Frank Snepp of The Village Voice compiled several investigations of Sick’s allegations in 1992. Snepp alleged that Sick had only interviewed half of the sources used in his book, and supposedly relied on hearsay from unreliable sources for large amounts of critical material. Snepp also discovered that in 1989, Sick had sold the rights to his book to Oliver Stone. After going through evidence presented by Richard Brenneke, Snepp asserted that Brenneke’s credit card receipts showed him to be in Portland, Oregon, during the time he claimed to be in Paris observing the secret meeting.............3) The U.S. House of Representatives - Also from "Wikipedia", " The House of Representatives’ 1993 report concluded “there is no credible evidence supporting any attempt by the Reagan presidential campaign—or persons associated with the campaign—to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran”. The task force Chairman Lee H. Hamilton also added that the vast majority of the sources and material reviewed by the committee were "wholesale fabricators or were impeached by documentary evidence". The report also expressed the belief that several witnesses had committed perjury during their sworn statements to the committee, among them Richard Brenneke,^[18] who claimed to be a CIA agent."............4) The United States Senate - Also from "Wikipedia", The US Senate’s 1992 report concluded that "by any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the hostages".............5) The "Washington Post" (direct), In an interesting footnote to the October Surprise myth, Jamshid Hashami, who first came to public attention 1i 1991 by "claiming to have helped Ronald Reagan's 1980 Presidential campaign negotiate to delay the release of U.S. hostages in Iran after the election,...pleaded guilty (in London in December 1998) to swindling (Reston, VA corporation) Octogon and other businesses In Europe, Asia, and the United States out of millions of dollars through a series of elaborate scams".............6) Strong (I&NS 8.2 direct), a classic example of ... the paranoid political conspiracy exposé.... Unsubstantiated hints of exotic government sponsored assassinations are part of a larger pattern involving a double standard in evidence evaluation. Honegger makes "extensive use of Richard Brenneke" and, in general, the book can be dismissed as the work of a common conspiracy theorist gone off the deep end of history.............7) Newsweek (direct), NEWSWEEK has found, after a long investigation including interviews with government officials and other knowledgeable sources around the world, that the key claims of the purported eyewitnesses and accusers simply do not hold up. What the evidence does show is the murky history of a conspiracy theory run wild.......What has kept the October Surprise conspiracy theory alive is a chain of "super-sources." Self-proclaimed eyewitnesses, many with suspect credibility, have spun a tangled--and often contradictory--tale about an arms-for-hostages deal that seemed to foreshadow the later Iran-contra scandal.............So, just how damned ridiculous IS this theory (gee, let's see, Gary Sick and these other lunatics versus Lee Hamiliton, The "Village Voice", "Newsweek", "The New Republic", and the "Washington Post", that's a really tough one - NOT!!)? This theory is so damned ridiculous that even Oliver Stone won't make a movie about it. Youza, huh?

Addendum to kaboom 2

Here are the latest figures on the drone attacks in Pakistan. During the final 6 years of the Bush administration, there were a total of 43 drone attacks and 426 casualties. During the first three years of the Obama administration, these numbers have swelled to 241 and 2,254 respectively (so, yes, "thousands", in fact WAS an accurate designate). It doesn't, folks, take a skilled statistician to see that this is a statistically significant difference, and a cutting one - spin it however you want.............source - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

No More Trolls/Childlike Idiots Who Think That They're Always Right

If you don't have a blog of your own, please, do not post here. I have been more than patient and these multi-handled slugs/lunatics do not appreciate it. In fact, folks, it's actually gotten to the point where I'm not even sure WHAT I'm debating anymore. So, yes, me-buckos, sayonara, 1138.

Note to the OWS Movement (And, No, This Isn't a Play on Words About the Protester Crapping on the Cop Car)

We all have rights, people. But once those rights impinge upon the rights of others (in this particular instance, the rights of local businesses, the rights of others to use the facilities, etc.), they cease. In regards to your little New York City situation, Mr. Bloomberg was MORE than patient and when he acted he acted decisively. I have zero problem with it.............Oh, and a note to any OWS people out there who plan on impeding my movement/preventing me from enjoying a facility, three little words of caution to 'em; wear a cup..................................................................................................P.S. I also have a suggestion. You want to make a difference in the country? Start by lobbying your representative and pushing for a law that in the future will ban ALL insider trading (i.e., one that will even apply to such miserable cretins as John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi). No, it isn't the entire answer, but it's a start.

An Infinite Number, Apparently

What would be my answer to the question, "So, how many different ways can the hard left articulate, 'Palin is an idiot'?".................................................................................................P.S. Look, I'll admit it, the lady brings a fair amount of the criticism on herself. But when I read how some of these leftist bloggers just go on and on and on ("a worthless piece of excrement", that's probably my all-time favorite), I always want to point out to them, "Oh, and your guys are soooooooooooo much better."...I mean, seriously, have you seen that Ed Schultz character? The guy is insane. He was recently featured in a G.Q. tongue-in-cheek piece entitled, "The Top 25 Least Influential People in America". They put him at number 3 (Tim Pawlenty was number 1) and, boy, oh boy, did that ever piss the fellow off. And crazy, you want to talk about crazy? He actually hypothesized that this was some sort of conspiratorial thing between G.Q. and Anderson Cooper, his time-slot competitor over at CNN. I mean, this is some really scary shit here, folks - characters like that walking around amongst us.....................................................................................................Just for the record, this was the hilarious write-up that G.Q. provided regarding Mr. Schultz - "Then there are pundits like Ed Schultz. Do you watch “The Ed Show” on MSNBC? Of course you don’t. No one does. The only reason that people watch “The Ed Show” is that they’re working out in a hotel gym and they can’t find a staff member to change the channel to ESPN."......Huh? Is that good or what? LOL

On George W. Bush and War Criminality 3

According to the proponents of this "George W. Bush is a war criminal" argument, for any military action to be a legal one, it has to have the approval of the United Nations Security Council. Mr. Obama's massive number of drone attacks (which have resulted in literally thousands of civilian casualties) into Pakistan have never received this U.N. authorization. He has thus engaged in an illegal action and must be considered a war criminal. He has to be (this, according to the exceedingly hooplaed criteria)................................................................................................And, no, the fact that Pakistan has apparently given us the OK (though, yes, they, too, seem to be getting weary of the carnage) isn't at all material. In Fact, people, the fact that we're paying them money to cooperate in such a ruthless policy might even make it more odious...............................................................................................P.S. I personally do NOT think that Mr. Obama is a war criminal. This post is purely an act of devil's advocacy.

