Q-Tip Ejaculatté

The Obamarxes In All Their Glamor

2009-07-08T19:58:00.000-07:00

This is the couple that's supposed to have brought style and glamor to the White House? That's what the press would have me believe. Well, just look at this picture and tell me... where on earth are they hiding the glamor??????

Join O'Reillly's Boycott!

2009-03-30T11:25:00.001-07:00

O'Reilly got this one right. Penn is despicable, and I'm happy to boycott his movies.

clipped from www.comcast.net

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: ARE THERE ACTORS WHOSE POLITICAL OPINIONS DISTURB YOU SO MUCH YOU WON'T SEE THEIR MOVIES?

O'Reilly: Just Sean Penn.

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: SOMEONE WILL READ THAT AND ACCUSE YOU OF ENCOURAGING A NEW BLACKLIST ERA.

O'Reilly: Not at all. He's a great actor, and if you hire him, you'll get a good performance. I'm just not going to give a guy who gives aid and comfort to people like (Iran president Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein, when he was alive, my 10 bucks. That's my right as an American.

Nancy Pelosi: "Dumber Than Soap"

2009-02-05T08:21:00.000-08:00

It may be debatable what exactly Nancy Pelosi is dumber than, but "soap" was the word of choice attached to this YouTube clip.

Glenn Beck: Comrade Obamarx

2009-02-05T08:13:00.000-08:00

The Fall Of The House Of Journalspace

2009-01-24T12:20:00.000-08:00

Journalspace.com no longer exists. The explanation for why it's gone can be found on their site. It's somewhat convoluted and pretty funny, but not nearly as hilarious as this You Tube Video about JS's demise.

I once had a blog at JS. The place sucked. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Cornyn To Filibuster Seating Franken

2009-01-03T03:19:00.001-08:00

Al Franken must be stopped from stealing the Minnesota senatorial election. It is inconceivable that he managed to get this far in the senatorial election process in Minnesota. He is not politically qualified to do anything more than be a liar, and even that he does very badly. Isn't it bad enough that we now have a president-elect who is stupid and corrupt? Do we really have to add Al Franken into that mix?

clipped from thehill.com

Cornyn promises filibuster on Franken

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) threatened Friday to
filibuster any attempt to seat Democratic Minnesota Senate candidate Al Franken
next week.

The newly minted National Republican Senatorial Committee
(NRSC) chairman said he had not whipped votes in the GOP caucus, but added that
he could not imagine any members defecting and seating Franken without a
certificate of election.

Franken will not have that certificate as long as the
election is challenged in the courts — a likely scenario, with Sen. Norm
Coleman’s (R-Minn.) legal team already attacking the credibility of the recount
process.

“I think it is very clear that the people of Minnesota
and the courts in Minnesota should make the decision about who won the
Minnesota Senate election, and not political leaders in Washington, D.C.,”
Cornyn said. “That process is ongoing and will not be resolved, in all
likelihood, for weeks and maybe longer.”

Here we go again!

2009-01-01T22:27:00.001-08:00

Does no one ever learn that the reason the Clintons are so good at fund raising is because they do it illegally? Is it any surprise that Obamarx is in on this too?

clipped from www.thesmokinggun.com

President-elect Barack Obama's name may soon pop up in another federal prosecution, this one involving a massive Ponzi scheme (no, the other massive Ponzi scheme). In addition to the Rod Blagojevich pay-for-play probe, Obama could figure in the upcoming fraud trial of Norman Hsu, the disgraced Democratic fundraiser who was charged last year with operating a $60 million pyramid scheme. According to investigators, Hsu, a major Hillary Clinton fundraiser, pressured investors to donate money to political candidates with whom he was aligned.

it was "inevitable" that his client's "connections" to Bill and Hillary Clinton "and other democratic notables--including perhaps the president-elect--will be introduced at trial." Before becoming a key fundraiser for Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, Hsu co-hosted a 2005 California fundraiser for Obama's political action committee

Marrero declined to delay the trial, which will begin a week before Obama's inauguration

The Franken-ACORN Connection

2009-01-01T10:10:00.001-08:00

Al Franken in conjunction with ACORN is planning to hijack the Minnesota senatorial recount. What on earth could the people of Minnesota possibly have been thinking to elect Al Franken to anything much less a senatorial spot? Al Franken is a liar, a washed up comedic writer, and a pathetic excuse for a politician. He makes grandiose statements that have no basis in fact, and when he's called out on his fabrications he sits there like a dumbfounded stooge unable to produce any evidence to support what he says. Just ask Bernie Goldberg. Minnesota should be ashamed!

clipped from online.wsj.com

Something is wrong when a victorious candidate owes more thanks to vote counters than to voters. Such was the case in Washington in 2004, and Minnesota is poised to follow in its footsteps in 2008.

Citizens and the media might also take a closer look at some of the individuals and organizations involved in monkeying with and even overturning elections. Both Mr. Franken and Ms. Gregoire were endorsed by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- Acorn -- a group under investigation in several states for suspected voter registration chicanery.

The man overseeing the Senate recount, Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, was also endorsed by Acorn, and his election campaign in 2006 was funded in part by something called "The Secretary of State Project." This latter group, founded by MoveOn.org's former grass-roots director, exists solely to install far-left candidates as secretaries of state in swing states.

Obama Interviews The Pups

2008-12-03T22:57:00.000-08:00

I subscribe to The New Yorker Magazine. I do that because George W Bush was elected president of the US for two terms, and I make it a point to read articles in magazines that take the opposite political opinion of whomever is in office. Most of the time I don't agree with the opinions expressed by the liberal political spectrum, but at least I'm aware of what that side is up to, and that's important to me. It's soon time to change magazine subscriptions since Obamarx has been elected president for the next 4 years. I'll probably get the Weekly Standard and allow The New Yorker to lapse.

Meanwhile, I continue receiving the issues left on my subscription to TNY. There hasn't been enough time for them to begin earnestly gushing about the wonders of our new POTUS which is a good thing. My stomach still has not settled down from the battering upset it took election night. I may not be up to all that gooey nonsense about "change" and "saving the world" that other publications and media services have begun.

However, the 8 December 2008 issue of TNY has an interesting cover. It shows Obamarx interviewing one dog while a line of hopeful pups wait their turn outside his office door. I don't know or care what the artist who concocted this image had in mind, but I know what I thought as soon as I saw the cover... Obamarx is spending more time and giving more thought to what kind of puppy he's going to give to his children as the bribery payoff he promised them than he gave to whomever his Secretary of State was going to be.

He actually did it. He named Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State for his administration. Not only did he put her in his cabinet, but he did it with the same straight face he used to announce Joe Biden would be his running mate.

I keep a book of my favorite quotes into which I enter new additions as I come across them anywhere from online to bumper stickers. One of the more recent entries is, "100,000 lemmings can't be wrong." Apparently neither can several million American voters urged on by an almost criminally incompetent media who served up Obamarx on a regular basis with a halo shining over his head and some drivel about his bringing "change" to Washington. Now I get it. While everyone thought "change" meant a difference in behavior, what it really means is the pennies and nickels that rattle around in the bottom of our handbags. We usually refer to that as "loose change", but in this case there's nothing "loose" about Obamarx. He hatched his plans and kept his intentions secret from those millions of American voters, some of whom still believe they're actually going to get tax breaks and not worry where their jobs have gone. Better start counting up all that "loose change" people; it may come in handy to balance your own personal budget very soon.

Meanwhile, the Clintons are about to be set loose in Washington once again. We can only shudder to think what Willie has in mind as he finds ways to entertain himself. And Hillary? I'd make darn sure anything that isn't nailed down in the White House is guarded by round-the-clock secret service agents. Last time she was allowed free reign there even typewriter keys disappeared.

It will be interesting to see what new covers TNY comes up with week after week as Obamarx continues to define his priorities. Not interesting enough to renew my subscription to TNY, but there ought to be a few chuckles before my Weekly Standard kicks in.

Chris Matthews & The Fibberal Media

2008-11-06T10:46:00.000-08:00

So, Matthews FINALLY admits where he stands in the political spectrum. What a pathetic loser. I no longer watch MSNBC. Between Edward R Olbermann and Chris the Screamer, I just don't have the stomach for it.

Payback? Definitely! Change? Yeah, Right

2008-11-05T15:00:00.000-08:00

I once asked a Fibberal close to me who among the cratz would be better than Bush to lead the US. This was at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion. His answer was, "Anybody But Bush". So I said, "but who? Name 5 people who'd be better." His only answer, and this is because there was no one better suited from the cratz party to do the job so he couldn't come up with a name as well as wouldn't admit to having no options in mind, was: "Anybody But Bush". The people have spoken. We now have Anybody But Bush running the US. That is how I intend to refer to our new "leader": Mr Anybody But Bush. Not my choice, mind you. The choice of a Fibbie.

Mr Anybody But Bush announced during his "victory" speech last night, that if anyone still wondering whether America is the land where anything is possible need look no further than yesterday's election results. For the first time Mr ABB said something with which I can agree albeit not with his same intent. I now understand better than ever before than the inmates truly do run the asylum.

Where else but in America could a man with obvious terrorist ties, a man who not only condones but continues to attend a church in which the pastor preaches race hate rhetoric from the pulpit, AND a man who maintains mob connections gets elected president. In a country where the Fibberal media jumps all over every word a Conservative utters with the fine-tooth comb of political correctness dripping from all its teeth, did report Mr ABB's associations. They were simply willing to overlook from him what they'd never have allowed for a second from someone else. Why? You figure it out. It seems awfully clear to me.

It isn't just that Mr ABB is not qualified to run a vacuum cleaner much less a country, it's also that, thanks to his lack of experience and sense, we are also stuck with Joe Biden as being the guy one heartbeat away from the presidency. That should scare the shit out of every American, but unfortunately the inmates overlooked that. Once it became evident that Joe Biden would gnaw on his foot every time he opened his mouth, he was scooted off to the sidelines where hopefully he wouldn't do more damage. Joe Biden is a joke, and people from his own party as well as media pundits all acknowledge this.

So, we're stuck with either Mr ABB or worst case scenario, Joey Biden. That's bad enough, but there's more...

Today Mr ABB announced that Illinois Representative Raym Emmanuel will be his White House Chief of Staff... in an administration Mr ABB says is going to reflect "change" in America. Raym Emmanuel was a political and policy aide in Bill Clinton's White House. The ABB Transition Team is headed by John Podesta, who served as chief of staff under former President Clinton. Who's next... Janet Reno as White House Chef? Where's the change here? Looks like more of Clinton to me, and that's definitely NOT a good thing.

I'm told that during his "victory" speech last night, Mr ABB talked about the "sacrifices" we need to make as a country during this time. That makes me wonder. Does Ms Moocher, who stated before tv cameras that she no longer has to worry about paying her mortgage nor does she has to worry about paying for her fuel, realize that when a politician starts telling you that you need to make sacrifices, they do NOT mean turning off the lights in rooms which are unoccupied. No, they mean prepare to have your taxes hiked sky high, and forget that stuff about who is exempt from tax hikes and who is not. Be prepared to pay more for everything you want thanks to the taxes small business will have to absorb... and forget about those monetary limits on what constitutes small business that kept dwindling the longer the campaign went on.

So, I get it. Just like the first O J verdict, the election of Mr ABB is a reflection of the Fibbie Payback Mentality. For 8 years they have relentlessly dogged every move George W Bush has made with no regard for fact or benefit to the country or protection from terrorism. If Bush did it; it was not just bad, but criminal. So the electorate turned out to give us Anybody But Bush, and a clown whose foot takes up permanent residence in his mouth most of the time. Not only that, but they further insult my intelligence by telling me this is a "unity" move. Balderdash. It's Payback... which IS hell.

One more thing, and this is just to clear up the record. Mr ABB is NOT America's first black president. That distinction was presented to William Jefferson Clinton by unreadable author, Toni Morrison. She was cheered and heads shook solidly in the affirmative from her friends when she made this presentation. (I yakked up my lunch when I heard that announcement, but that's just me.) So, thanks to her rather premature pronouncement and her obvious skepticism toward what her own country will do, Toni Morrison stole the title from Mr ABB. He is, in fact according to Morrison, America's second black president.

Fibberal Trash Talk

2008-10-16T12:00:00.000-07:00

David Singleton, a reporter with the Scranton Times-Tribune, quoted an unknown male member of a Sarah Palin political rally as having shouted "Kill Him" when Barack Obama's name was mentioned by congressional candidate, Chris Hackett. Not surprisingly several media sources, including your up-to-the-minute Conservative bashing thinks-he's-Edward-R-Murrow Keith Olbermann gleefully reported this story over and over again as proof that those lunatic wingers are gonna assassinate Barack Obama. The Fibbies have this mania for insisting that wingers are out for blood lust whenever a racial minority is involved in anything.

Turns out, this story isn't true. Turns out that the Secret Service couldn't find anyone to corroborate this story, and the only one who heard those words uttered was David Singleton, the guy who wrote the story.

This is why I call 'em Fibberals, people. The Fibbies I've seen never once allow facts to get in the way of the message they want us to hear. I've lost count of every time some Fibbie came up with an outlandish accusation only to be unable to prove what he or she's stated as fact. That's when we get the nonsense about "documentaries with satire" or someone like Al Franken, just having been totally discredited, sitting there with a shell-shocked look on his face unable to defend himself or explain why he just told so many lies about Bernie Goldberg.

It is one hell of a desperate ploy and a shameful way to try to get elected when Fibbies believe they'll help their candidate by using their positions to publish outrageous lies like the "Kill Him" debacle. But that's when you get with Fibbies. Over and over and over again.

Math: Joe Biden Style

2008-10-16T11:54:00.000-07:00

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you discount Michael Moore, Joe Biden is the world's dumbest white man...

The Spoilers In Shelfari Book Groups

2008-10-16T11:33:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I received an email invitation to join a new book group at Shelfari. I don't remember what the name of the group was, but the idea behind it was that there are some books which aren't great literature and will probably not make it to bestseller lists, but they still have an appeal. People in this group were encouraged to share their "finds" in this area. The Administrator of the group started off with a recommendation of her own -- a book I'd never heard of, but I decided to check into it at some point. I often stray from the bestseller list, so this group sounded great to me.

I got interrupted and had to leave my computer before I was finished looking around at who else had joined the group, although this one was really new. It had only been in existence for about 7 hours, so there weren't many introduction messages written by other members. Today I went back to check the group out further since I had received a note at my Shelfari site from the leader of this group thanking me for joining. She hadn't been the one to invite me -- one of my other Shelfari friends had done that, and I'd check out anything "Julie" recommended because we share some of the same tastes in books.

The first introduction message I read was enough for me. I resigned from the group immediately and deleted all references to it from my profile/message page. There are groups I will not join nor will I read any of the posts they contain because of certain members who got there before me. If those people join after me, I leave. Reading is one of the things I enjoy most in this world. The exchange of ideas, for me, is inherent in book discussions. I won't belong to a group that allows bigotry or outright stupidity no matter what the cause. And one of those causes, for me, is what political party I subscribe to.