On George W. Bush and War Criminality 2

1) There was no territorial gain.............2) There was no subjugation. Deposing the worst mass-murder since Pol Pot, dismantling his Republican Guard, and allowing for free and fair elections is subjugation only in the minds of people who hate George W. Bush (and who evidently don't know the difference between interference and subjugation).............3) A case could be made for self-defense. Is it a case that I personally would have made? No. I was against the toppling Hussein because I feared a possible civil war and the fact that we still needed him as a counterbalance to Iran. But I wasn't President.............4) I'm still waiting to hear the precise U.N. resolution which has approved of the sextupling of drone attacks in Northern Pakistan by President Obama and why, if in fact there isn't one, HE isn't a war criminal, too (the fact that there have been thousands of civilian casualties, etc.).............5) The U.N. is a rump organization comprised of, in no small measure, miscreant nations/dictatorships. To cite them as the sole determinant of what constitutes war criminality is something that I reject. I mean, really, where were they when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and where are they now with all of the atrocities happening in Syria (Assad is making Gadaffi look like a damn piker)?............6) I'm assuming that, if in fact Mr. Bush ever WAS indicted for war crimes, the fellow would also get a fair trial (I mean, they gave one to Adolph Eichmann, right?). OR, is he already considered guilty by a bevy of marginal bloggers and a spate of ivory tower intellectuals? I'm curious.............7) Referencing what Bush did in 2003 (even assuming the most cynical of motivations) with what Hitler did in 1939 is an extremely discomforting comparison and I....Well, I'll just leave it at that.............8) And let's just assume that what Mr. Bush did WAS a war crime, is there not in this area of law a continuum, too? Just as you wouldn't compare a person convicted of vehicular homicide to John Wayne Gacy, you probably wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein, D'Aubuisson, Amin, the Hamids, etc., either. I mean, I certainly wouldn't.............9) Regime change in Iraq, as one of the stated objectives of American foreign policy, didn't originate with George Bush. It originated with Bill Clinton in 1998 and was also affirmed in Congress via the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 (this, in response to Saddam having kicked out the weapons inspectors). Clinton, not Bush.............10) The Authorization for the Use of Force Bill that passed both houses of Congress in 2002 had 23 whereas clauses justifying the war. Only TWO of them in any way dealt with WMD. Two.............11) The yellow cake and aluminum tubes arguments were never mentioned in either the U.S. Use of Force Bill OR the U.N. Council ultimatum 1441. And they weren't even part of the intelligence report that the Congress saw. They were only used to persuade the U.N. (yes, that in fact WAS a bad thing).............12) Every major intelligence agency in the world; the British, the French, the Russians, the Germans, the Israelis, the Jordanians, etc., thought that Iraq had WMD. Yes, they were wrong but they were ALL wrong.............13) If Bush was so gung-ho about going to war in Iraq, then why did he a) wait a full three months after the ultimatum (U.N. resolution 1441) expired before engaging and b) give Mr. Hussein an 11th hour ultimatum to "leave the country or face war". Hussein could have readily left for Russia and Aziz taken over and war would have been avoided.............14) Yes, the first Gulf War had a U.N. resolution authorizing force. But the only reason that it did was because China abstained, and the only reason that China abstained (as opposed to vetoing the measure, which is what they really wanted to do) was because they were feeling isolated after the Tiananmen Square massacre and didn't want to become even more isolated. Ergo, the first gulf war was almost a "war crime", too.............15) Congress was privy to the same intelligence that the White House was. This, via the N.I.E...............16) No evidence has ever been found of White Hose manipulation of the evidence. This from the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee (unanimous); " The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.”............17) And, this, from the bipartisan Silberman-Robb report of 2005; These (intelligence) errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments. 18) In spite of all this, I still think that the Iraq War was a stupid and shortsighted enterprise that could have and should have been avoided.............19) P.S. Just to be fair here, while it's clear that there wasn't any manipulation of the evidence/Congress, a case COULD in fact be made that the administration manipulated the public. There was a lot of doubt in that N.I.E. and none of it was forwarded to the public or the media. Now, whether this fact constitutes a war crime or not, that I might be willing to concede (though, yes, it would also incriminate the Congress).

On Hannity, Olbermann, O'Reilly, Schultz, Levin, wd, etc. 1

They see left versus right in their Cheerios. I swear.......And I still don't know what a frigging "moderate extremist" is (other than the fact that it seems to be whatever it is that I happen to be saying, doing, or thinking at any particular moment in time).

On George W. Bush and War Criminality 1

Saddam Hussein attempted genocide on the Kurds. He invaded not just one but two of his neighboring countries. He repressed and brutalized his people to the tune that has rarely been chronicled in recorded history. And he continuously thumbed, with impunity, his nose at the U.N. I guess what I'm trying to say here, people, is that it's not exactly like we invaded Denmark or something....................................................................................................Now, was it necessarily a wise thing for us to have invaded Iraq and attempted to instill democracy there? I would personally (and, yes, vociferously, too) say, no. We had the son of a bitch well contained and could have battered him around as needed. Couple that with the fact that a) Iraq was multi-ethnic pseudo country with intractable hatred and b) Hussein was basically the only buffer that the Sunni countries and Israel had against Iran and, no, no sir, I really don't think that invading Iraq and STAYING was the most prudent of policies....................................................................................................But to site George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals, a designation that I most commonly associate with the likes of Pol Pot, Pinochet, the Third Reich, the Hamidian regimes of Turkey, Milosevic, and even frigging Hussein himself, seems, well, you know what it seems like.

The Karma Continues

Just when you thought that it couldn't get any worse for Randy Edsall and Maryland, boy, oh boy, did it ever. For those of you who didn't see it, Maryland was up 41-14 on N.C. State with just under 6 minutes to go in the third quarter. There wasn't any way in hell that they could blow this one. But blow it majorly the Terrapins did. From that moment onward, N.C. State proceeded to score 42 unanswered points over the next 21 minutes of the game (2 points a minute - extrapolated over a full 60 minute game and they would have scored a sickening 120) and the Maryland season mercifully ended at 2-10 (one of those wins against FCS Towson State, the other against a Miami team that was severely crippled by suspensions). What an absolute, unmitigated nightmare it's been. And to think that the taxpayers of Maryland are paying this Edsall fellow over 2 million dollars a year. Eeeee, huh?

There IS a Double Standard, Damn It

1) Dan Quayle (yes, yes, I know, he's an idiot) misspells potato and it's a federal case. President Obama misspells Syracuse and nobody knows about it.............2) George W. Bush (yes, yes, I know, he's an idiot) mispronounces a word and it's a federal case. President Obama refers to Navy Corpsmen as Navy CORPSEmen and nobody knows about it.............3) George W. Bush doesn't know the leader of some Eastern European country and it's a federal case. President Obama says that the Austrian people speak "Austrian" and nobody knows about it.............4) Sarah Palin (yes, yes, I know, she's an idiot) uses a violent metaphor to make a political point and it's a federal case. President Obama uses a violent metaphor to make a political point and nobody knows about it.............5) Michele Bachmann (yes, yes, I know, she's an idiot) says that the "Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to get rid of slavery" and it's a federal case. President Obama says that he's visited 57 states and nobody knows about it.............6) Sarah Palin says that Paul Revere was actually trying to warn the British that the British were coming and it's a federal case. Chris Matthews says that Herbert Hoover was a hard-core laissez faire capitalist and nobody cares about it.............7) Glenn Beck uses violent imagery to make a political point and it's a federal case. Roland Martin and numerous commentators on Slate.com use violent imagery to a political point and nobody knows about it.............8) Michele Bachmann confuses Concord New Hampshire with Concord Massachusetts and it's a federal case. President Obama says that Hawaii is a part of Asia and nobody knows about it.............9) Etc., etc., etc..

A Retort to My Colleague,The Venerable Truthster 2

I DO choose sides, Truth. Every election I get out and vote for some candidate.....Oh, wait, wait a minute here, you're not saying that I have to choose between the Tea Partiers and the OWS folks, are you? 'Cause if in fact you are......

Refuting the Obvious

If somebody had told me even a month ago that I would be wasting valuable time refuting some idiotic construct called, "moderate extremism", I'd have probably called 9-1-1 on 'em. But here we are, folks, here we are...............................................................................................First off (and as a great many people have already pointed out), it's an oxymoron. You simply cannot be moderate and extreme at the same time. It's ludicrous. And even if you take the leap of faith and say that a person can in fact be extreme in his moderation (moderate and wishy-washy on basically everything), I have absolutely eviscerated any notion that that describes me; the fact that I'm exceedingly liberal on issues such as abortion, gay rights, civil liberties, a progressive income tax, public financing of elections AND exceedingly conservative on issues such as the corporate income tax, drilling in the ANWR, and partially privatizing Social Security. Hell, folks, if anything here, I'm about as unorthodox a blogger as you'll find...................................................................................................And then, of course, there's the really ridiculous stuff. I'm a moderate extremist because I don't think that George W. Bush is a war criminal (yeah, I'm kind of waiting for the International Criminal Court to decide that one - silly me, huh?). I'm a moderate extremist because I don't think that Ronald Reagan is a traitor (both the Congress and a plethora of media sources - the liberal "Village Voice" amongst them - have completely debunked this whole October Surprise conspiracy theory crap). I'm a moderate extremist because I tend to believe the more nonpartisan web-sites ("Politifact", for example) than I do the partisan ones ("Think Progress", for example)...................................................................................................I mean, I could go one here but, seriously, peeps, haven't I already wasted enough of both of our times?

A Tip 1

I'm a big fan of Thai curried dishes (yellow and penang are my personal favorites). The only problem here is that, because these dishes are predominantly made with coconut milk, they also tend to be exceedingly high in saturated fat/cholesterol. One way around this dilemma, folks, is to substitute soy milk for the coconut milk. The soy gives you 90-95% of the flavor AND the nutritional value absolutely skyrockets. Now, you probably wouldn't be able do this in a restaurant, more than likely, but, if you're making the dish at home (either from scratch or from one of those canned paste starter kits), it is definitely an option for you. Check it out.

Say it Often Enough......and, WOW, You're Kiddin'?

Look, folks, I'm not a big fan of Fox News, either (Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, and Fox and Friends, especially). But when Politifact says that Jon Stewart's claim that "Fox's viewers are the most consistently misinformed viewers in the country" is false, then what? Do we simply disregard it, as many on a bevy of liberal sites are presently doing? Or, OR, do we take it up a notch and say that Politifact has in fact become PART of the conspiracy, this grandiose right-wing conspiracy? I don't know, folks, what do YOU think that we should do?.......................................................................................................P.S. Obviously there's a third option. The third option would be for all of us to realize that there is more than an ample amount of sorry shit to go around, and that ALL of us should in fact be better consumers of information (skeptical, in other words) Not that this is a theory that will ever take off, of course.

Happy "Turkey"day, Randy

I'm normally not a big believer in Karma, folks. But what has happened this year to Randy Edsall and the University of Maryland football team seems pretty damn close. For those of you who haven't followed it, Mr. Edsall abruptly quit his job (head football coach) at the University of Connecticut at the end of last season's bowl game (the Fiesta Bowl versus Oklahoma), not even having the decency to say goodbye to his players. This, while at the same time, Maryland unceremoniously fired their longtime and respected coach, Ralph Friedgen - this, after he had just been named ACC coach of the year! The fact that this Terps squad is struggling mightily this year, both on the field (a 2-9 record) AND on the recruiting trail (Marchez Coates, the second best defensive back in the state of Maryland recently gave a verbal commitment to N.C. State, for example), seems MORE than a little bit ironic/just to me.................................................................................................P.S. What made the situation even more "comical" was the fact that James Franklin, Maryland's offensive coordinator and "coach in waiting", simply got disgusted waiting and bolted. He's now the head coach at Vanderbilt and even that longtime doormat program is outperforming Maryland; 5 victories and a bushel-full of rock-solid recruits for next year. OOPS!!