The person who introduced herself in this new group said that she has no friends because she recently moved to a part of Ohio where she's surrounded by McCain-Palin signs. She said the "Christian zealots" were getting to her. Since it wasn't my group, I didn't feel as though I could answer her properly right then and there. Instead I'll do it here at my own place where I don't have to consider anyone's opinion other than my own before letting loose on the rant. Although why I should have been mindful of my etiquette when she certainly wasn't mindful of hers is a mystery, but why dump this problem on an administrator who just wanted to start a book discussion. AND, to my way of thinking, had a darn good, original idea for a group in which to do it.

I don't live in Ohio, nor do I have McCain-Palin signs all over my lawn or my car. However, I strongly support the McCain-Palin ticket because for as long as I've been on this earth (and I'm OLD), I've never met a Liberal (I call 'em Fibberals) Ticket I could live with. It's my opinion that Fibbies are forever running around pointing fingers, flapping their jaws, whining, and generally telling HUGE whoppers about the state of the world, who caused it to get that way, and the solutions that will fix it. In this particular election why anyone would be all excited about having a presidential candidate who has 5 minutes experience being a Senator, ties to a domestic terrorist, and has received voluminous illegal campaign funds from the internet when he made an agreement to accept government funds and then reneged on it is beyond my comprehension. Never mind he chose as his running mate a plagiarist who is well known for sticking his foot in his mouth and chomping away on it. In my opinion Joe Biden is the dumbest white man on the face of the earth if you first exclude Michael Moore. BUT, these are my opinions. Would I express them in a book group designed to talk about books that aren't bestsellers but deserve to be read? Would I insult other members of the group before I even knew who they were? Would I assume that everyone else in the group agreed with my opinion no matter how narrow-minded and bigoted it might be? OF COURSE NOT!

Some years ago I was in a hospital in The Beltway. The hospital staff was made up of many different ethnic groups. The patients were the only white faces on the floor where I was being treated. An ambulance driver, a white man, started a conversation with me in which he did one of those nudge, nudge, wink, wink things as he talked about how this hospital only hired "those kinds of people" and how he wouldn't be comfortable allowing "them" to take care of him. I was appalled at his assumption that it was okay to talk to me like this because he assumed I believe the same thing he does. I don't share his racist, bigoted opinions, and I was offended that he thought I did based, I suppose, upon the obvious fact that I'm white.

I felt the same way today as I did way back then when I read that ignorant fool's comments about Christian zealots. Just who does she think she is to assume that it's okay to make remarks about conservatives like that? And by what right does she assume everyone else will agree with her?

I don't want to belong to a group where, before I've even met anyone, the notion is put on the floor that to be conservative is a bad thing. In a further discussion, the Fibbie went on to tell the Administrator that if any of her post had to be deleted, she'd understand. The Administrator responded that she wouldn't be deleting any of the post because the woman was just describing herself and what she believes. To some extent, that's true. She did lay it all out there for the rest of us as to what she thinks. What she did NOT do is consider the time and place where her opinions are appropriate. I enjoy political discourse and debates about ideas, but I won't waste any of my time hanging out in a group with someone who declares herself friendless because she's surrounded by conservatives/Christian zealots. My response to her is, Honey, if you don't have any friends because of politics, you need an attitude adjustment. It's a sad, sad state when politics is the only criteria upon which friendships can be built. In my opinion, it shows a highly refined state of ignorance to declare up front that being surrounded by conservatives makes you friendless. YOU make you friendless, dear... conservatives have nothing to do with it.

It is kind of disappointing, though. I may have enjoyed that group. Then again, maybe not. I don't know what kind of participation Ms Friendless will have in this new group nor do I know what her reading habits are. More to the point, though? I really don't care.

Sarah Palin: She Beat The Street's Expectations!

2008-10-03T04:55:00.000-07:00

I get my television news coverage from MSNBC. I don't particularly like them; I just cannot stand CNN or Fox, so MSNBC is the least of the triumverate of evils (to me). All day yesterday the coverage on MSNBC centered around the Palin - Biden debate. This televised circus was touted as being the most important vice-presidential debate in US history. Since the vice-presidential debates don't have as long a history (they've only been in existence since 1984) as the presidential debates (the first was held in 1960), to say this debate is the most important debate is a little bit like looking at a storm cloud and deciding the sky is falling. Hyperbole. It's all about the hyperbole. And the media is just loaded with it.

The debate itself was somewhat anticlimactic. As long as Palin didn't spit on the carpet or have a total mental breakdown on national tv, she was going to be judged as having "passed the test". Expectations for her were set THAT low. Occasionally someone would mention that Biden could be a loose cannon with unbelievably stupid, rambling sound bites, but that was done with a "Joe will be Joe" kind of evaluation. I've watched Biden in action for years and concluded long ago that he's a blithering idiot. He is far more impressed with the sound of his own voice than he is with any of the positions he's held in Congress, and when I consider that the guy plagiarized his own past history... well, Joe is only qualified to lead the rats out of Hamelin (or is that Washington, DC) rather than to be vice-president, and a heartbeat away from president, of the US. The media, however, only mentions Joe's incompetence in passing, and it's always with that, "We all know how Joe is but ain't he just so lovable," connotation.

Now the debate is over, and I'm disgusted with the media's take on it. Oh sure, they begrudgingly note that Palin didn't self-destruct, but the sarcasm and exaggerations of her mannerisms has become stronger. Meanwhile, Joe, who told us at the Democratic convention that when he was a child his mother had to repeatedly send him back outside when he came home whupped by the neighborhood bullies with the instruction to "go bloody their noses, Joey", was the one who almost, but not quite, had the on stage meltdown. And it's not the first time he's done this either.

When Joey couldn't think of a way to top Palin's assertion that she understands Main Street with its problems of budget, health care, single parent family situations, and the challenges of raising a special needs child, know what Joey did? He cried. Yep. Got himself all choked up so that it was touch and go there for a moment as to whether he'd even be able to talk, and he raised those puppy dog eyes to the camera to stare down Main Street and assure them that no one needs to tell him what it's like to be a single parent WHILE he tried very hard to manufacture just one lonely tear slowly making its way down his botoxed cheek. He waffled on squeezing out that tear, but he did his all-choked-up routine better than last time he pulled it out of his bag of tricks for the staff on a committee he had to give up because he's now running for vice-prez. THAT time the crowd didn't understand that he was pretending to be overcome with emotion, so they didn't respond the way they should have to his shameless and pathetic grandstanding. Now, can you just imagine if Sarah Palin had done one of those teary, emotional not-quite-but-almost breakdown moments? She'd have been crucified no matter what the context of the little performance. The question most certainly would have been raised whether this was the kind of behavior we expect from our veep. I saw one mention of this intimate Joey moment on MSNBC, and it was explained as the point at which Joey turned the debate to his favor. Apparently up to that point Palin was doing better than Biden, but he almost, but not quite, squeezes out a tear, and that makes him justified to holler, "Never fear, Underdog is here." Puhleeeze. That phoney moment the media fell for hook, line, and sinker was, to me, a get-the-barf-bag time stopper. If only Palin had thought to bring some Kleenex with her so she could offer Joey a tissue along with some gentle advice to pull himself together.

I was interested in what the media would have to say after the debates, and their responses were pretty predictable as was the poll result aired on MSNBC. Joe Q 6-Pack believes Biden won the debate although 33% of respondents to the poll believe it was a tie. Since we have no idea who responded to the poll question of who won, it's impossible to know how reliable those results are. And given the hatchet job the media has been doing on Palin since McCain announced her name as his running mate, is it any wonder she didn't get the public confidence vote stating she won. I think she did win based on what I know of politics and what I have learned to distrust about Biden's footloose and fancy play with statistics and the facts. When Joey told me that 95% of all small businesses in the US earn under $250,000 a year, I knew he was off and running into fantasy land. I didn't expect the media to point that out. But what I also did not expect was the blase way in which MSNBC was willing to write off the debate the day after as totally irrelevant. Joe Scarborough couldn't wait to point out that vice-presidential debates do not elect presidents. That's Scarborough for you -- another firm grasp of the obvious from a guy who seems to want us to believe that he's never been a Republican. EVER. Since Joe served as a Republican Congressman from Florida, he's got some heavy 'splainin' to do about his party affiliation confusion.

So, yesterday that veep debate was THE most important event in political history. Today it's become a meaningless event barely worth the mention. This is according to the media. The place I'm supposed to trust to keep me informed on the latest breaking news and give me accurate details about what's going on in the world. Yeah right. There are two reasons why I cannot vote for Barack Obama. I want to thank Joe Biden for so resoundingly cementing my conviction that he is firmly in place as my second reason.

Dancing With The Stars: Dump Leachman NOW

2008-09-25T06:56:00.000-07:00

I hate double standards. One of the Dee Esses I hate the most has to do with old people. Why is it that just because someone is 82 years old, she (this seems to apply to women more often than men) can do or say anything she likes and get away with it: even though if someone much younger did the same thing, she might just be kicked out of the human race because of it?

Since I was a child I knew this was the case and that it made no sense. I knew this because of a television show called Life Begins at 80. On this program, questions were posed to people over the age of 80, and they were supposed to come up with answers reflecting on how they got to be so old and so wise. What I really learned from watching the program is that if you are old, you can do or say anything you like, no matter how outrageous, and people will chuckle and talk about how you're "such a pistol". But if you're younger and say or do exactly the same thing, the response could be anything from washing your mouth out with soap to being kicked off a major social registry to having your career ruined forever. Times have not changed.

This is demonstrated by ABC's popular tv show Dancing With The Stars including Cloris Leachman in its new season lineup. Cloris cannot dance; from the clips we've seen from her rehearsals, Cloris can barely walk across the room without appearing unsteady. Cloris also never shuts up. Even when what she says makes no sense. And the really awful part about this is that some people on Dancing With The Stars actually encourage her.

During the first week of Dancing With The Stars, Cloris has:

Called one judge a bastard and another judge a bitch
Shoved her cleavage so far into one judge's face he was forced to ask her to kindly remove it.
During her dance performance, Cloris appeared to be grabbing at her partner's crotch during one of her dance moves. Actually, I use the term 'dance moves' very loosely since Cloris was lying on the floor at the time, and her partner was dancing over the length of her prone body. I don't know what was going through Corky Ballas' mind, but I was deeply concerned for his crotch.
Told people to vote for her because she's an orphan and then further commented that being an orphan is very sad.
Generally been disruptive, disrespectful, and embarrassing.

Carrie Ann can laugh so hard she saturates her panties, but Cloris really isn't that funny. And the point isn't the humor. If Cloris were one of the younger women on this program, she'd never be permitted to get away with such behavior. Sarah Rogers of Showtracker reports that, "[Cloris] provides an element of unpredictability that the show sorely needs." I beg to differ with Sarah Rogers. Two people who performed better than Cloris could dance in her wildest dreams went home because she got more votes than they did. Neither of those who were eliminated would have won the competition, but Cloris doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of doing anything remotely close to the dances assigned to her. Everyone else on the show manages to do at least that much, and the two who were eliminated shouldn't have gone home in place of her. It scares me that we could have another Sanjaya on our hands if that self-absorbed harridan continues to hang on by her gnarled fingertips and her garish makeup.

It should also be noted that not once in all the grandstanding Cloris used to flaunt herself has she ever said one word of thanks to her partner. Not once. It's all about Cloris. Well, Cloris on her own is a pretty scary prospect because she has no style, no grace, no elegance, no talent for dancing, zilch, nada, nothing. Corky Ballas dances in such a way as to make Cloris look good -- when that's even possible. Last night Corky was asked a question which Cloris rudely interrupted so she could talk. Corky called her "mouth", and said something about her answering for him. Poor Corky.

I say we put Corky and the rest of the DWTS fans out of their misery and send Cloris home. I know she will threaten not to leave, and we can only shudder at the invective she'll toss at those who didn't vote for her. But we can take it. Cloris Leachman is an annoying, self-involved, pathetic old woman. Someone really ought to stick a fork in the old biddy because she's done.

Luke Russert? Fire The Dude!

2008-09-25T06:14:00.000-07:00

Luke Russert says he made a "dumb statement" when he suggested that smart people support Barack Obama for POTUS. I certainly won't argue with Luke Russert about the way in which he categorizes his quote, but it seems to me the larger dumbness issue lies with NBC for giving Luke a job in the first place.

Supposedly, NBC hired Russert to offer commentary on the youth vote. How is it that Luke Russert became so knowledgeable about what the youth of America, the ones of voting age that is, have on their minds? That's a mystery. It appears that the only reason Luke Russert is qualified to offer such insight is because... well, er... he's youthful? What Luke Russert is NOT is good at this job. Just because his daddy, Tim Russert, worked on Meet The Press as commentator for a number of years does not mean his son is qualified to do anything more than WATCH television, never mind do political commentary on it. Now I know that the on air journalists at every network darn near tripped over themselves talking about how wonderful Tim Russert was at what he did, and they are certainly entitled to their opinion. But how this makes Luke Russert able to fill the shoes of his daddy is pretty murky territory.

The first and last report I saw Luke Russert do was at one of the Political Conventions (I'm pretty sure it was the Cratz Convention, but don't quote me). Luke was supposed to explain to us the difference in generations of Americans and how they feel about having a Black candidate running for President. Russert explained that older generations of Americas notice racial differences far more than the younger people in our country do. Younger people have grown up having a larger racial mix in their schools. They've held jobs where women have been their supervisors, and they've thought nothing of that. Older Americans have had a far different experience, and it shows in how they vote. For a while there Russert was doing okay, but then he said something that darn near knocked my socks off. He said that because younger people have had more diversity in their educational and vocational lives, they are better able "to stomach" viewing people of other ethnicities in positions of power. So THAT'S what it takes? Being able "to stomach" Obama's being Black and possibly ending up as President?

I waited for someone, anyone, in the media to point out what an atrocious statement this was. No one said a word. I mentioned having heard Russert's comment to Gov, my Person for ranting to about all things political, and he said, yes, I didn't imagine it; he heard it too. As far as I was concerned, this earned Luke Russert the nickname Blunderbussert. I paid no attention to anything he had to say after that. I figured he'd be allowed to get away with anything if he got away with that stomach remark, so why listen.

Well, apparently he's not getting a free pass on his statement about smart people supporting Obama. I don't know that I even believe that's what Russert really believes, although it certainly could be the case. After all, Olbermann is at NBC, and he leaves no doubt where his political sympathies lie, and he gets away with it night after night. I think Russert, though, simply needs more experience before someone entrusts him with a microphone in his hand and a political thought on his mind. Just because his daddy was a big time political analyst doesn't mean sonny boy has an ounce of talent in that direction. I say let Luke get a little dryer behind the ears, a little more knowledgeable about his subject, and more self-assured before he goes tripping over his tongue on live tv. But that would be common sense, wouldn't it? And the media is never about that.

Oprah? Backlash? Well, It's About Time!

2008-09-10T18:31:00.000-07:00

[rant]Looks like the Queen of Daytime TV isn't doing so good in the media attention department these days. But then, she's not giving away cars or sheets or bath oil or whatever the "new big thing" is this month. No, instead, she's declaring that she will NOT be inviting Sarah Palin on her show. She's had Barack Obama. She's even had Hillary Clinton. But Palin? Nope.