Anne Baxter as Queen Nefertiti in "The Ten Commandments"

Uh, yah.

I Knew that They Should Have Hired the Super-Dooper Committee

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what was your initial response when you learned that this so-called "super committee" had fractured?"

Anne Baxter Circa 1949

Yeah, I'll admit it. I'm a little hung up on Anne Baxter lately......You got a problem with that?

Cutting Through the Bullshit 2

1) I was recently accused on a liberal blog of "always defending right-wingers". That, folks, is a bald-faced and slanderous lie. Rush Limbaugh - never defended him. Sean Hannity - never defended him. Glenn Beck- never defended him. Michael Savage - never defended him. Laura Ingraham - never defended her. Ann Coulter - never defended her (admitted that she was smart, that's about it). Donald Trump - never defended him. Bill O'Reilly - defended him occasionally, criticized him more. Michele Bachmann - never defended her. Melanie Morgan - never defended her. Brent Bozell - never defended him. Neil Boortz - never defended him. Tammy Bruce - never defended her (was actually banned from her web-site for criticizing Palin). Rick Perry - never defended him. Newt Gingrich - never defended him. Alan Keyes - never defended him (he I've actually ridiculed religiously). Rick Santorum - never defended him. Mike Huckabee - never defended him. Mark Levin - never defended him. Pat Robertson - never defended him. Mitch McConnell - never defended him. Steve King - never defended him. Louie Gohmert - never defended him. Etc., etc., ETC.. I mean, yes, I did defend George W. Bush against charges of war criminality and John McCain and Ronald Reagan against charges of treason. But I did so because I'm an intellectually honest person whose moral yardstick is level, and not because I'm any sort of "right-winger" (the same with some of the piling-on of the Tea Party; Janeane Garofalo's effervescently disgusting summation of them, for example) . Duh.............2) I've said it many times, people. I am IN FAVOR of the top tax rates going back to 39.6%. You would think that that would make me a member in good standing of the 99%ers, no? I don't know. I'm not so sure anymore. Me - I'm kind of getting the impression that they want a hell of a lot more than that; like maybe blowing up the system entirely. Hopefully, I'm wrong here.............3) I don't think that I am.............4) Did you folks see "60 Minutes" last Sunday. They did a story in which it appears that a lot of current (including Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner) and former (including Dennis Hastert) members of the U.S. Congress have made a boat-load of money by using what is essentially insider information. Worse yet, people, it isn't illegal! Yeah, that's right, the same frigging laws that put Martha Stewart in prison simply don't apply to the Congress (yes, they apply to the judicial and executive branches but not to the legislative). Nice, huh?...Hey, maybe the Tea Partiers and the OWS people can get together and try and put a stop to this nonsense. I mean, they do in fact want to make a difference, right (this, I'm saying, instead of simply bitching and moaning, blocking traffic, etc.)?

Anne Baxter's Turn as Sophie in "The Razor's Edge"

What would be my answer to the question, "So, what, in your opinion, is the most under-appreciated Oscar-winning performance in U.S. film history?"

Miscellaneous 102

1) In order to solve a problem, you need to come up with something that is both tangible AND realistic. And, yes, that is why I strongly support Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, and the Gang of 6 - at least as a starting point - for deficit reduction....The fact of the matter here, folks, is that we simply CANNOT appreciably close the deficit with either spending-cuts or revenue enhancements alone. WE HAVE TO DO BOTH, and everybody has to sacrifice, a little. And, I'm telling you, if we did pass something like this, and accompanied it with some sort of regulatory reform (strengthen the good regs, eliminate the crappy ones), too, the markets in fact WOULD respond. Businesses - they have to know that we're serious and passing something like this would show them that we totally are.............2) To repeat, I would also institute a comprehensive regulatory reform package. We have to, folks. The Feds are literally piling on thousands upon thousands of new rules and regs annually (some of them downright silly; the packaging of walnuts, for example), and it is absolutely stifling the creation of new businesses. If I had my druthers, I would go line by line and a) reinforce the good rules and regulations and b) eliminate the bald-faced crap.............3) Hoover and FDR essentially did everything that Keynesian economics prescribes; massive amounts of deficit spending, huge public works initiatives, a palpable loosening of credit, and a heavy emphasis on central planning, and the Great Depression lasted 12 years. Harding did the exact opposite of what Keynesian theory prescribes; major cuts in federal spending, an allowing of the private sector to flourish, and an actual tightening of credit, and the depression of 1921 lasted less than 18 months....Now, this isn't necessarily to say that this proves anything. As I've stated before, economics isn't an area in which controlled experimentation can happen (and, hence, causality inferred). But it is, at the very least, interesting, no?............4) Just to be fair and balanced here, stifling levels of regulation don't just happen under Democratic Presidents. In 2007, for example (the next to last year of the Bush administration), nearly 4,000 (!!) new regulations hit the books that year alone. Thank you, President Bush.

The Irresponsible Wheel Gets the Compassion, I Gather

I've been working in the geriatric field for about eleven years now. And, while most of that time has been spent in the area of therapeutic rec, I have in fact done some case management duty, too. One story, in particular, stands out.................................................................................................It was an 82 year-old woman with various health concerns (respiratory problems, especially) and whose husband lived in a convalescent home (she also had two daughters but they both lived out of state). Her only sources of income were Social Security and rental income from the apartment upstairs..............................................................................................Well, to make a long story short, the people who lived upstairs were absolutely miserable. They partied heavily, trashed not only the apartment but made a mess of the outside as well, and, on top of that, didn't frigging pay their rent, either. The old lady ended up having to take them to court to have them evicted (this, after they fell a good 6-7 months behind on their rent) and it was very stressful...............................................................................................But you know what made it even more outlandish? The judge (and, yes, the people eventually did get evicted) was seemingly more sympathetic to the dysfunctional family (yeah, they had a couple of kids, too) than she was to the poor old lady. I mean, I almost wanted to scream at the guy, "Dude, she's frigging 82 and on oxygen! How's about a little compassion for the real victim here. These people can purchase cigarettes and brewskis every day but they flat-out can't pay ANY of their rent (and, yes, the old gal was very reasonable about it - 'Pay me what you can', she would say and they paid her NOTHING)? Come on, man!"......................................................................................................You see what I'm saying, though? There's really something wrong with the system here.