Personally, I don't give a fat rat's ass whether Oprah invites Sarah Palin to her show. It is, after all, Oprah's show, and she can have whomever she likes on it. As Phil Donahue would say, "This is America," which means all those guaranteed freedoms, and Oprah is merely exercising one of hers. That's fine with me, because even if Oprah invited Palin on her show, I wouldn't watch. I'm just thrilled, however, to see that Oprah is finally showing off her true bigoted colors.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say this isn't a bigoted decision. Then why is Oprah so afraid of Palin? And why would she respond to the mere suggestion that Sarah appear on her show as though someone had just asked her to cough up a lung or, God forbid, cook her own dinner? Despite the media's need to paint Sarah Palin as some kind of deranged, redneck, trailer trash, moose eating, lying, unfit mother AND unqualified Governor, she does clean up nice, and so far she hasn't spit on anyone's rug. So what's the problem? And c'mon, if Oprah sensibilities were not one bit affected by having a woman on her show who lied through her teeth to save her husband's job while he was too busy getting blow jobs in the oval office to care what his wife or his country thought about such behavior, then what could possibly affect her so deeply about inviting Sarah Palin to sit down for a nice chat? I mean, Oprah hasn't minded interviewing a pedophile while pretending he was just your basic, average ordinary King Of Pop. What has Palin done to warrant such obvious distaste? Obviously Oprah doesn't want the US to get to know Sarah Palin one bit better than the media coverage has depicted her so far which could hardly be called flattering. So why is that?

According to Popcast, a Comcast.com site people are not looking too kindly on Oprah for shutting out Sarah Palin or any other political candidate until after the election. As I said when I began my rant, that's certainly Oprah's choice, and I respect it. But, see, she opened the door for this herself when she decided to jump in with both swollen ankles to the political arena. It's my opinion that her overboard response to Barack Obama was a very poor business decision. But I'm also, as I said, pleased as punch that she's decided to move in this direction because I think it's high time Oprah is exposed for the phony, food obsessed, touchy-feely, taken-in-by-any-moron-with-a-far-out-life-plan bigot she is. Oprah stopped being relevant years ago, and the sooner the rest of the world realizes that, the happier I, for one, will be.[/rant]

First Pick For McCain Vice President!

2008-09-10T18:13:00.000-07:00

Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii

2008-07-24T09:19:00.000-07:00

Judge Rob Murfitt from New Zealand declared a 9 year old girl a ward of the court so that it would be possible to change her name. The girl's parents are now separated and have made their child the object of a custody battle, but while they were still a family, they conceived and delivered their child into this world whereupon they promptly named her: Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. Judge Murfitt believes the parents used "very poor judgment" in choosing this name for their child.

I say Judge Murfitt is horribly understating the magnitude of what those morons did in naming their child. I say what they did should be punishable by death. Let's teach these morons a lesson. They want to name their child something profoundly stupid? Fine. Think it's the right of a parent to do this? Fine. Put your money where your feeble non-existent brain is and die for it. That'll make parents think twice before they hang some insipid moniker on a poor innocent child who will have to drag that hideous name with him or her like a rotting albatross around his or her neck until it can be legally changed when the child becomes an adult and can deal with such things.

I believe in mandatory sterilization for people who show absolutely no sense in the realm of breeding. I have an acquaintance (a very distant one) who once told me that one more baby simply means making another peanut butter and jelly sandwich. She had 6 children by that time and was incubating her 7th. From what I'd observed of her parenting skills with the 6 little blondies she'd already produced, and I made this observation based upon the terminally confused expressions each of those kids wore like a badge, her ability to reproduce should have been forcibly restrained before she had any offspring to show for her fornicating, but surely after the first child hit the deck, that should have been enough.

Never mind that the father of these children, who was a massive and useless mountain of pale, undulating, marshmallowy flesh who did nothing more than sit in a pool chair and burp (think a very pale Jabba The Hut with a lisp and by all means, keep the drool) when he wasn't off making millions at his job as a beer distributor during working hours, because he didn't have two functioning brain cells that weren't attached to his dick, so I say just send him directly to death row. Do not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars. We can try holding him somewhat accountable for bringing all those poor unsuspecting children into the world, but he wouldn't have the first clue what we're talking about. If it doesn't have the word nookie attached to it somewhere leading directly to some woman's pleasure palace, or if it doesn't go ca-ching when pressed, then he's simply not interested.

No, I hold the mother (and I use that term in its loosest possible sense) responsible. After all, she hauled those little guys around with her for the mandatory 9 months, and she birthed their frail little souls either with or without the burped accompaniment of "breathe, breathe, breathe" from good old Jabba. She should have more respect for the whole process than to dumb it down to "one more peanut butter and jelly sandwich".

BTW, her children are all grown now. (She ended up with 9 kids - 8 with Jabba and one with the husband she acquired after she divorced Jabba.) The ones who haven't crawled back to daddy to ask for financial support because they have no idea how to make it in this world without his money, or the ones who simply turned to a life of crime rather than have to use those little parasol umbrellas usually put in fancy mixed drinks to have discussions with their father about finance (Jabba lisps, therefore he spits when he talks)-- those poor souls still wear that look of bewilderment. I worry for them. I want to bring them home and feed them something other than PB&J and nurture them, but it occurs to me they might stay so I stifle the urge.

But I digress. This started out to be about Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii. Thanks to the kindness and good old fashioned common sense of Judge Murfitt she won't have to go through life with that terrible name. I cannot even imagine the verbal abuse from which that Judge rescued her.

But what about all those other poor children who have been branded with inappropriate or outrageously stupid names? I say we make thoughtless, flippant, ill conceived names an offense punishable by death. I don't know for certain that this would be a deterrent, but like Judy Tanuda says, "It could happen." Unfortunately, though, I'm not holding my breath.

Obama For Prez? No Way!!!

2008-06-25T06:19:00.000-07:00

First thing I do when I boot up the computer and get online is look at the daily headlines. I did that today, and after seeing THIS headline: Obama Asks Supporters To Help Clinton Pay Off Debt, I struggled for a few hours to: a) control my gag reflex and b) become coherent again.

I can't honestly say that Barack Obama ever really secured my vote, but he was definitely in the running for it. Part of that was due to my "Anyone But Hillary" mentality (I swiped the idea for that from those Anyone But Bush folks); the rest was my being partially sold on the notion that Obama would be different. Well, with this latest announcement of his, any illusions I had about his being acceptable presidential material representing me went right into the toilet where it collided with the misconception that blackmail is illegal for everyone and that includes the Clintons who have always assumed they are above whatever laws they mangle or trip over.

Last week I saw a news article which discussed how much better it would be if Hillary were debt free when she begins campaigning for Obama prior to the November election. The question was posed in the article as to whether it would be better to have Hillary out there on the campaign trail trying to raise money for herself, OR if her talent for money raising would be put to better use if she were debt free and could help Obama raise more bucks. At no time did the article infer any kind of blackmail, but it the idea was planted (for me) nonetheless.

The thing is, since when is it the obligation of the designated Nominee for the presidential election to concern himself with the debt others have incurred while trying to defeat him? Especially when, oh let's say, a $22.5 million debt includes money loaned to the campaign from the candidate herself? Is John McCain worried about whatever losses to personal fortune Mitt Romney had to absorb when Romney decided to leave the Republican race? And wasn't it another Republican... namely Mike Huckabee, who ran his campaign on a shoe string budget so he wouldn't be overwhelmed with debt if he didn't succeed in his bid for the nomination? Then too, there's John Edwards. Is anyone going to come in on a white horse and help him retire whatever outstanding debt he has from his campaign?

The difference between Edwards, Romney, Huckabee, and Hillary is that Hillary has bigger balls. She's just arrogant enough and sleazy enough to try to convince Obama and the rest of the cratz that it is to their advantage to have her debt free. Can anyone in the cratz party say, "bullfeathers"? And if they can't, why can't they?

Finally, the main reason I wouldn't vote for Obama if he got down on his hands and knees and begged while offering to pay all my debts for the rest of my life, is that obviously Obama doesn't recognize when he's being used as well as being made out to be the the fool. Never mind he's condoning the behavior of one of the most corrupt politicians ever to hit Washington like a sledgehammer, is THIS what he considers presidential behavior? There is a certain responsibility that comes with losing, and in Hillary's case that translates into her campaign debt. Yet, once again, she shirks all responsibility and gets someone else do her dirty work for her. Essentially she's emasculated the cratz nominee before he's even been made official. That makes him totally unacceptable as presidential material for me. I just hope enough others see the truth of this to keep him out of the White House.

Slick Willie Eats Foot... Again

2008-04-22T09:52:00.000-07:00

Why, he's got his office in Harlem, and some of his best friends....

How To Join Plarn Strips

2008-04-15T07:34:00.000-07:00

Everyone else in the world probably knows all about Plarn, but I just found out about it. It's a way to use recyclable grocery shopping bags which are joined together and then crocheted into bags or other useful objects.

I'm not a dedicated "Greenie"; in fact there's days if I never heard the word "Green" again I'd be deliriously happy. But every now and then one of those environmental ideas gets through to me. This is one of those times.

So, in case there's other craft people like me out there, this is how to join the bags which are then wound into a ball for easy crocheting or knitting:

Keith Olbermann: Give That Man Some Valium!

2008-03-13T00:24:00.000-07:00

She's F**ing Matt Damon*

2008-02-29T18:59:00.000-08:00

Too, Too Funny!

Help For Hillary!

2008-02-15T08:23:00.000-08:00

Live From The Democrats: Racism and Sexism

2008-01-14T04:05:00.000-08:00

What I've been hearing from the top two Democrats in the 2008 presidential election race is that each of them wants to bring change to our country. Both of them offer promises about how they'll do that without mentioning that they're going to need cooperation from Congress to do it. But that's typical pre-election campaigning rhetoric, and we all should be used to that.

I think there's two bigger, uglier issues at work between these two candidates. Both Clinton and Obama talk a good game about uniting the country, but how exactly do they plan to do that when they use any available opportunity to accuse each other of racism and sexism.

For example, take this latest round of accusations from the Obama people to Hillary AND Bill Clinton. Hillary credited Lyndon Johnson with being responsible for passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to Obama's camp, this means Hillary was not crediting Dr Martin Luther King for his Civil Rights work. Never mind that, in fact, Lyndon Johnson did sign the Civil Rights Act into law, something no other president did, and something for which Democrats have always been proud. Now, in this age of PC rhetoric, there's no such thing as a simple statement of fact because that may just be insensitive to a racial or gender group.

In an effort to save herself and Willie the embarrassment of being accused of being insensitive to Blacks (after all, how shameful is it to have "the first Black President" being accused of racism?), Hillary is willing to latch onto any issue she can use to suggest sexism. She'd make more headway with that argument if she went after Rush Limbaugh. But Obama? I don't think so.

I haven't got any predictions to make on the POTUS 2008 election because I am notoriously terrible at guessing about the future. But I will say one thing. As a news junkie, I wouldn't miss a second of coverage from any of the primary elections or the flotsam and jetsam that floats out of Chris Matthews' mouth nightly as he earnestly tries to give me his version of what's going on in the political front today. I'm especially riveted when the discussion of polls and how absolutely wrong they can be enters the picture.

C'mon. How could some trashy sitcom like Ugly Betty hope to compete with that?

Is This The Party To Whom I Am Speaking?

2007-11-11T13:54:00.000-08:00

I have an unlisted telephone number. I pay Verizon to have an unlisted number because I hate being on the telephone for longer than is necessary, and I had too many acquaintances who, with nothing better to do, called me and settled in for the duration. Which could run on for hours.

Now, with an unlisted number I only get calls from people from whom I want to hear. Well, that's not exactly true. I also get calls for people who used to have this phone number as well as very determined people (one in particular is named Mike) who will not stop bothering me about getting satellite television.

Other than Mike, I consistently get phone calls from bill collectors looking for Luisa and Luis A. I explain that this number no longer belongs to the A's; as a matter fact it has not been theirs for close to 2 years. But I still get calls. Apparently the A's owed huge bunches of suckers who were willing to lend them money.

The latest call I got about Luisa was from FNCB or some arrangement of those letters. FNCB does not personally call people to make their collections. They have a computer do it for them. So the message I keep getting goes something like this:

We are required by law to tell you that this call pertains to the collection of a debt.

We are calling Luisa A. If you are not Luisa A, please hang up the phone. If you are Luisa A, blah, blah, blah.

The first time I heard this message, I hung up because I am not Luisa A. In addition, I can follow verbal instructions very well.

The second time I got this call, which showed up as a long message on my answering machine, I realized that these morons were telling me to hang up if I'm not Luisa, but they have absolutely no idea once I do that whether Luisa ever got their message.
In spite of the fact that I followed their instructions, FNCB was now calling me daily. So I decided to call them and have them remove this number from their deadbeat file.

I called the number FBCN gave me, and not surprisingly was put on hold because all associates were busy with other customers. They remained busy for a good long time, too. I could have taken a shower, shaved my legs, given myself a manicure, and done a deep conditioning treatment on my hair in the time I sat waiting for my call to get through. Instead I sat there while a voice kept telling me every 15-30 seconds that my call is very important to them but they just can't get to me yet. Finally, FINALLY I was transferred to an associate's phone only to get the recorded message that the place of business was closed (I was calling well within the time frame of hours their business claimed to be open), so I should leave a voice mail message and they'd get back to me ASAP.

I immediately pointed out to their machine that what I most certainly did NOT want was for them to get back to me. In fact, I wanted them to never ever again get back to me at all. I explained how my phone number had no longer been available for use to the A's for nearly two years, so they may want to update their records. I also told them that their business procedures suck.

I haven't heard from FBNC again since my call, but I'm sure they won't be the last credit company I hear from on behalf of the A's. I believe those people must have had 47 credit cards all of which they maxed out and none of which they paid.

The main thing is, my phone is silent again, and that's a very good thing.

It's Gonna Be A PSG Christmas??????

2007-11-02T22:37:00.000-07:00

On the way to do the weekly grocery shopping, we saw two of the new buses our town's transit authority has purchased. Apparently someone went batshit with the color scheme. We now have a peepie shit green bus with a red stripe running through the middle of all 4 sides. There is also a day-glo orange bus with a blue stripe bisecting the bottom and top halves of the bus. While it's true that there will be no problem seeing these buses coming for miles and miles on an uncluttered horizon, it's also true that these are two of the ugliest monstrosities on the roads of our city right now. Whatever happened to good old tasteful gun-metal gray? I would rather walk than try to keep my stomach from heaving as I watch those doors open and am expected to hike up the 3 steps to my seat. It's bad enough that the bus is peepie shit green. It's down right criminal to have it moving as well.

I have this thing about colors and how people mess with them. For instance, I hate blue Christmas lights. Blue is not a Christmas color. It isn't a Holiday Season color either. It flat out does not belong on the spectrum of colors to choose when decorating for just about any holiday you can name. But blue Christmas lights are the worst. I've seen whole houses decorated with those little blue Christmas lights, and it actually hurts my eyes to look at them. It really doesn't matter how much I protest both online and off; people still use those infernal blue lights and desecrate the Holiday color scheme.

I thought this was as bad as it could get. I was wrong.