As Part of an Overall Anti-Poverty Program

I would go into every high school in America and have a counselor tell each student this, "Look, kid, if you want to have a child, fine, have a frigging child. BUT, if you ultimately do have one, it will be YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide for that child - not mine, not the other fellow's, and not the government's - YOURS.......Now, will we help you in the case of an emergency? Yes, absolutely. But the help will be of a finite nature and it will also be contingent upon you doing X, Y, and Z....I mean, I'm sorry to be so blunt about it, but it is what it is/a brave new world. The Chinese, the Indians, the South Koreans, the Finns - they're ALL flat-out bearin' down on us. And I'm going to be honest with you here, kid. You CANNOT be an uneducated procreating schmuck anymore. You can't.

The Formula For Avoiding Poverty

1) Stay in school (go to college or at least graduate high school).............2) Don't have a child out of wedlock.............3) Don't have a child until you reach the age of 20.............4) Don't smoke (a two pack a day habit in CT costs $15 dollars a day/$105 a week/$5,460 a year, increases health-care costs, and reduces productivity).............5) Don't drink heavily (for the identical reasons as to why you shouldn't smoke).............6) Learn to defer gratification, in general.............7) Get a second job if necessary................................................................................................P.S. According to a study cited by the March of Dimes, simply doing the first three will reduce your likelihood of living in poverty by a whopping 89% (64% vs. 7%)....It would really be interesting to see how the OWS movement would put its arms around this syndrome.

Where's the Hard-Left's Condemnation of THIS?

Lisa posted this on Sue's blog and it was predictably ignored.............http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/11/17/ows-protesters-chant-follow-those-kids-as-small-children-try-to-go-to-school-on-wall-street/

Cutting Through the Bullshit 1

1) I'm against protectionism NOT because I'm a corporatist. I'm against protectionism because I think that it's bad for the country, bad for the consumer, and bad for the countries whose economies we would possibly be wrecking (never mind the fact that China is one of our possible targets and those folks just happen to be one of our bankers).............2) I'm in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax (on this one, I full agree with Robert Reich) NOT because I'm a corporatist. I'm in favor of eliminating the corporate income tax because I think that it's a clumsy and obfuscatory policy that often hurts middle class people on pensions and whole life policies as much as it does the wealthy. I would MUCH prefer to raise the taxes on upper income individuals and eliminate it on capital.............3) I have never, ever, EVER, said that the rich pay too much in taxes. EVER! IN FACT, folks, under the proposal that I've been putting forth, the rich in this country would pay significantly MORE than they currently do. YES, I DO have a problem with the 60-70-80% rates that the progressives are constantly throwing around lately. But I don't oppose them because I'm a corporatist. I oppose them because I think that they're a) immoral/confiscatory and b) counterproductive (for crying out loud, even John Maynard Keynes once said that there was a point of diminishing returns).............4) As for this 37927 character, yeah, I kind of know who the fellow is. He's this hard-core paranoiac partisan freak who I used to encounter over at Lydia Cornell's blog....THREE, FOUR, YEARS AGO!!!...Let's just say that dude is obviously still harboring.

Note to OWS

Look, folks, I have nothing against protesting - not even a little bit. IN FACT, I find it to be a very patriotic thing to do and something that makes us unique (just try doing it over in Syria, for example). But, really, do ya' have to frigging SLEEP in the park, accumulate all sorts of garbage there, publicly defecate, etc. (multiple reports of sexual assault, for example)? I mean, it's not as if the park existed simply for you and your indulgences. Other interests, believe it or not, DO exist; the fact that other people may in fact want to recreate there, the fact that the neighborhood businesses are being negatively effected, etc.. And, please, let me also remind you that there are a whole hell of a lot of other ways that you can do to make a difference these days. Organize and be tutors for inner-city kids. Work at a soup-kitchen. Volunteer at a local convalescent home (you're more than welcome to come to mine). Adopt a stretch of a highway or interstate and beautify it. A lot of things - you know, in addition to the protesting.

Dean Wormer to wd

"Being rigidly ideological, seeing absolutely everything in clear-cut dichotomies, falling prey to the most obscene and paranoiac of conspiracy theories, constantly impugning the motivation of people who have the temerity to disagree with you, labeling those people, using hyperbole as if it were a frigging salt-shaker, being the proud possessor of a highly malleable moral compass, defending the indefensible (or at the very least not speaking out against it) exposing oneself to only things that reinforce your paradigm, and listening to movie soundtracks is no way to go through life, son."

So, How Crazy IS That Ronald Reagan-October Surprise Conspiracy Theory

That Ronald Reagan-October Surprise conspiracy theory is SO crazy that even the Village Voice (the frigging Village Voice, people!) thinks that it's lunacy. Yeah, huh? Now THAT, me-buckos, is pure crazy!

In a Nutshell

Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame LIED. And it wasn't just a little bitty white lie, either. Nope. It was a whopper!...According to these two individuals, it was the Vice President's office that sent Mr. Wilson to Niger....and it went along the lines of something like this, "Hey, Stan, we really need to check out that yellow-cake uranium situation in Niger. Any idea as to who we should send there?" "Gee, Dave, I don't know. Somebody from the C.I.A. maybe." Yeah, Stan, that's a good idea. Hey, I got it. Let's send that partisan Democrat, Joe Wilson - you know, the guy who's completely and totally opposed to the Iraq intervention?" "Excellent idea, Dave. Let's run it up the flag-pole and bring it to the Dickster ASAP." "Consider it done, Stan. Hey, we might even get a raise for this!" "Absofrigginglutely!"

A Retort to My Colleague,The Venerable Truthster

If liking tiny-titted chickas like Martina McBride and Naomi Watts makes me a "moderate extremist", then, yes, I wear that handle, and I wear it proudly!

Note to 37927/Cliffy/1138/Bartlebee/anonymous/Some Other Fucking Idiot Whose Handle I've Forgotten

Dude, you come to MY site and spew forth some of the most profane conspiracy theories out there. And then you berate me and insult me when I don't completely buy into them. What, pray tell, kind of a lunatic does something like that? I mean, really. And the fact that you're constantly calling ME, a partisan - a person who even the most casual of observers would readily discern as QUITE unaffiliated (this, as opposed to you, a person who is totally down the line on virtually EVERYTHING!). I gotta be honest with you here, fellow, it's getting kind of creepy. You might want to clean it up a little or move along.

That's a Trick Question, Right? Really?

What would be my answer to the question, "So, which of these two doctrines do you currently prefer, the 'Powell Doctrine' or the 'Rumsfeld Doctrine'?"

Miscellaneous 101

1) Being that it was the Fed (and not the markets) that a) printed money as if they were working for Milton Bradley, b) artificially lowered interest rates to a level that significantly misallocated resources, and c) created what was essentially a bailout culture (Greenspan's nickname actually WAS "Mr. Bailout") on Wall Street, it really is hard to blame Capitalism COMPLETELY for our recent economic calamities.............2) As for regulations in general, yes, I want the food supply inspected. Yes, I want the oil wells inspected. But, I'm telling you here, when you have the founder of Home Depot saying that he couldn't have created his business in today's regulatory climate, that, to me, is a big-time canary in the coal-mine, people............3) In 2008, the state of Maryland passed a special millionaire's tax (a 6.25% rate on all income over a million a year). The following year when all of the returns came in, nearly one in eight of those millionaires magically disappeared. Yeah, it's possible that some of them expired but nearly 13%? Some of them had to havemoved (rich people frequently have two homes and will, when necessary, change their permanent address to the state which has lower taxation). And, while, no, I can't say for sure that the tax increase, and the tax increase alone, prompted these departures, it is at the very least curious. No?............4) Not to be provocative, but have you seen the behavior of some of those miscreants out there in Oakland? My God, if the frigging Tea Partiers had ever acted like that, Chris Matthews and the rest of those clowns over at MSNBC would have had a full-blown kanipshin….I mean, did you see the way that they acted when that ONE neanderthal brought a gun to a rally?............5) Boston College's offense has been struggling literally all season. In fact, folks, if it hadn't have been for their reasonably stout defense, they probably wouldn't have even won the three games that they have. One suggestion that I would put forth (and, granted, there are only two games left) would be to get the ball more to Alexander Amidon. Amidon, a sophomore wide-receiver, is undoubtedly (especially now that running-back and former ACC player of the year, Montel Harris, is out for the season) the most talented individual that BC has on offense. The guy is blazing fast (he's been clocked at under 4.4 in the 40), extremely shifty, and runs the best routes of any player on the team. And, besides, the dude's a nutmegger (a graduate of the Hotchkiss School in Salisbury). For that singular reason alone....

My All-Time Favorite Andy Rooney Segment?

Hm, I think that it would have to be the one where he read on air ALL the lyrics to Michael Jackson's song, "Bad". And, yes, me-bucks, the fact that he executed this task with such a hilarious level of derision (the fact that Mr. Jackson felt the need to only use the same 6-7 words over and over again apparently irked Mr. Rooney; you know, an ACTUAL writer) made it especially memorable indeed. Of course, it wasn't until the very end when Mr. Rooney gave us his ultimate verdict that I totally lost it, "Boy, that was bad. Really bad. Really, really bad. Bad bad bad....."

Speaking of Conspiracy Theories

"Stinnett’s book is dedicated to Congressman John Moss, the author of America’s Freedom of Information Act. According to Stinnett, the answers to the mysteries of Pearl Harbor can be found in the extraordinary number of documents he was able to attain through Freedom of Information Act requests. Cable after cable of decryptions, scores of military messages that America was intercepting, clearly showed that Japanese ships were preparing for war and heading straight for Hawaii. Stinnett, an author, journalist, and World War II veteran, spent sixteen years delving into the National Archives. He poured over more than 200,000 documents, and conducted dozens of interviews. This meticulous research led Stinnet to a firmly held conclusion: FDR knew."............This, folks, from the Independent Institute, the subject matter being Robert Stinnett's controversial book, "Day of Deceit"..................................................................................................P.S. I did not want to go here. I DID NOT. But when start throwing shit against the wall, you have to throw it ALL against the wall, not just the stuff that hurts the other fellow's "team".

Harry Truman on Keynesian Economics

"Nobody can ever convince me that government can spend a dollar that it hasn't got."............As if we really needed another reason to like this guy.

My Political Philosophy - The Essential Elements

1) Both sides have good ideas.............2) Neither side has a monopoly on the truth.............3) Compromise (generally speaking, anyway) isn't a dirty word.............4) Open-mindedness is a superior virtue.............5) The capacity to think outside the box is highly valued.............6) Dogma, certitude, and rigid ideology should always be viewed with suspicion.............7) Country is always more important than party.............8) The worshipping of politicians is something that should be avoided.............9) A spade is a spade is a spade (AKA, the importance of moral consistency).............10) Hyperbole and demonization should always be tools of last resort.............11) The stereotyping of others should be avoided.............12) It is not a bad thing to change your mind.............13) It is a very bad thing to change your mind for political expediency.............14) There are ALWAYS unintended consequences and it is NEVER a zero-sum game.............15) You can never be intelligent until you first learn how to doubt....YOURSELF.............16) Only vote the "party-line" when you absolutely have to............. 17) Be a provocateur , not a nuisance.............18) The act of signing a pledge is an act of cowardice.............18) It is rude to shout a person down (yes, even if that person happens to be Ann Coulter, Tammy Bruce, etc.)............. 19) It is wrong to impugn a person's motivation.............20) Try to seek out politicians who aren't afraid to lose (Paul Tsongas in '92, for example).............21) Just as times and circumstances change, so, too, must our ideas. Just because something may have previously worked....