As we walked into WalMart to get our weekly supply of food, the first thing we saw was a huge Christmas tree with very large Christmas balls on it. Never mind that it isn't even Thanksgiving yet and we've just barely made it past Halloween. Christmas is coming, and WalMart is getting ready.

I could accept that because what choice do I really have? Marketing gurus seem to think it's never too early to plan for the Holidays, and who am I to argue? Besides, they won't listen to me anyway. But I must protest the Christmas tree WalMart has begun to decorate. They're using..... you ready? Peepie Shit Green Christmas balls.

So I'm wondering -- when did Peepie Shit Green become THE color of choice for not only buses but Christmas balls? Was there a vote taken on this? If there was, no one informed me. I'll bet that sneaky old Nancy Pelosi mother henned all her cratz representatives into some hidey hole and held a secret vote which she then released to bus manufacturers and WalMart tree decorators. It would be just like her to do something underhanded like that. And I'll bet Barbara Boxer was in charge of creating the diversion so Nancy could pull off her little color coup. Just take a look at either one of those women and you just know that they must consult with Madeleine Albright for color palette tips.

According to the notice at WalMart there are 52 shopping days left until Christmas. That means there are 52 days left for merchants to gross us out with peepie shit green paraphernalia before we can finally retreat to a safe color like Red for Valentine's Day.

I like Christmas, and I'd really hate to give it up. But I refuse to spend it surrounded by peepie shit green. That's just unacceptable.

Gary Collins Has No Friends

2007-10-24T12:17:00.001-07:00

As part of his stand up act, comedian Richard Jenni used to do a segment on logic. He was hilarious as he set out to prove with the fundamentals of logic how a statement could be true or false. For example:

God Is Love
Love Is Blind
Ray Charles Is Blind
Therefore: Ray Charles Is God
Unfortunately Richard Jenni is no longer with us, but I will use his logic model to come to my own conclusions about another of Hollywood's icons who can't seem to understand the basics of driving drunk.

Friends don't let friends drive drunk.
Gary Collins was arrested for DUI.
Therefore: Gary Collins has no friends.

Gary Collins need not worry, though, because he's not alone. He joins what is turning into a pack of Hollywood morons who, fortunately, haven't killed anyone yet, but isn't that just a matter of time since it appears that many celebrities who like to drink also like to drive and get caught driving drunk enough to warrant a citation.

Mel Gibson (okay, well maybe he really doesn't have any friends), Paris Hilton (probably ditto on the friends thing for her too), Kiefer Sutherland, Nicole Ritchie (another ditto on the friends thing), Bill Murray, Lindsay Lohan, Jaime Luis Gomez, Ray Liotta, Nick Nolte, Tracy Morgan, Gus Van Sant, Haley Joel Osment, and the list goes on and on. And that list doesn't even cover the legislators like Representative Patrick Kennedy.

Or how about the sports figures. This is one of my very favorite DUI's: Tony La Russa was arrested because he fell asleep at a traffic light (actually he slept through two green lights) and had a blood alcohol level that exceeded Florida's limit for DUI.

I have no doubt that this is not a new trend among celebrities from any genre. I think the reason there seems to be an increase in the number of high profile people who drive drunk and get caught is because the media is there to catch more of them doing it. I also think studios and celebrity managers have far less clout than they used to have when it comes to keeping this kind of thing out of the public eye. We now live in an era of what I call Kicking A Dead Dog. As soon as a Hollywood icon falls off his or her pedestal, there's a plethora of reports and scandal sheets salivating to record every single solitary sordid detail -- with pictures if possible. And the longer those sharks can keep a story in the public view while ripping whatever is left of a celebrity's dignity and reputation to shreds, the better they like it.

Which is not to say that I feel sorry for any celebrity DUI who gets the stuffing kicked out of him or her by the press. This is not a smokeless fire -- if the celeb hadn't been caught DUI'ing, the press would have nothing to write about. Wait. Let me amend that. They'd only have the size of Kirsti Alley's thighs or another of Britney's Oh-my-gosh-did-I-forget-my-undies-again stories. Monday night Marie Osmond apparently fainted (I'm still not convinced that wasn't one of her attention getting stunts) on Dancing With The Stars. Entertainment Tonight has made a two, possibly three, day story of this, and Mary Hart is strutting her stuff crowing about how she got the exclusive, and what I see on ET about this incident will not be seen anywhere else. Gee, you mean no one else begged Donnie Osmond to critique frame by frame the video of Marie's thud to the floor? Well, the rest of the world just doesn't appreciate what a BFS (that's BIG F'ING STORY) this really is! I certainly hope Marie Osmond has a driver. Or friends. Since she "forgets to breathe" on occasion, it's probably a real good idea that she doesn't drive.

Meanwhile, back on the freeways of California and other remote areas of the US where celebrities' rubber meets the road, the DUI count continues to rise.

I've got a plan to fix this. I think, since obviously by my logic these big name booze guzzlers have no friends, a group be formed called Adopt-A-Smashed-Star or ASS. There could be a telethon where celebrities show up to make a pitch for someone to adopt them as a friend and keep them out of DUI mishaps. The celebrities could arrange whatever incentives they like for people to be rewarded for accepting this challenge. Telethons would be held 4 times a year on PBS during a week long fund drive during which the movies The Days Of Wine and Roses and Lost Weekend would be run over and over again. When a person called in and agreed to Adopt-A-Smashed-Star, PBS would immediately send them one of their sturdy canvas tote bags with the words "I Support ASS" in +3 font sized red glitter letters.

This could work people. It could definitely get some of those dangerous drunk celebrities off the roads. And just think how pleased Aunt Maude will be when she receives her ASS tote bag just in time for Christmas.

We need to do something to get these people off the road, and 5 minute jail sentences just aren't cutting it.

Degeneres Takes The Coward's Way Out

2007-10-19T00:55:00.000-07:00

So what does a well known comedian do after she's caused a dog shelter owner AND a dog owner to receive death threats because she was too stupid to read a contract she signed clearly stating what the terms of the doggy adoption were to be? I mean, could there possibly be an encore for that? Turns out there is!

"It's been a long week and a tough week and we decided to take a long weekend and be back on Tuesday," said Laura Mandel, a spokeswoman for Telepictures Productions, which produces "The Ellen DeGeneres Show."

According to Yahoo News, Ellen Degeneres has decided to grab a long weekend for herself thereby avoiding any further public fallout to her because of the idiotic mess she made of Iggy's doggy adoption.

Yeah, that's the really adult thing to do after causing other people to fear for their lives. Run away and hide.

I used to be an Ellen Degeneres fan. I watched her stand up act on television whenever I saw it was being aired long before she was a household word. No more. Her behavior in this Iggy dog fiasco has been unacceptable and downright childish.

When Ellen had her very public problems with Anne Heche, I thought it was terrible that her privacy had to be invaded by the media in what looked to be a very personal matter. And then at one of the awards shows Ellen hosted, she made a sarcastic remark about Anne Heche in her act. So much for privacy.

So will Iggy the dog eventually turn into some new material for whatever stand up act Ellen performs in the future? Her dialogs are full of references to people saying or doing really dumb things. Well this time, Ellen takes the prize for the biggest, noisiest, and messiest dumb thing we've seen in a while. And there's nothing one bit funny about it. Death threats are no laughing matter.

I've got a good solution for Ellen. She shouldn't bother limiting herself to just two days off. Stay off permanently. During a time when men like Don Imus and Isaiah Washington and Michael Richards are strongly censured for what they've said, Ellen Degeneres is just as bad and does not deserve to walk away free from any penalty at all. She used her television show to cause harm to someone else, and that should not be ignored by taking a few days away from her show.

All this carrying on over a dog. Unbefuckinglievable. Ellen's gotta go.

Ellen Degeneres and Iggy The Dog

2007-10-18T16:36:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I saw on my Comcast homepage that there was a video in The Fan featuring Ellen DeGeneres breaking down on camera and sobbing her eyes out. "What," I thought to myself, "could make Ellen totally lose control of herself in such a hyper-ballistic bawling attack?" So, even though I rarely watch The Fan videos because I hate the commercials I have to sit through before the video I've selected finally plays, I bit the bullet and clicked on Ellen's face.

Turns out the source of Ellen's hysterical crying jag was a dog named Iggy that Ellen had adopted from a pet rescue center. According to her she adopted the dog, paid to have it neutered, and paid the Vet to have the dog sleep with him the night of the dog's recovery from the neutering (now there's a nice mental picture for you), and sank approximately $3000 on Iggy so it would be acclimated to come home and live with her cats. Unfortunately the cats didn't take to Iggy, and Ellen had to get Iggy out of her house.

Her solution was to give Iggy to her hairdresser who has two daughters under the age of 14. Apparently they took to Iggy like the cats couldn't, and Ellen believed she had done a good thing. When the adoption center called to find out how Iggy was doing in its new home, Ellen told the truth about Iggy's incompatibility with the cats and revealed what she'd done with the dog. Within days Iggy was picked up by the rescue center and returned to its kennels. Shortly after that, Iggy was adopted by a another family, and was apparently doing just fine.

However, the hairdresser's children were NOT fine. They wanted Iggy back, and Ellen became devastated that she had caused this problem. During her first impassioned spot about Iggy on her tv show she casually mentioned that apparently she signed some paper saying that if she did not keep the dog for any reason, it was to be returned to the pet rescue center from whence it came. Ellen spoke of this paper she signed as some inconsequential matter that could easily be ignored if the owner's of the pet shelter complied.

In fact what Ellen signed was a legal agreement stating that, indeed, if she did not keep the dog it was to be returned to the pet rescue center. It also turns out that this particular center does not adopt dogs out to families with children under the age of 14. Ellen might have known all of this had she read the contract she signed, but she didn't read it. She signed where she was told to sign and that, as far as she was concerned, was the end of that.

Only that wasn't the end of it. Because Ellen went public with this story and sobbed her way through her mea culpa, viewers got pissed off. To date the family that eventually ended up with Iggy has received death threats. The pet rescue center has taken its web page off line to avoid the threatening email messages they've started getting. Their business suffers with the current mob-mentality attack against it. All because Ellen Degeneris did not bother to read what she signed.

While Ellen has accepted full blame for causing her hairdresser's children their grief at losing Iggy, she still maintains that the pet rescue center should remove Iggy from the family who has it now and return it to her hairdresser's family. To Ellen this is the only acceptable resolution to the problem, although she has called for a halt to death threats. She says violence is not the answer here. Well, that's a BIG DUH in your court, Ellen. You have created a monster of a situation in which you don't have a milk bone to stand on, and yet you're still advocating for the pet center to do what you believe is right. If anything of a violent nature does happen to either Iggy's new adopted family or the owners of the pet center you chose to use, the blame lies entirely on your head.

By her own admission, Ellen Degeneres signed a valid contract. It is no one's fault but hers that she chose not to read it. The consequences of Ellen's failure to read have hurt other people. That is not even close to being the fault of the rescue center (whose name I will not use or link to because they've got enough trouble -- they don't need bloggers directing more negative attention to their site). What Ellen Degeneris is suggesting is that contracts be invalidated because it is not convenient for those who have signed them to honor their signature. Excuse me, but how messed up is that? It is not the way contracts work, and Ellen Degeneres has been around contracts long enough in her business to know that.

It seems to me that someone ought to tell Ellen Degeneres to sit down and STFU because she's making a fool of herself and is causing a whole big bushel of trouble for people who do not deserve it.

Ohhh, and one more thing. It is not helping to have the hairdresser's 12 year old daughter appearing on camera for Entertainment Tonight telling people she just wants her dog back. It is not now, nor was it ever her dog. Seems to me it's up to Ellen to help the child understand that. It's time for Ellen to put on her big girl panties and stop snuffling around like a victim.

In other words, Ellen.... GROW UP!

The Kite Runner and Gone, Baby, Gone

2007-10-14T17:19:00.000-07:00

According to A J Jacobs, who wrote The Know-It-All, which I am now reading, Sherlock Holmes had a theory that there's only so much room in the mental attic. I'm going to take A J Jacobs' word for that because I don't want to read any Sherlock Holmes novels to find out if he, in fact, says such a thing. I've tried reading Sherlock Holmes, and the guy bores me to tears. Okay, maybe not tears, but at least a feeling of being verklempt and needing to take a break.

So, in spite of the fact that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, I'm going to believe this theory of his and apply it to Hollywood as the answer for why the people there are so freaking stupid. The collective mental attic of those who work in the entertainment industry must be so full to overflowing that they just don't get simple common sense. Why else would they postpone the release of two movies this year for a few weeks only to eventually put these films on display in movie theaters throughout the US even though they themselves believe there's PR problems with the movies.

Take Gone, Baby, Gone which got so much attention because Ben Afleck directed it. It should have been released by now, but it wasn't. Know why? Because Madeleine McCann was kidnapped in Portugal, and her story was all over the news right around the time Gone, Baby, Gone was to open in theaters. So, the head honchos in charge of distributing this film decided to postpone its opening for a few weeks. You know, until Madeleine's image isn't plastered all over every news site in the world.

This, of course, does not mean that Gone, Baby, Gone, won't still be about a kidnapped child, because, of course, it will. But maybe ticket buyers won't mind so much if they don't have to look at a real child who has mysteriously disappeared in newspaper headlines as opposed to a fake one. If we're going to exploit the subject of child kidnapping for entertainment purposes, let's at least have the good taste not to do it right smack in the face of a real family's horrific personal crisis. Just give 'em a couple weeks to get hold of themselves, and then the movie gets released no matter what the subject matter.

Then there's the postponed release date for The Kite Runner. The Kite Runner story is based on the event of a child being sodomized by bullies. Thank goodness we don't have any glaring headlines with actual names and circumstances broadcast all over the world about this topic. No, that's not the reason The Kite Runner release date has been changed to some time in December.

This time the reason is because the child actors who recreated this horrific event are afraid for their lives once they return home and word gets out about their movie and new found celebrity. The story takes place in Afghanistan, and apparently the producers of The Kite Runner have concerns that the lives of their young stars could be in danger because of how this tale depicts the culture of the area.

You can see their dilemma. In the US if a child is bullied, he is the brunt of practical jokes and often beatings at the hands of his peers who like to pull the wings off flies and generally kick dead dogs. But The Kite Runner suggests that bullies in Middle Eastern countries prefer to sodomize their victims. Since we're trying to boost the image of Muslims as a group, it just wouldn't do to recreate what is insinuated to be a routine form of hazing.

Apparently the quick fix to this problem is to delay the release of the movie for several months giving the children involved time to make arrangements to live under protection in the United Arab Emirates. Kind of like the Witness Protection Program for children who have been exploited and then cannot be returned from whence they came to suffer the consequences of their actions.

What I cannot wrap my head around is that no one thought before or during the filming of this movie that the children's lives could be put into jeopardy because they participated in recreating this crime. All of a sudden it's Showtime and..... Oooooops. Maybe we really shouldn't put this movie on the street right now. But what the hell, give it a few months and we'll do it then. See what I mean? There has to be a mental attic overload for this kind of reasoning to make any sense. If now isn't the appropriate time to release this movie because it could endanger the lives of the actors who filmed it, then maybe, just maybe, there is NO good time to release it.