On Why Progressives Apparently Hate Herbert Hoover

Two reasons, basically.............1) An abject level of ignorance on their part as to what type of President that Mr. Hoover truly was; the fact that the dude rang up unprecedented peacetime deficits, initiated a plethora of high-ticket public-works projects (yeah, Rachel Maddow, it's called the HOOVER DAM - hello!), created the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, passed/signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, and, AND, raised the top income tax rate from 25% to 63% - all of these things to fight the Great Depression, all of these things that principled progressives normally endorse (the fellow was a full-bore Keynesian, for Christ).............2) He has an R in front of his name.

It Would Actually Be Funny IF....

So, just how massive has this "vast right-wing conspiracy" gotten? If you listen to the people on the opposite end of the political spectrum (i.e., those on the hard-core/extremist left), you'd probably come to the conclusion that it's gotten humongous. So, who's the latest to be put into this "esteemed" position? Try (and, yes, please, you really need to be sitting for this one) the 1993 Democratic Congress.................................................................................................Yeah, that's right, people, the Democratic Congress is now a part of this evil cabal in that they (supposedly) tried to protect Ronald Reagan from charges that he somehow brokered a deal with Iran that had them not release the hostages until after the 1980 elections (I believe that there was also something about Reagan being the Loch Ness Monster but that one didn't get nearly as far). Never mind that the evidence was full of holes and that a number of the witnesses had apparently committed perjury (this, not according to me but to then chairman, Lee Hamilton - a person of high integrity and with a still spotless record). Nope, none of that seems to matter to these individuals - their hatred of Mr. Reagan that so all-consuming.......................................................................................................P.S. As for their paranoiac insistence that "government investigations" and a free press never lead to anything substantive, they've obviously never heard of Richard Nixon, Spiro Agnew, Alger Hiss, Andrew Johnson, Thomas Dodd, Adam Clayton Powell, Oliver North, Abe Fortas, Frank Brasco, Francis Shoemaker, Albert Fall, Wilbur Mills, John C. McDonald, etc., etc. (hell, folks, even frigging Bill Clinton). I mean, it's kind of like I alluded to in the title there, it would actually be funny IF....

The Forgotten/Compressed Recession

People tend to forget. This country also had a depression in 1920 and 21. And, while, no, it wasn't quite as devastating as the Great Depression of a decade later, it wasn't exactly a walk in the park, either.......................................................................................................Here are some of the numbers, people. The unemployment rate crested at 11.7% in 1921. GNP declined by 6.9%. There was an 18% DEflation rate and a 36.8% drop in wholesale prices. The stock market plummeted by whopping 47% and profits decreased by 75%. Add to that the fact that there was a near tripling of business failures and, yeah, all in all, it was a pretty nasty economic downturn........................................................................................................So, what, pray tell, did the government do in response to it? Well, it basically did two things. a) The Harding administration/Congress slashed Federal spending by a humongous 65%. And b) the Fed RAISED its discount rate to a then record high of 7%. They basically did the exact opposite of FDR, Bush 2, and Obama, in other words.........................................................................................................So, just how successful was this approach? Well, at least according to the unemployment figures, it was extremely successful. The unemployment rates of 1922 and 1923 were 6.7% and 2.4% respectively. Quite a bit different from the rates of the 1930s and today, no?

A Call to Freer Thinking

Throw off the ideological straight-jackets, folks. The country's imploding, and the very last thing that it needs right now is dogma, more dogma, idiots like Sean Hannity and Ed Schultz making total fools out of themselves NIGHTLY, etc.................................................................................................I mean, just take a look at this whole global-warming debate. You got people on one side who say that global-warming doesn't exist, PERIOD, and that the whole thing is nothing but a hoax/fabrication. This, and on the other side, you have people who not only say that it exists but that it represents Armageddon next week (yes, I'm exaggerating), and that we should be spending trillions in order to prevent it. It's (the two silly extremes bickering over it) almost like frigging romper room, for Christ..............................................................................................................And then there's the whole thing with the budget situation. The Simpson-Bowles debt commission AND the Domenici-Rivlin plan have both put forth very credible proposals on reducing the country's burgeoning debt/deficits. But each of these very serious proposals....ARE JUST SITTING THERE. The liberals don't like them because they address the damned Holy Grail; entitlement programs, and the conservatives don't like them because they also have the audacity to address revenues. I mean, it's almost as if the two sides (the Republicans more so, perhaps) are bound and determined to take the country....I don't know, somewhere, and it isn't good.

Kennedy Challenged Him For a Reason

Jimmy Carter is a good and decent man. And, no, not everything bad that happened during his time in office was totally his fault. But the facts are the facts, folks. Jimmy Carter's Presidency was NOT a successful one. I mean, just take a look at the economic numbers, for Christ. By January, 1980, the unemployment rate was 7.1%, the inflation rate was 13.9%, and the prime interest rate was pushing 16% (and, please, keep in mind, this is only the rate that the "good" customers get and even this went up to 20% by April of 1980). Add to that the long gas lines, the Iranian hostage situation, the botched attempt to free the hostages and, yeah, you can really see why Mr. Carter's face will never, ever, EVER, appear on Mount Rushmore..........................................................................................P.S. Obviously Mr. Carter deserves a lot of credit for his brokering of a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel. That, folks, was probably his greatest accomplishment as President. That, and he also deserves a lot of credit for some of his post Presidential initiatives; Habitat for Humanity, in particular.

Two More Divisive Little "Gems" From Ann Coulter

1) On Herman Cain - "Our blacks are better than your blacks." 2) On Mayor Bloomberg (and the fact that he opted against dispersing the OWS protesters in New York City) - "Mayor Bloomberg has never been a very manly man."................................................................................................Look, I get it, people. She's trying to be provocative and get people to buy her books, pay more attention to her, etc.. Hell, I can even relate to it a little - being a provocateur myself. But, I ask you here, is there even an envelope for her to push any longer? I mean, really.

Pundits on the Far-Right that I Loathe

Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Ann Coulter (she actually kind of amuses me but, whatever), Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Mark Levin (kind of a shame 'cause he's smart), Ollie North, Tracy Byrnes (some nasty chick on the Fox Business channel), Brent Bozell, Bill Kristol, Liz Cheney, Mike Huckabee (and, no, I don't care how affable he is), Karl Rove, John Bolton, Monica Crowley, Melanie Morgan, Neil Boortz, Janet Parshall

Pundits on the Far-Left that I Loathe

Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz, Michael Moore, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhodes, Markos Moulitsas, Chris Hayes, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Eric Alterman, Naomi Klein, Cornell Belcher, Paul Begala (he's borderline - more of a weasel than anything), Joan Walsh, Amy Goodman

Dean Wormer's (Free) Advice to Alan Keyes

"Yo, bra (yes, I did spice it up a little), spouting polysyllabic gibberish, feigning outrage, and foaming at the mouth is no way to go through life, son.".......................................................................................P.S. Needless to say, this advice of Mr. Wormer's wasn't heeded.

Thomas E. Woods on the Idiocy of "War-Time Prosperity"

"If spending on munitions really makes a country wealthy, the United States and Japan should do the following: Each should seek to build the most spectacular naval fleet in history, an enormous armada of gigantic, powerful, technologically advanced ships. The two fleets should then meet in the Pacific. Naturally, since they would want to avoid the loss of life that accompanies war, all naval personnel would be evacuated from the ships. At that point the U.S. and Japan would sink each other's fleets. They could then celebrate how much richer they had made themselves by devoting labor, steel, and countless other inputs to the production of things that would wind up at the bottom of the ocean."................................................................................................P.S. I would also add a question to this wonderful piece of irreverence. If in fact it WAS WW2 that got us out of the Great Depression, why then isn't it the case that the two conflicts (three, if you count Libya, four, if you count Pakistan, five, if you count Yemen, six, if you......) of today haven't produced a similar miracle? It's like, what, the sons a' bitches aren't big enough?

The "Devil" is in the Details

One of my main issues with extremists is their penchant to oversimplify. These individuals are constantly taking complex social, political, economic, and historical topics and reducing them; good versus evil, right versus wrong, effective versus ineffective (this one via the shameless utilization of cherry-picking), etc...............................................................................................Take, for example, the hard-core progressives' assessment of Ronald Reagan. Instead of simply saying that Mr. Reagan was a flawed man/President and/or holding the fellow responsible for specific events/problems (ballooning deficits, the Iran-Contra affair, Lebanon, etc.), these individuals have transformed the former President into this most monstrously evil of dark villains. It's absolutely ludicrous..........................................................................................................I mean, yes, Reagan DID make mistakes. Nobody of even a remotely fair mind would argue that. But the fellow also markedly reduced a) interest rates, b) inflation, and c) unemployment. That, I'm saying, and the fellow also brokered a landmark arms-control agreement with Gorbachev. The left, in my opinion, should at least be able to recognize this....................................................................................................P.S. And, yes, to be fair and balanced here, the same could also be said about what the right often does to FDR. Instead of giving the dude credit for things such as the bank holiday, his loosening up of international trade, the fact that some of the public works projects were actually useful, and, especially, his leadership during WW2, they're constantly demonizing him as some sort of pinko (this by focusing only on such boneheaded things as the NRA, etc.). This probably needs to stop, too.

46 Hours Without Electricity

My God. What am I going to do in a REAL emergency?

On Herbert Hoover and FDR 1

To all of those who think that Hoover was a laissez-faire Capitalist who sat on his hands and let the Great Depression continue absent intervention, please, explain this, a quote from FDR during the 1932 Presidential campaign; "This is the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all our history", OR THIS, a quote form FDR's running mate, John Nance Garner; "He (Mr. Hoover) is leading the country down the path to socialism." It doesn't sound to me as if the Democrats from that era thought that Herbert Hoover was laissez-faire Capitalist AT ALL....So much so for armchair historians (can you say MSNBC's Chris Matthews?), huh?

Some Questions For Bill O'Reilly 1

So, Bill, why should I watch you at 8PM and NOT Anderson Cooper? Are you saying that you're a fairer arbiter than Mr. Cooper? Are you saying that you're somehow a better journalist than him (and, please, keep in mind, the fellow followed up on the Haiti earthquake for weeks - actually reporting from there for a fairly decent portion of it)? What is it? I mean, there's got to be something - something of a tangible nature that you can point me to....And, no, don't even try to point me to all of those meely-mouthed/hand-picked liberals who you're constantly putting on to ridicule, legitimize the indefensible, etc.. That, me-bucko, while it may be moderately entertaining, isn't even remotely journalistic....I mean, that is what we're talking about here, right?

Addendum to kaboom 1

Total deaths from drone attacks in Northern Pakistan; 426 under Bush, 2,188 under Obama....I'm just sayin'.

kaboom

According to Wikipedia, there were a total of 42 drone attacks in Northern Pakistan during the final 5 years of the Bush Administration. During the first 3 years of the Obama administration, there have already been 231 (this, also according to Wikipedia). I guess that my question here is, if President Bush was a war criminal......

Things, The Popularity of Which, I Cannot Fathom

The National Hockey League, Kiss (heavy-metal, in general, but especially Kiss), ALL reality television, advocacy journalism (actually, I understand it - I just don't like it), "Sex and the City", NASCAR, Hip-Hop, vampires, Vin Diesel, female pop power singers, metrosexuality, Hermann Hesse, Facebook, Twitter, the British Royal Family, Rob Schneider, Taco Bell, Wii, slurpees, Budweiser, texting, Maya Angelou, "Grey's Anatomy", lobster, Dom Perignon, "Star Trek", Jerry Springer/Maury Povich, French cuisine, the act of putting ketchup on a hot-dog, expensive vodkas, video games, Domino's Pizza (I don't care if they deliver), Starbuck's, pop-country (give me some Gram Parsons, Steve Earle, or Patty Griffin any day), "The View", "Pirates of the Caribbean", political heroes, Vladimir Nabokov, "The Naked Lunch", Drew Barrymore, Porsches (I'd rather have an Alfa Romeo and lots of cash), the "Scream" movie, "Shrek", professional wrestling in its current state (the older stuff, that's a different story), "Forrest Gump" anal sex, energy drinks, hard-core partisan politics, flash-mobs, Will Ferrell, anything Osmond, the University of Notre Dame, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame", motivational speakers, body-language experts, Corona, gold teeth, Barry Manilow, Hot Pockets, "Brothers and Sisters", Jagermeister, unnatural hair colors/dye-jobs......To Be Continued