I remember back when Dirty Dancing was released and so many people went batshit because of the dancing performed in the movie. Why, "it was like watching people have sex with their clothes on," was the most common reaction to the dance sequences. Yet no one ever mentioned in one single article or television program I saw on the subject that this movie was about a botched abortion. It was perceived to be all about the dancing, and no one seemed to notice the actual subject matter of the movie. To this day people remember that, "No one puts Baby in a corner," but do they remember the actual plot of the movie? No one I've asked does, but that's not exactly a well structured scientific survey. Still, it tells me that people see what they want to see, and they can have very selective memories for what they remember. And besides that, there is an overwhelming pattern of desensitization to violence and ugliness in this society.

I think if there's something so wrong with Gone, Baby, Gone and with The Kite Runner then why just postpone them? Why not just admit this is inappropriate material and forget about it? But that would be like asking Hollywood to trade in their common cents for a little common sense. Like that'll ever happen.

Stealing Christmas: First The Grinch, Now Oak Lawn, Illinois

2007-10-02T12:20:00.000-07:00

I wonder how Barack Obama would look in green skin. Since Senator Obama represents the people of the state of Illinois, I think David Gregory or another of those media smart-asses should ask him how he feels about Oak Lawn hijacking Christmas from their school children this year and giving them instead Winter Festival

Oak Lawn's School District is doing this so that Muslims attending their schools won't be offended by the observation of Christian Holidays. This decision involves 4 elementary schools in Oak Lawn, and 1 junior high school in Bridgeview. It also involves the issue of insensitivity to Muslims. I say that if Muslims are hurt because we in this country celebrate Halloween and Christmas, why are they here? This is America, and these traditional holidays are what's celebrated here. This doesn't involve hate crimes or loss of civil liberties or racism or any of the other uglies usually discussed when issues of insensitivity arise. What it does involve, however, is penalizing American citizens who outnumber Muslim citizens by restricting traditions we've come to enjoy and expect to be celebrated in this country. I mean, this goes beyond rolling out the red carpet to immigrants. This amounts to handing them the keys to the house, the checking account, and Aunt Maude's silver while we go hide in the basement.

The Oak Lawn school district has a 30% Arab-American population. That means 30% of the people who live in this area get to dictate what 70% of the people may or may not do as far as celebrating traditional American holidays in their schools. Halloween will now be celebrated as Fall Festival and Christmas will be addressed as Winter Festival. That means it's likely that Easter will become Spring Festival.

This is bullshit, and we should not stand for it. Being a melting pot does not include abandoning our own traditions and holidays. If Muslims want to get their burqa's up over their heads over what is (or was, before they got here) considered normal school activity, then might I suggest they attend some diversity training so that they come to understand what it means to get along with people who were here long before they were. That and developing a thicker skin would go a long way toward solving these petty problems that really aren't problems at all but are merely power plays to test our system.

I for one am tired of being expected to extend the hand of friendship to those who are interested in having me pull back a bloody stump. I wouldn't dream of going to a Mosque and expecting or demanding that they put on a Christmas pageant and have a Christmas Tree lighting ceremony just for me. Why then do immigrants to this country expect us to change our traditions to suit them?

Makes me want to holler.

I'm A Grammar Nazi

2007-10-01T22:38:00.000-07:00

You Scored an A

You got 10/10 questions correct.

It's pretty obvious that you don't make basic grammatical errors.
If anything, you're annoyed when people make simple mistakes on their blogs.
As far as people with bad grammar go, you know they're only human.
And it's humanity and its current condition that truly disturb you sometimes.

The It's Its There Their They're Quiz

UpDownPoet and Ida Mint Tea

2007-09-29T19:37:00.000-07:00

"Sadly, being a senior citizen doesn't mean you get to beat up the junior citizens." ~~Maxine~~

***I have disguised the identities of the people who I am about to ridicule as well as the name of the group to which they belong. This has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the innocent, because there are no innocents here -- just morons... with the exception of yours truly, of course. ***

I performed a little experiment at Shelfari in the Hot Cross Press group. There is a liberal running amok in that group who falls into my 'typical fibberal' category. He relies on little if any facts upon which to base his points, and I use the term "points" very loosely because after reading UpDownPoet's gibberish, it doesn't seem to me that he has any legitimate items he's debating. All he does is assume a position of superiority and lambast anyone who offers an alternate point of view with name calling, finger pointing, and general obnoxious rhetoric. In other words, he's one of those guys I like to go after just to see what happens when someone challenges what they say. I'd hate to appear self-congratulatory here, but what the heck, it's my blog and I can do what I want. UpDownPoet is a fucking moron who has absolutely no clue what he's talking about when it comes to the Iraq issue. Zilch. Nada. Not A Thing.

This is not to say that I hold any answers either. But I do think there's room for intelligent debate about what we do now that everything we've done so far hasn't worked. We do seem to be at the end of the line, and no one is available with a quick fix or even a really good plan to get us out of the quagmire Iraq has become.

There is one person from the Hot Cross Press group who is well informed and doesn't go off into never never land when she talks about Iraq. She read an article published in The New Yorker, posted the link to it in the group, and asked what others thought about a particular assertion made by the author.

I read the article. It was well written, well researched, and definitely a good subject for discussion. Until, unfortunately, it got hijacked by UpDownPoet and one of his cronies. UpDownPoet didn't even bother to read the article he attacked. He'd rather enter into a debate with guns raining bullets on the heads of all the spectators and make wild assertions that have no basis in fact but are merely products of his over-stimulated, pathetically inept mental process.

I do not say these things about him lightly or without basis. This is his response when asked if he even read the article mentioned in the original topic of discussion:

"I do not to read anything to know what we need to do. Sorry if you can't accept that. I don't need to read anything else to know that Hitler was a bad, Jesus was a good guy and which way the wind blows.

We have lots of things we should do to fix a country that we broke, but keeping troops there is preventing us from doing any of them, so that is the first step, undo the criminal invasion, then we can begin to fix some of the related disasters we have created. staying where we do not belong, when the people there do not want us is no way for a civilized nation to behave. i am sorry if you have an issue with me pointing that out."

If there's one point upon which most everyone who talks about Iraq agrees, it is that we cannot just pull out all troops from that country and walk away as though we were never there. The reasons for that should not have to be explained to anyone familiar with the Iraq situation. UpDownPoet concedes none of that. This is because, in my opinion, he is a member of The League of People With Shit For Brains.

This is the point at which I decided to try my experiment. I wrote a response to UpDownPoet questioning his interpretation of the facts and his unfounded assertions. In my post I inquired as to whether he had any idea at all about whom he was talking because it seemed to me if he knew anything at all he could not be saying such ridiculous things. Here is his response to me:

"wow! ma titwonky, yeah richard nixon and lbj and 50,000 dead soldiers did so much more than tea and cookies. i am sorry, but you are truly an idiot, and i know name calling is a sign of a weak argument, but you are amazing. you seem to buy every piece of crap this administration throws at you. we did not invade iraq because of al quieda, but in spite of it. the iraqis are fighting the al quieda in iraq, not because of the surge, but because they are patriots who realize, as much as they dont want us around, the like them even less. we are risking people like a's husband for stupid political positions. i guess iraq is the new domino. in fact, when all of southeast asia fall it did not spread communism around the world, it didnt even create a ripplle, but the war ripped our country apart. this is the same thing 30 yrs later. wake up, maybe you are as old as your picture, probably not, but you cant be that stupid. most americans have finally awakened to this fact, i bet you still think we could have and should have won the vietnam war, even if we had to kill all of to do it and kill another 50,000 americans to do it, because somebody in office said we should."

I was prepared to rest my case, but I decided to post once more pointing out that a verbal assault on me does not prove he knows anything at all about Iraq.

Enter IdaMintTea stage even lefter.

IdaMintTea appointed herself arbiter of the verbal gymnastics match between UpDownPoet and me. She's another bleeding heart fibberal who likes to go on and on with a string of lengthy non-sequiturs that defy comprehension. She added absolutely nothing about Iraq at all; she just wanted to make something all about her.

That's when the Administrator of the group intervened. She reduced me and UpDownPoet to the level of juveniles on a playground. I pointed out that what I did was stand up to UpDownPoet's diatribe and look where it got me. He attacks me personally. I asked if she were aware that people do not express views in her group because immediately they are personally attacked. She informed me this is not "her" group. Okay, well I did assume that since she was listed as the sole Administrator of the group because she was the one who started it, that meant it was her group. I stand corrected. And confused, but never mind that.

My mission there was complete. I proved to my own satisfaction if to no one else's that there is yet another fibbie on the loose out there who has no clue about what's going on in the world, doesn't care to learn, but wants to influence public opinion to be as negative as possible.

What annoys me these days is that fibberals like him have been gaining momentum because they are so loud and so obnoxious that people who differ won't put themselves through the onslaught of personal attacks they get simply for saying "but".

Fortunately I'm of the Sticks and Stones mentality, and I enjoy a good verbal battle particularly when, as was the case with UpDownPoet, it's as easy as taking candy from a baby. And as for IdaMintTea - she's of no consequence at all. One of these days she'll just mumble herself off into oblivion and not leave so much as a wet splotch on the latest message board she's polluting with her absurd bilgewater.

If anyone is interested in reading the article that sparked this unproductive discussion at Hot Cross Press, Click Here. If that link is not working because the site is undergoing maintenance, the article appears in the September 17, 2007 issue of The New Yorker

It would be interesting to participate in a discussion about this article, but I would definitely not recommend doing it at Shelfari.com in the Hot Cross Press group.

Yes, He's Still Rather Dumb...

2007-09-20T07:58:00.000-07:00

Dan Ra^ther is suing CBS because he says, they made him a Scapegoat.

"Mr. Ra^ther, 75, asserts that the network violated his contract by giving him insufficient airtime on “60 Minutes” after forcing him to step down as anchor of the “CBS Evening News” in March 2005. He also contends that the network committed fraud by commissioning a “biased” and incomplete investigation of the flawed Guard broadcast and, in the process, “seriously damaged his reputation.”

Dan Ra^ther can try rewriting history all he likes, but the fact of the matter is that this is dredging up a 3 year old story to try to milk it for some extra bucks. After all, if it worked for Don Imus, and CBS did finally agree to settle with him, then maybe it will work for Dan Ra^ther as well. The problem is that Don Imus had a case. It was written into his employment contract with CBS that he be outrageous and say provocative things. Dan Ra^ther had no such contract with CBS giving him the journalistic license to air stories against sitting presidents that he could not verify.

This was not the first time Dan Ra^ther foisted untrue information to his viewing public. In 1988, CBS aired an hour long documentary in which Dan Ra^ther interviewed men who said they had committed various atrocities in Vietnam. The documentary, titled The War Within was later proved to be almost completely false by B G Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author of the book Stolen Valor, How The Vietnam Generation Was Robbed Of Its Heroes and Its History All of the information Ra^ther used in putting together the damning documentary against Vietnam veterans could have been easily verified under information provided by The Freedom Of Information Act. Ra^ther chose not to bother with fact checking.

Which is exactly the same tactic he used in accusing President George Bush of receiving special treatment while he served in the Texas National Guard. Only this time the internet was a functioning tool in preventing such libelous stories from going unchecked. Dan got caught with his lies hanging out all over the place, and he received exactly what he deserved -- to lose his job as a "respected" (that word has ceased to have much meaning any longer) journalist and to have his reputation destroyed.

Now Ra^ther has decided to go the crybaby route and try to squeeze some money out of CBS and his immediate superiors at the time of the scandal which brought him down. It will be interesting to see how on earth Dan intends to go about making his case.

As Dan himself once said, "If a rooster squawks, don't be too quick to strangle him. He might be trying to tell you something." That old rooster might just be telling Dan to sit down and STFU; he's making a fool of himself.

Those Darn Cratz: They Sent In The Clowns

2007-09-12T10:45:00.001-07:00

Yesterday two of my favorite reality shows aired on C-Span. First was the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Immediately after that was the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, also with Petraeus and Crocker.

Senator Joe Biden chaired the Foreign Relations Committee hearing as only Joe Biden can. At one point in the proceeding he cautioned Petraeus and Crocker that because of time constraints they would have to make their answers shorter. Yet at no time did Biden bother to caution Senators who were grandstanding and making long elaborate speeches that required Petraeus and Crocker to submit written answers to the committee thereby refusing to allow them public explanations to cheap shots and jabs below the belt.

And no one is better at taking those cheap shots and below the belt jabs than Barbara Boxer. As a matter of fact, she came armed with charts and graphs and a cute little go-fer to nicely place all those visual aids on an easel for her. At no time was she cautioned about time constraints or, for that matter, theatrics. That woman should have her tongue lengthened so it can be wrapped around her head and tied in a knot at the crown of her head -- you know the spot... it's where the point is.

There is one fact that needs to be stated right up front before any discussion about the progress of lack of it in Iraq is discussed. Both General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have completely thankless jobs. They have been given an assignment, and it is their duty to achieve that mission to the best of their ability. While they are accountable to Washington for what they do, at no time should anyone get the insipid notion that what they do and how they do it is guaranteed to work over the long haul. Both men inherited a complete and total mess out of which they are supposed to create order where so far there's only been chaos. Further it is beyond assinine to expect either of those two men, both seasoned professionals, to layout and then perfectly adhere to time lines. As a matter of fact, expecting such a result at this point in time goes beyond assinine right into the category of infuckingcredibly stupid.

Why then, do you suppose, that the Cratz from both the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee not only expected precise answers to their hypothetical questions, but also seemed to hold Petraeus and Crocker personally responsible for the lack of progress so far? And let's be clear about something else here... the definition of "lack of progress." That has become a purely subjective term depending upon who is talking about it at the moment. If the Wingers dare mention even the slightest hint of progress, the Cratz are all over them like the paparazzi on Britney Spear's crotch. There's a whole lot of screaming about rose colored glasses and being yes-men for the Bush Administration.

And if we listen to what the Cratz have to say on any subject even halfway related to Iraq, it sounds like George Bush is sitting in the Oval Office (where Willie once got his bj's) trying to figure out new and creative ways to get soldiers killed and put the American people in jeopardy of being annihilated.

At least that's what the Hill part of HillBillie wants us to believe when she talks about Bin Laden still being at large. Of all people to bring that up, she should be the last person to throw stones on that score since it was her husband under her joint presidency who allowed Bin Laden to get away... twice.

Add to this already unstable mix the lunatics at MoveOn.org and their insulting, slanderous diatribe in the New York Times against General Petraeus (calling him General Betray-us), and you've got a show far better than Evil Dick and whether or not he's going to get kicked off Big Brother any time soon.

Or at least that's what I thought before I tuned into the night time crap that passes for commentary on MSNBC. Keith Olbermann has completely lost his mind and is now making up stuff he's passing off as political criticism. When he's shot his load, we get Chris Mathews on Hardball who is interviewing Joe Biden.

I believe it is too late to add a nomination to the Emmy Awards for this season since I believe they air this month. But it is certainly not too late to nominate both Matthews and Biden for an Oscar award. Never mind that they appear on television. They never let minor details like facts interfere with what they say, so we shouldn't have to be concerned about the accuracy of the medium to which they've been nominated for outstanding recognition.

Matthews had his dress up over his head because of an answer Petraeus gave to a question asked by Senator John Warner. The question required Petraeus to give an opinion on whether what is being done by this country right now in Iraq will make the US safer. Petraeus answered honestly... he said he didn't know. For that Matthews spent an hour of tv time crucifying him, and Biden got to put on one of his choked up, I-may-burst-into-tears-at-any-moment-because-I-love-the-troops-so-much performances. Meanwhile my gag reflex finally got the best of me. I'd made it through both Senate hearings without so much as a gulp of bile. But by the time Matthews and Biden kicked it into high, my stomach was on bullshit overload.

I was interested in hearing the reports from Petraeus and Crocker. Both of them have extremely difficult jobs made even more challenging by the fact that they have to answer questions from a bunch of morons who have not bothered to educate themselves on what the conditions in Iraq are. The country is a mess with ruined infrastructure, civil uprisings, terrorism increasing, and a citizenry that was accustomed under Hussein of having all its needs and wants taken care of. Now they need to get their own jobs, earn their own money, buy their own food, get their own transportation, and hope to Allah that today they have electricity both at work and at home. If just one school is opened and equipped with teachers and supplies, that is a huge accomplishment. If the school has running water and electricity, a miracle has happened.

Except it isn't a miracle. Whatever is being fixed, it is thanks to the United States and more of more of the Iraqi people working in tandem with them. This takes time and money and patience. What it does not need is some Senator back in Washington, DC who has food and water and transportation and electricity talking about how Bush lied to get us in Iraq in the first place.

Bush did not lie. The information he gave to the American People and the Congress was information every other global intelligence service believed.

Regardless of how we got there, we're there. Put on your big peoples' panties and accept that so we can advance to the next steps in the process of getting back out of Iraq without the whole country crumbling in shambles once we've gone.

There is no question that the situation in which we find ourselves in Iraq has become untenable. There is also no question that the Iraqi people need to start being accountable for more of their own ways of life. We should not and cannot stay there indefinitely. But that is absolutely no reason to badger and malign the two men assigned to turn the situation around. We should be supporting their efforts. What possible good is it doing to hurl invectives at them for everything they say and everything they do? They have been assigned a mission, and like good soldiers, their jobs entail completing those missions successfully.

Anyone who does not share that goal, and I heard far too many Cratz express their disgust and resolve not to cooperate (with help from a few Wingers) in this objective, needs to sit down and STFU. And they'd better do it over in a corner facing away from the rest of the civilized world. That's what unruly children get ordered to do when their behavior justifies it. Well, I've heard enough Cratz tantrums to last me a lifetime. It is not merely a matter of wanting to hear only good news. It's a matter of objectively looking at the data available on how progress is increasing or decreasing and then finding solutions to keep it moving forward. We certainly aren't going to get anywhere but backwards if the Cratz have anything to say about it.

Just one more thing. Barack Obama. I'm not voting for Barack Obama and yesterday settled that one for me once and for all. I like my candidates to be men, not little wimpy girly boys who are afraid to say the word A-S-S and need to spell it instead. I find it deplorable that a man will so easily assign motives to others and accuse them of all kinds of untruthful, criminal behavior very publicly, but he's afraid to utter A-S-S in a Senate hearing. Not only have the Cratz sent in the clowns, but they sent us the ones with no balls.

Let's Define "Mistake"

2007-09-09T17:52:00.000-07:00

Maybe I'm just a little bit too sensitive about words and what they mean. Maybe I should just lighten up and allow such obvious understatements go unmentioned because most times I seem to be the only one making a fuss about something in the media that is astronomically stupid. Maybe that's what I should do, and maybe that's what I'll actually do some day. But not today.

Earlier this week, it was reported in the media that an Air Force Squadron Crew Commander was under investigation for making a mistake and allowing 6 nuclear warheads to be flown on a B52 from North Dakota to Louisiana.

Here is just one of the startling revelations in the USA Today article:

"It was originally reported that five nuclear warheads were transported, but officers who tipped Military Times to the incident who have asked to remain anonymous since they are not authorized to discuss the incident, have since updated that number to six."

There is so much wrong with that paragraph it's hard to know where to begin!

First, and this is key as far as I'm concerned, why is a media outlet accepting the word of a source that requires anonymity because said source is not authorized to discuss the incident that's being reported. Especially since this source got it wrong and had to correct the information leaked to the media. There was a time when, if information was disseminated incorrectly, that cast doubt upon the report of the, and you'll have to forgive my choice of words here, but I maintain it's accurate... squealer. Since when is "news" dependent upon sources who are freely given anonymity so they cannot be held accountable for spilling their guts about matters that they have no business discussing in the first place.

And I don't want to hear one single word about the public's right to know here either. If the information being passed along is such that it needs to be shrouded in the secrecy of an anonymous source, how am I supposed to be sure it's accurate at all. Because the reporter says so? Puhleeeeze. I'm sick of hearsay being delivered to me as credible news. I thought after the Dan Rather and Jayson Blair debacles we were through accepting unnamed sources. Or at least that's what we were told. The real result is that we still get anonymous sources; it's just that now the reporter has to spell it out for us that the source will not be identified for some reason satisfactory to the reporter and the squealer, but definitely not satisfactory to me.
To re-enforce my point, the article goes on to say,

"Air Force and defense officials would not confirm the missiles were armed with nuclear warheads Wednesday, citing longstanding policy, but they did confirm the Air Force was "investigating an error made last Thursday during the transfer of munitions" from Minot to Barksdale."

So, all we know for sure is that there was an incident on August 30 involving something being flown over the United States. Non-nuclear Advanced Missiles were supposed to be transported, but it looks like that's not what happened. So, in effect, the Air Force committed a blunder we have been assured could never happen and then once word got out about the event, it became known as a "mistake".

A mistake is when you reach for the salt and get the pepper instead. It only takes one shake to realize the error and correct it.

A mistake is what I did last week when grocery shopping. I meant to get a can of peas, which I did. The only problem was when I opened the can I discovered that I'd mistakenly picked up peas with mushrooms and miniature pearl onions. No harm done. I gave the garbage disposal a healthy dinner, and I made another vegetable instead while vowing to check more closely when I buy peas next time.

Transporting nuclear warheads from North Dakota to Louisiana via a B52 is NOT a mistake. That is what's called an PFC -- Possible Fucking Catastrophy. And when PFC's are involved, no one is allowed to say "ooops" and have the whole matter disappear.

I particularly liked the response of Philip Coyle, a senior advisor on nuclear weapons at the Center For Defense Information. Phil said,

"I just can't imagine how all of this happened. The procedures are so rigid; this is the last thing that's supposed to happen."

Coyle went on to say, "This is really shocking, the Air Force can't tolerate it, and the Pentagon can't tolerate it, either."

Well, that helps a lot. I feel so much safer knowing that Phil cannot even imagine how all this happened AND that he believes the Air Force and the Pentagon can't tolerate it. Mark Twain had some very good advice for men like Phil Coyle: "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt."

The thing is, I didn't have to know anything about this at all. And frankly, I cannot begin to see how I or any of the rest of the American People are better off for knowing it. It was a PFC that fortunately produced no adverse consequences to anyone but the morons who allowed it to happen in the first place. Measures have been put in place to investigate incidents such as this, and while that may not be terribly comforting either, it is the best we can hope for. As far as I'm concerned, all that was accomplished by making sure this story got the attention it did was to scare more people and showcase the fact that we have no such thing as security in the work place any more. People no longer feel an ounce of respect or loyalty for the positions they hold in their jobs as is evidenced by the increasing number of "anonymous sources" we read about in the media.

But that's material for a different rant. Maybe I'll do that one after the one I've been working on about the Post Office. Now that's a place that could practically redefine PFC.

Stay tuned.

Woman Killed By Her 60th Birthday Present

2007-08-19T07:52:00.000-07:00

I have frequently stated that I am not a pet lover. I don't have a dog or a cat or a goldfish or a gerbil or a ferret (I used to be married to Fuzzlenuts who looked like a ferret though, if that counts). Other people can have all the pets they want, and that's fine by me. I'm not looking to stop anyone from getting whatever it is they get from having a pet. Just don't expect me to visit if I have to deal with your dogs jumping all over me or sniffing my crotch, or having your cat snuggle up to my leg. I don't have a pet because I don't want one; and I don't want yours either.

Which is why when I saw the headline entitled Pet Camel Kills Australian Woman, I felt absolutely no sympathy for the woman. Didn't feel sorry for her family either -- they're the idiots who gave the woman the camel as her 60th birthday present.

The camel, who weighs 330 pounds, knocked the woman to the ground and then lay on top of her in what experts on camels explain away as mating behavior. So not only did this camel engage in some antisocial behavior by knocking the woman down, but he then wanted to have sex with her. You gotta wonder about a camel that doesn't know the difference between a human being and another camel, especially when the horniness hits. But then, more to the point, you REALLY gotta wonder about a woman who wants to have a camel as a pet and the family who grants her wish.

This isn't exactly a question that has me up nights pondering, but I have wondered what on earth possesses people to want dangerous untamed animals as pets. Recently I saw there's been a book released about a family that adopted a buffalo to live with them. A buffalo. While my knowledge of buffalo ranks right up there with what I know about the mating habits of the Sugar Glider which would be zilch, I have seen a buffalo in a petting zoo. (That place gave me the creeps. I was taken there by force after it was repeatedly pointed out to me that if I were a good mother, I'd want to give my children the opportunity to get up close and personal with smelly animals who may want to lick them. Even thinking about that experience now makes me shudder.)

I do know, however, that buffalo are big, clumsy animals who are usually accompanied by an entourage of flies and have been known to stampede on occasion. I could definitely not warm up to an animal that has a dominant stampede gene. But this family adopted the buffalo, nurtured it, and believed it was part of their family. It's a buffalo, for crying out loud. It would cozy up to anyone who fed it regularly.

So if I don't get why someone wants to have a pet buffalo, I sure don't understand those who want tigers, alligators, or animals that are nothing but polecats or the larger or mutated version of a rat. That means a camel would be totally out of the question.

And I'll just bet, if that woman in Australia had the ability to speak for herself now which she can't because her camel killed her, but if she could speak I'll bet her opinion on pet camels would have changed considerably. Probably right about the time her pet camel wanted to mate with her. Anything I've ever read about camels has been to the effect that they do not have a particularly pleasant disposition and have been known to spit at people. This does not conjure up the image of sitting quietly in front of a fireplace watching the flames slowly recede to ash while stroking the belly of my pet camel. Besides that, how does one ever become truly comfortable when it's unknown what that camel has on his mind, and it probably isn't waxing poetic about that nice cozy fire but has more to do with getting one's rocks off.

This is another of those events that wouldn't have had to happen if everyone involved has used a little restraint and a whole lot of common sense. And in this case, there was no second chance opportunity. It is sad when someone dies who didn't need to meet such a terrible end, but you know, it seems to me if people insist on being morons they need to learn there's consequences. Even if it's death.

Welcome To The Parker - A 5-Star Example of Incompetence

2007-08-10T10:41:00.000-07:00

In my quest to sop up as much trash tv as possible, I started watching a new series on Bravo TV called Welcome To The Parker.

The Parker, for those who don't know, and until I began watching the tv show I never heard of it, is a 5-star Hotel in Palm Springs. Management proudly wears their 5-Stars and will flash them in the face of anyone who will listen to the bragging that goes on about what wonderful perfectionism runs The Parker day to day. When I heard all that boasting, I knew I had to watch this program because I wanted to see how long it would take before this place was exposed as the cesspool of incompetence I had a feeling it was. Anyone who carries on that much about how well they serve their clientele is either lying or badly disillusioned. "But wait!" you may say. "They've got 5-Stars! Doesn't that mean something?" It means absolutely nothing, but if you believe it does, then you've probably got a deed in your safe deposit box which claims you own the Brooklyn Bridge, right?

First of all, I want to know who hands out these 5-star ratings. My guess would be it's an anorexic blind woman who wants to sleep with Samir Chraibi. That would explain why the food critic explained one item on the menu as tasting like sawdust, and it would also explain why no one noticed, until Jonathan Adler showed up to point it out, that a fluffer should be hired for the lobby.

Frankly, I don't know why anyone cares what Jonathan Adler thinks about anything. The guy is annoying, stupid, and grossly over-rated. He actually believes hotels should hire people to fluff pillows placed around the inhabited areas for artistic affect. Jonathan also wants hotels, particularly The Parker, to continue allowing pets to stay with paying guests. When Jonathan was informed that the whole pet thing was on its way out as far as hotels are concerned, Jonathan was appalled. Have you ever seen Jonathan Adler do appalled? It makes you want to direct your eyes at your shoes, the ceiling, the horizon -- anywhere but at that idiotic man putting on airs who is pretending like his huffing and puffing will blow the house down. I'd say he was doing his impression of The Big Bad Wolf, but Jonathan Adler in that role is just patently absurd.

And apparently our anorexic blind woman with an urge for Samir never checked up on the room service, nor did she bother to check out waiters or entree presenters or whatever they're called at The Parker. On a routine in-house check done by a chef from the kitchen and her supervisor, it was discovered that it took 7 rings for the room service staff to answer the telephone. And when the food critic visited for the day to sample the various menu choices guests have in the dining room, her waiter made a few blunders that should never have occurred at a place displaying a 5-Star rating.

But that's nothing compared to what was allowed to go on in the Gene Autry room, which, we've been assured, is the top of the line place to stay while at The Parker. For reasons never made clear, management permitted a rowdy group of ping pong tournament players to stay in the Gene Autry room, and when their behavior began raising a few eyebrows, management sent a woman who looked like she couldn't lift a speck of sand off her own eyelash to straighten things out. Everyone except management knew from the get-go that the stylish chick with every hair in place slinging a walkie-talkie from her hand much like Marshall Dillon twirled his 6-shooter wasn't going to be able to do squat to get the ping pong boys in line so they wouldn't trash the place. And trash the place they did. Whereupon management actually had the gall to look surprised that such a thing could happen.

Through it all, Samir, all 6'6" of former basketball star turned hotel manager, remained calm, cool, and collected while he stood around watching everyone else do the clean up in the Gene Autry room or while he sat at his desk looking pensive repeating his one line about having 5-Stars.

This is, indeed, another addition to the reality based tv shows I would rather watch than any 5 episodes of Lost or Nancy Grace or the past poorly done season of Grey's Anatomy. This is gooooood stuff.

Before Jonathan Adler left The Parker after his most recent stay, he advised management to hang a new picture on the wall in a space Jonathan felt was just crying out for something unique! Jonathan's idea of the perfect component for this space was a framed picture that had the word D R U G S spelled out just like <-- that. Only one person on the staff asked if Adler had lost his mind during the whole episode I saw, and that wasn't over the DRUGS sign -- that was over the pillow fluffer hiring. It is absolutely hilarious watching all those people trying to behave as they believe upper-crust service personnel would behave even when they know they are doing ridiculous things for eccentric lunatics. I, for one, wouldn't miss an episode!

Let's Be Careful Out There

2007-07-24T16:11:00.000-07:00

There is an epidemic sweeping this country, and to date no one has even begun a group with a nationally televised concert or Hollywood sponsored celebrity talk-in to address this problem. And it IS a problem. It's HUGE and growing day by day.

The worst part of the problem is the apathy it receives. No one will stand up and be counted by either word or deed to stop this insidious pandemic from taking over the globe... and that's IF it hasn't done so already.

The name of this pernicious and harmful disease is incompetenceious humanoidis, and if you don't think it's embedded right where you live, work, and breathe, then you haven't been paying attention, because it's everywhere, people. EVERYWHERE!

Take, for example, a typical day in the life of me. I get up in the morning fully intending to go about my business, bothering no one. But can everyone just accept that and leave me in peace? Heavens, no. There must be a global alert saying Let's Fuck With Ma Titwonky Today, and for reasons I'll never understand, everyone is in agreement.

I get my monthly delivery from Zooba. Not only have they sent me the wrong book, but they've sent me all the information on the person's account who should have received this book. So now I'm wondering who has MY book and MY account information.

Mystery Guild, BOMC, Literary Guild, Doubleday Book Club, and Zooba are all run by the same company. From personal experience with this company over at least a 5 year period, if not longer, I have discovered that to work for Book Club Associates, or whatever it is they call themselves, a person must be actively brain dead. Yes, I know, that's a contradiction in terms, but the person has to KNOW he, she, or it is brain dead so that he, she, or it can apply to this place of business for employment. Once employed, the person must qualify to work in The Garden which is a nice way of saying he, she, or it must be in a vegetative state (but ambulatory) so that communication is impossible. I know this because I have been participating in a very frustrating exchange with a bunch of its from the Mystery Guild... a club to which I no longer belong but who keeps sending me bills for merchandise I don't have.

Then there's Big Fish Games. Those people have absolutely no understanding of the English language which makes communication with them a nightmare.

Those people are not quite in The Garden, but they do have an affliction which causes them to see every problem as the same problem with the same solution. My problem was that I couldn't download a file from their site. They kept telling me to solve this problem by doing tricks with their program client. This had absolutely nothing to do with my problem. I couldn't get the file as far as the program client since I couldn't get the file off their site. Yet no matter how I explained it, and I did resort to language one would use with a 2 year old, they insisted upon giving me the same solution which was irrelevant to my problem. When I became impatient with this response, they told me to remain respectful. I wanted to tell them to respect this: ,,!,, but I was sure they'd only tell me again to do more deleting and patch fixing of their program client.

After that there was the problem with my doctor's office. I needed to have a prescription refilled. My pharmacy faxed the information to the doctor's office for approval twice on two consecutive days. A week later I still was not able to get the prescription.

The doctor I see is an internist and is part of a larger group of doctors covering a variety of specialists. I like my doctor very much, but the rest of the office and particularly the staff are no better than Garden Rejects. For one thing, no one answers the phone there. When you call, all you can get is voice mail unless you stay on the line for the operator who, depending upon her mood, will hang up on you. I refuse to speak to machines at that place because those people do not answer their messages, and they tell you that depending upon what time of the day you call, your message will not be returned until the next day or possibly the next. They also say that if you are calling about a REAL (emphasis theirs) medical emergency, you should hang up and call 911. I once asked how many fake medical emergencies they get and if they answer those. I received no answer. Or maybe I wasn't home when they called back after 48 or 72 hours.

In any event, this time I was determined to talk to a real person no matter how long it took me to get one on the line and no matter how many times the operator hung up on me. (She only did it once.) I asked to be connected to the Office Manager. I was told she was busy, but I could get her voice mail. I said I'd wait, and I did. 20 Minutes later I got the OM. I told her about my problem with the prescription. She personally called the pharmacy and renewed the prescription for me after repeatedly assuring me that this sort of thing never happens at their office. She did a dry little sniff when I explained that it isn't possible to use the word never in this case because this happened to me so never is out of the question.

Since I had her on the phone, I also asked her about a billing entry on my statement which said I owe $30 for the administration of an injection. I was already charged for the injection -- that charge was $20. So I want the $30 resolved because it's inaccurate.

That's when I found out that my doctor's office has decided to bill everyone who receives an injection from them a fee of $30 just for sticking the needle in my arm. This takes, oh... roughly... 10 seconds (if that), and for this my insurance will be charged the price of the serum in the injection as well as $30 for sticking it in my arm. This is insane. The Office Manager did not agree. She said that before January 2007 an office could not bill for this service, but after January 2007 the office is allowed to do this whether insurance covers it or not.

I asked if the increased revenue from the administered injections could be used to hire people willing to answer the phone and speak to patients when they call. The Office Manager was not amused by by question. I was not trying to amuse her.

This is merely a small sample of a typical day in the life of anyone who has to interact with people outside the home. I don't care if it's customer service or if it happens to be customers... if you are sane, you will undoubtedly be spending the majority of your day among those who are not.

So, like I said, people, Let's Be Careful Out There. And as my father often told me... "Don't let the bastards get you down."

Do NOT Get Hurt In Wichita, Kansas

2007-07-04T09:38:00.000-07:00

Do not, repeat NOT, go to Wichita, Kansas, if you have the slightest inkling that you may become ill or hurt or attacked or in some way need assistance from the citizenry there. They will not help you. They may take your picture, or step over you if you happen to be blocking their passage as they go about their business, but help you? Never happen.

Consider the story of LaShanda Calloway who was stabbed and lay dying on the floor of a convenience store. Five shoppers, count 'em FIVE stepped over her to continue their shopping. One of the five stopped to take her picture with a cell phone.

It took someone roughly two minutes to call 911 for assistance. LaShanda Calloway later died at a hospital.

LaShanda Calloway was stabbed as part of an altercation that took place in the convenience store. The event was not part of a robbery. A 19 year old woman has been charged for first degree homicide in the Calloway case, and another suspect turned himself in but to date has not been charged. It is unclear whether any of those who stepped over LaShanda to continue shopping for snacks can be charged with any crime in this incident. Laws pertaining to failure to render aid to victims concern automobile accidents only.

While it could be noted that 5 people do not make up the entire citizenry of Wichita, Kansas, so why stay away from that city completely? Because I wouldn't want to take the chance of becoming unable to help myself in the presence of 5 more like-minded individuals. In this case it isn't merely one bad apple that turns the rest. In this case it's 5 rotten apples with who knows how many others who are spoiled inside the exact same way.

The details of the altercation which took place in that convenience store which eventually led to LaShanda Calloway's death were not noted in any report of the incident I read. But when a stabbing occurs, I think it is safe to say that by-standers would want to remove themselves as far as possible from the scene. And most people, when they observe a crime of some sort immediately think of calling law enforcement often while maintaining that they do not wish to be involved in the incident. That's understandable. Stepping over a dying woman and then photographing her while continuing to shop for snacks is so far out of the realm of understanding it defies explanation.

Rest in peace LeShanda Calloway.

Am I A Dumb American?

2007-06-26T13:04:00.000-07:00

You Are a Smart American

You know a lot about US history, and your opinions are probably well informed.
Congratulations on bucking stereotypes. Now go show some foreigners how smart Americans can be.

Are You a Dumb American?

Banking Nonsense or Why It Might Make Sense To Keep Your Money In Your Mattress After All

2007-06-22T07:14:00.000-07:00

I used to be the Head Teller in a bank. I liked my job very much. Couldn't stand most of the people I worked with, downright loathed upper management, but I loved what I did on a daily basis.

The reason I couldn't stand most of the people I worked with was because they were a clannish group that were more interested in sticking it to each other than they were in sticking to the jobs they were paid to do. They kept track of things like who was 1 minute late getting back from lunch or who spent too much time with a customer so that other tellers might wait on more people in a day. Crap like that. I had to supervise this dysfunctional group of petty women; their stupid complaints and score keeping made me crazy. I didn't have the time or inclination to stay on top of 1 minute tardiness when the Washout Account was showing a $739.52 entry, and I had to figure out which one of those dufuses had screwed it up -- again. That doesn't make me smarter or better than them; it just meant I had work to do, and I wanted to do it rather than become involved in nonsense. The troops got very restless over that attitude. I often repeated John Rebus' mantra: FYTP.

The reason I loathed upper management was because they darn near got down on their hands and knees and begged to be loathed. They were condescending, patronizing, sexual harrassmentizing pains in the butt who went out of their way to come up with all kinds of nasty procedures for tellers to do believing these ridiculous exercises in futility would drive huge hordes of people into the bank as prospective customers.

Take, for example, their "referral program". Each teller was expected to assign a goal to herself to bring in new business to the bank each month. If, after doing a search on an individual customer, it was noted that the customer may only have had a checking account with the bank, it was up to the teller to convince the customer that he or she could not possibly live without at least 2 or 3 more services. If the customer didn't have a debit card, by all means nail her with one. If she didn't have a savings account, she needed to have one of those babies to survive. If she had big bucks, direct her to the Trust Department (which was run by an arrogant prick I would only send my enemies to see). If she looked like she may keel over tomorrow, get her to sign up for a safe deposit box so she had a nice comfy, secure place to keep her will. Essentially we were supposed to harass customers into getting bank products that they hadn't asked for, usually didn't want, and resented being constantly solicited to get.

I had occasion to visit one of our branches once when I needed to cash a check. I went to the drive-up window and presented my personal check along with id.

The teller said to me, "You know you could do this transaction through the ATM machine."

Me: Yes, I know that. But the ATM machine will not give me this amount of money nor will it give me the currency the way I want it.

The Teller: Do you have an ATM card?

Me: Yes

The Teller: Do you need help in learning how to use it?

Part of my job was balancing and replenishing the ATM machine at our branch daily.

Me: No, but if it's too much trouble for you to cash my check, then I'll either go to another teller or another bank.

The Teller: The ATM machine could save you time.

Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah

This teller would have gotten several attagirls had upper management heard her conversation with the customer. In spite of the fact that the customer was annoyed and wanted to throttle her. Upper management believed it was making customers happy by browbeating them into getting more bank products. Besides, the more products a person has, the less likely she is to close out everything and go elsewhere. Or so the marketing committee would have people believe.

I left the wonderful world of banking shortly before the era of the mad mergers began. It seemed like every other day one bank was changing its name to become something else because there was this mania for larger banks swallowing up smaller banks. What this did, in effect, was destroy an already weakening customer service.

The ink on one merger was barely dry before the merged bank was again merged with a larger bank. Tellers were losing jobs right and left OR they were being offered jobs that were a 2 hour commute from where they lived. In this area, people do not commute 2 hours one way (4 hours round trip) for a job. In this area people believe that's just nuts. They're correct, of course, but that didn't stop banks from saying they were not firing people because they were offering them replacement opportunities. Yeah right.

While I was employed in banking, I took courses offered through the AIB (American Institute of Banking) program. I took any class I could get within reasonable traveling distance from where I live. I was fortunate enough to have had some excellent AIB instructors, and the very best of these taught classes in customer service. Personally I believe much of customer service is a no-brainer, and that if you've got any common sense at all, you'll know how to provide the best service to your customers. Still, I learned some good techniques through the classes I took. But that was back in the days when customer service actually meant providing customers with attention and care to their needs. This is no longer the case.

Recently someone I know has been applying to banks for a job. She has previous banking experience. She recently had interviews with 2 banks; one of them is new to the area and has set up branch offices in WalMart stores. In our area, WalMart had tried that experience before. When they opened their Super Stores, they wanted to offer people the one-stop, never-have-to-leave-their-building-for-anything-else kind of service. Therefore, you could go to WalMart and get your groceries, your clothing, a new hair-do, your pictures taken, breakfast/lunch/dinner, your nails done, your prescriptions filled, your oil changed, new blades for your box cutter, and any other item you'd normally get in a department/auto-supply/sporting goods/etc store. Granted, the ambience left something to be desired, but the prices were great, and they did have EVERYTHING!

But not everything caught on, and the bank was one of those things. I never once saw a customer in the bank when I went to WalMart, and after a while I noticed that the bank name kept changing. That was either because of more bank mergers OR because a bank in WalMart is just not profitable. But now there's a new kid on the block, my friend interviewed with it, and it's very very high on itself.

This new bank wants to give the WalMart customer the ultimate in banking experiences. Which is why, I suppose, they have a rather peculiar list of duties they want their employees to perform. These items are not necessarily on the job description, mind you... but if you want to stay employed, you'd better deliver on them.

If a WalMart clerk in the grocery department seems pretty busy, help bag groceries.

If it's raining, usher old ladies to their cars with an umbrella.

Quiz WalMart employees about the bank to make sure they're up-to-date on what the bank offers.

Wander through the store talking to customers about banking and encourage them to open an account.

Walk through the store giving out balloons to children while encouraging their parents to open a bank account with you.

And this is just the list my friend could remember. There could be much, much more.

So once again, customer service comes down to a game of Harass the Customer, and forget about actually having to wait on customers at teller windows -- who has the time when she's busy bagging groceries, sloshing through puddle riddled parking lots with old ladies and their packages, and greeting the customers with balloons and bank brochures when they enter the front door. Until they've got you signed up and in the customer data base, these people will carry you piggyback to and from your car if you want. But after that? When you need service? If you're lucky, you may get a balloon, but you'll have to fake being under 10 years of age to get that.

Like I said at the beginning... maybe your money is better off in your mattress.

Warm Cockles

2007-06-17T10:39:00.000-07:00

Every now and then something good and nice and heart-warming happens in this world that seems to have become desensitized to so many varied emotions. This is an example of something that brings a tear to the eye, and it gave me a galloping case of the warm fuzzies.

Click Here To Check It Out

Puhleeeeeeeze -- Thoughts On Divorce

2007-06-15T10:30:00.000-07:00

While surfing through Blogmad, I came across a site called Journey Through Divorce. I've been divorced for 11 years, but I still stop to read or listen to what people have to say about the process. I find their thoughts fascinating and usually meandering so far in the outfield, the fans have long since gone home, the lights are turned out, and "The Party's Over" has been playing on the loudspeaker for a good 2 hours.

I have never been happier since I left old Fuzzlenuts after 30 long, tedious, abusive, mind-numbingly stupid years. I cannot completely regret those 30 years because I have a daughter who would not be here (a thought I cannot begin to grasp) if it weren't for the marriage. No, instead I prefer to think of those 30 years as a sentence, and it seems to me it was an unfair one. People who commit murder serve less time in lock-up than I served being married to Fuzzlenuts. But I did my time, paid my debt to whomever wanted to collect, and then I had enough. So I consulted an attorney, agreed to whatever it took to get free of WhatsHisName, and moved on to being happy. Yes, happy. No, wait... ecstatic is more like it. I have never regretted for one single second leaving behind everything that made me miserable for so long.

So when I read bullshit like this:

"But you know deep down that you can’t be happy alone. Your life is meant to be part of another life."

it makes me want to hurl chunks.

Who in the blue hell decided that every person on this earth was destined to be or meant to be part of another life? I mean has anyone ever considered the question, "What if he or she is not meant to be part of a duo, and what if that person not only can but WILL be happy alone?

This bill of goods has been sold from generation to generation, and it's only the current crop of 30-somethings who seem to have gotten smart and realized that it really can be better to choose to be alone rather than sell your soul and be with someone with whom you're unhappy. You don't have to settle. You can maintain higher standards for yourself -- a life where you choose what's best for you and do not hand over the reins of your life for a partner to shoot all to hell if he or she chooses. You think you so intimately know the person with whom you've decided to spend your life? ROTFLMAO!!! Yeah, right. Talk to Ann Rule about that premise. Better yet, sit at work and just listen to your co-workers talk about their marriages. It ain't pretty, but if you truly listen for a while you may begin to get the idea that people do not marry for love and happiness and 'til death do us part. They marry for convenience or because they don't want to be solely responsible for their entire lives until the Grim Reaper shows up and shuts down the power source. It's called being realistic. And for those who want to settle for whatever crumbs of satisfaction they can glean from a match that's proving to be made at the portal to the 10th level of hell, that's fine. But it doesn't have to be acceptable to everyone, and if you choose to want better, that doesn't mean there's something wrong with you because you've chosen to like your own company better than some astonishingly boring or obnoxious numbnuts.

The Sopranos, Season Finale

2007-06-11T14:18:00.000-07:00

Working hard to get my fill,
Everybody wants a thrill
Payin anything to roll the dice,
Just one more time
Some will win, some will lose
Some were born to sing the blues
Oh, the movie never ends
It goes on and on and on and on

Don't stop believin
Hold on to the feelin
Streetlight people."

Don't Stop Believing by Journey

Last night, after watching the series finale of The Sopranos, I was absolutely furious with David Chase for crapping out on the hardcore fans of Tony and family. I've had some time since then to sleep on it, and I realize now that I was dead wrong in my initial response to Chase's ending.

*Spoiler Alert! If you don't want to know more about how the Series Finale of The Sopranos was done, don't read any further.*

As anyone who has been watching The Sopranos knows, last week's episode left Tony in a very precarious position. I don't know if this is the correct application of the term, but to me, it appeared that Tony and both his families had "gone to the mattresses". Tony, thanks to an FBI informant, knew Phil Leotardo was out to destroy him and his family. Unless Tony could get to Phil first, things weren't looking good for The Sopranos.

Immediately after sitting through the hour and five minutes it took to air the final episode of Tony and his tortured families, my reaction was that David Chase had held true to his word and got even with all those who seemed to have missed his earlier brilliance in a few season's past. I felt as though he'd flipped us all a giant bird and left the door wide open to revisit The Sopranos whenever he chose. But after giving it more thought, I think my knee jerk reaction was way off. The final episode, which I'd accused of giving us absolutely nothing, had indeed given us quite a bit, and viewed from this different perspective, the final episode was quite logical -- and exactly what it should have been. The theme throughout the whole hour and five minutes was "life goes on".

Tony sets up a meeting with Leotardo's henchmen and comes to an agreement with them that they will merge with what's left of Tony's family. Seems that Phil's boys don't like Phil's attitude or plans any better than Tony does. In addition, Tony gets the promise of something to compensate Janice for the loss of Bobby who got blown to bits among toy trains last week. So that takes care of the worry that any more of Tony's people will get annihilated.

Tony makes contact with his FBI connection to see if he can find out where Leotardo is hiding. The FBI agent comes through, and Tony's guns now know where to look for Phil. They find him, and that's the end of Phil. Tony's family has survived this test, and they can now move on to continue raking in bucks just like before.

Paulie is offered a job he does not want and declines. But when Tony tells Paulie who will get the job in his stead, Paulie's ego is dented and he takes the job -- just like Tony knew he would all along. Paulie doesn't like it, but he is nothing if not a macho kinda guy. Now he's got something else about which he can endlessly whine.

Meadow has decided to marry Patsy Parisi's son, and she's given up all intentions of becoming a doctor so she can be a lawyer instead. For being a college grad and all, Meadow has a decidedly dim bulb when she cannot figure out on her own that she is putting herself right smack in the pathway of conflict of interests when the cases she may have to deal with are not compatible with her father's livelihood. But, for now, Meadow's life is settled. Tony and Carmela have resigned themselves to whatever comes next.

AJ remains a loose cannon who has now decided he wants to go fight terrorists in Afghanistan. Tony and Carmela manage to talk him out of that, give him a job developing movies, and provide a vague promise that if he proves himself, Tony will give him a club to operate. The Bada-Bing could use some fresh ideas. So, AJ will remain the whiny coddled little brat he's always been under Tony's thumb and securely tied to Carmela's apron strings.

Tony goes to see Junior and finally has to face the fact that Junior has no idea who Tony is, what he and Tony's father did for a living, nor that he ever shot and nearly killed Tony. Another matter neatly laid to rest.

Tony and the family decide to meet at a diner to have dinner together. It's the last few minutes of the show, so if something "big" is going to happen, this is the moment for it. While the scene unfolds, there is as much tension in it as there is a sense of family enjoying a meal together. Meadow has trouble parallel parking her car, and the tension mounts as inside the restaurant strange looking characters glance at Tony, Carmela, and AJ. The expectation is that the Sopranos are about to meet their end with their faces stuffed full of onion rings. Meadow finally gets the car parked and runs across the street to meet her family. Seconds after she enters the restaurant and we get to see more customers any one of whom could blast the Sopranos to kingdom come, the screen goes black.

We'll never know for sure what happens next. In an interview after the show aired, Chase said this was a definite ending and that everything we needed to know to draw the correct conclusions was right there in the last episode. So, if we take a look at all the clues that have been lobbed at us throughout this episode, there's a logic which says Life Goes On. At Bobby's funeral, sad as it was for all concerned, the feast afterward made the point that this chapter is closed, and the family will move on. All of Tony's associations and meetings during this final hour and five minutes leave us with the feeling that loose ends are being tied up so that business and family can continue as usual. Yes, it's been rough these past few weeks, but the Sopranos survived it as they have survived so much during their numerous seasons. And then they move on to whatever comes next. We know that there will be trouble for Tony because of that almost forgotten gun charge that's been hanging over his head since this season's opener. And we can safely assume that each of the characters we've followed so religiously will continue to do what they've always done because they don't know how to do anything else.

And as for someone whacking all the Sopranos as they sat around that restaurant table talking amongst themselves? There's no one left to do that. With the death of Phil and a handshake in a cold garage, there's no one in Tony's immediate world that wants or has the resources to blow him away. Once families have agreed to merge, and they've done it in good faith (even in a cold garage), loyalty kicks in and all's well with the world.

Tony's took the position after he was shot by Junior that, "Every day's a gift," so to that end, he'll never Stop Believing.

Good Riddance to Isaiah Washington

2007-06-08T13:21:00.000-07:00

Finally! And I'm not really sure that this is case of better late than never, but FINALLY ABC has decided to fire Isaiah Washington.

It is being reported, that Washington has not been invited back for another season of Grey's Anatomy, and Isaiah Washington himself is quoted as saying ""I’m mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore." The guy is nothing if not unoriginal.

I think ABC could have found a much better way to handle all of this. I mean, even now that they've fired Washington, their reasons swerve sharply away from what the issues are surrounding him in the public eye. Instead of firing him because he used unacceptable slurs to categorize a co-worker while physically attacking another co-worker during the same incident, ABC has made it known that they weren't happy with the negative publicity his behavior brought to the show, and they also cited him as causing a strained atmosphere on the Grey's Anatomy set. I don't see anything in there stating clearly that his behavior and attitudes are unacceptable to both ABC and to the rest of the cast of Grey's Anatomy. But then that would have stated the matter in unequivocal terms; something ABC seems unwilling to do.

After the dreadful season ending Grey's Anatomy used to keep us all on tenterhooks over the Summer, it was doubtful that I'd hang in there for another season. Firing Washington now is rather anticlimactic and doesn't change a decision I'd already made. So in spite of the fact that ABC has finally brought itself around to doing the right thing, it's too late. Good riddance to Isaiah Washington, and in my opinion, to Grey's Anatomy as well.

An Incontinent er... um.... Truth?

2007-04-24T13:30:00.000-07:00

There are two stories floating around the news web pages these days, and it seems to me they should be linked since they seem, at least to me, to have a good deal in common.

The first story to which I'm referring is Senator Harry Reid's contention that the Iraqi war is lost. What he actually said was:

"I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,"

The Drudge Report is now conducting a survey at Mercuras Polls to find out whether people believe Senator Harry Reid should apologize to the US troops. 93% or 1,949 people said yes, they believe Reid should apologize. I get why they responded that way, but I really don't see what good such an apology would do. In declaring what he did about the situation in Iraq as of the time he made this statement, Reid is truthfully telling us how he sees the Iraq war. US soldiers are engaged in combat, and while they put their lives on the line, Harry Reid declares their efforts useless. So, what kind of apology could possibly make up for a statement like that? And why should Reid issue what in effect would be a meaningless addendum to words he said that were obviously his considered opinion?

If Harry Reid wants to shoot off his mouth in an offensive verbal diarrhea tirade that ends up offending US troops, let him. MSNBC and CBS Radio fired Don Imus for his unfortunate choice of words. I suggest Harry Reid be fired or at least have his resignation sought for the same "crime".

After all, it's not like this is Harry's first time around the verbally offensive circuit. I saw him on C-Span giving a press conference in which not only did he echo the views he expressed in the statement quoted here, but he went further to suggest that the Pope should have some influence over United States foreign policy:

"As the pope has said, it's a slaughter. Those are not Harry Reid 's words or Jack Reed's words or some Democratic operative. They are the pope. The spiritual leader of more than a million people says to everyone that's listening to his voice and he is — he presides over more than a billion people, and many more have great respect for him. And he is saying there's a slaughter in Iraq. Those are his words. And nothing good is coming from Iraq.
The president should understand that it's not just the Democratic Congress that is crying out for a change in direction. It's the pope."

If that's not an implication that the Pope should be dictating world policy on all matters regardless of what nations these matters concern, I don't know what is. I do think, at the very least, though, we should hold out for a vote when the Cardinals meet next time around to elect a new Pope.

The story I believe should be linked to this one because of the verbal diarrhea factor is Sheryl Crow's assertion that regulating toilet paper usage will help free the planet of global warming.

"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming," Crow wrote.

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting."

Ms Crow did not, however, go on to elaborate on whether she was offering herself up for Toilet Paper Use Police Patrol. I'm guessing not. But if such a Patrol needs a theme song, perhaps she can write it for them.

I'm wondering if Harry Reid and Sheryl Crow know each other. They should. They speak the same mind numbingly stupid language.

Don Imus, Patrick Buchanan, And Hypocrisy So Thick You Can't Cut Through It With A Chain Saw

2007-04-13T09:05:00.000-07:00

Patrick J Buchanan has written an excellent article about the mess of trouble engulfing Don Imus these days because of his remarks about the Rutger's Women's Basketball Team. He's entitled it, "The Imus Lynch Party". There couldn't be a more accurate name for what's been done to Don Imus during the past week.

The lead-in question from Buchanan's article is:

Are we really a better country because, after he was publicly whipped for 10 days as the worst kind of racist, with whom no decent person could associate, he was thrown off the air?

My answer is absolutely not. Others will have to decide for themselves.

Buchanan goes on to ask another key question about this mess...

Who, after all, believed the slur was true? No one.

Compare, if you will, what was done to them – a single nasty insult – to the savage slanders for weeks on end of the Duke lacrosse team and the three players accused by a lying stripper of having gang-raped her at a frat party.

Duke faculty and talking heads took that occasion to vent their venom toward all white "jocks" on college campuses. Where are the demands for apologies from the talk-show hosts, guests, Duke faculty members and smear artists, all of whom bought into the lies about those Duke kids – because the lies comported with their hateful view of America?

And hate is what this is all about.

While the remarks of Imus and Bernie about the Rutgers women were indefensible, they were more unthinking and stupid than vicious and malicious. But malice is the right word to describe the howls for their show to be canceled and them to be driven from the airwaves – by phonies who endlessly prattle about the First Amendment.

The hypocrisy here was too thick to cut with a chainsaw.

After reading other opinions in other articles and seeing a few discussions on television about this situation, those who needed drool cups to catch the run-off from their overworked salivary glands over Imus getting fired seem to want me to believe that it makes no difference whatsoever what black people themselves say, be it calling women "bitches and hos" or each other "niggah". The point is, white people better not use that same language because whites have not earned that right. This is supposed to effectively excuse the deplorable language and behavior described in rap music (and I use the term "music" very loosely).

Since I like to know what the rules are up front, I'm appreciative that some took the time to explain this to me. But excuse me if I think those who believe that are full of shit.

I would further like to point out to those who defend a double standard that they can stick their opinions up their black asses because my lily white one says so. In a country founded on the fundamental right of free speech, that just doesn't fly. And neither does it fly to have two used up self-serving black men decide they not only speak for black people as a group but for the moral compass of this country as a whole.

Last night Bill O'Reilly told Michelle Malkin that as of the time CBS fired Don Imus, this episode is over. I don't think so. I think Bill O'Reilly underestimates those everyday people with whom he believes himself to be so in touch. I don't think a large chunk of the population is going to put this all in the past and move on. Instead, I believe what Sharpton and Jackson and those who parrot them have created is stronger deeper resentment between races. Congrats guys. Given enough time you can, indeed, set race relations back a couple centuries.

Something Completely Different

2007-03-22T08:47:00.000-07:00

60 Minutes, Scott Pelley, Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, and Haditha

2007-03-19T14:02:00.000-07:00

On Nov. 19, 2005, United States Marines killed 24 Iraqis in a town called Haditha. That's how I describe what happened there; however, it's not how CBS or 60 Minutes describes it. They prefer to look at what happened in Haditha as a massacre in which American Marines slaughtered 24 "apparently" innocent Iraqi civilians.

Scott Pelley did the interview with Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich for an episode of 60 Minutes that aired on March 18, 2007. Scott Pelley made me want to hurl something directly at his face. Something very large and very heavy. Something that would wipe that phony look of concerned interest right off his face. Something that would obliterate that disgust he could barely conceal while Wuterich struggled to answer Pelley's questions in the best way he could. Something that would make Pelley understand just what it was he was interviewing Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich about.

Because it is my view that Scott Pelley had no clue what he was doing as he questioned Wuterich, verbally probing him for the facts of what took place on November 19, 2005 in Haditha. It appeared to me that what Pelley was trying to get from Wuterich was not the truth of the incident at Haditha. Scott Pelley wanted Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich to own up to murdering innocent women and children, he wanted Wuterich to be sorry for what he did, and then, as the icing on the cake, he wanted Wuterich to say that given the opportunity he wouldn't do the same thing again.

Staff Sgt Wuterich blew it. Not only didn't he confess to massacre and unhinged slaughter, he also said that given the circumstances, he'd do the same thing again. To which Pelley replied, "... you can't mean that." Which made it obvious that Pelley was hoping for the chance to rehabilitate Wuterich of his murderous ways on camera. It was enough to make me reach for the barf bags.

What I want to know is what on earth gives Scott Pelley the right to judge what any US Marine does or did in Iraq while performing his duties and following orders? The incident as Wuterich described it took place in a very short amout of time -- a truck in his convoy was blown up, a Marine was killed by the bomb's impact, and Wuterich and his men immediately searched the area for snipers/insurgents. The Marines responded rapidly, and they followed the training they'd received for combat duty. To do otherwise could very well have cost them their lives, and that's a fact one member of Wuterich's unit knows very well because he previously had been involved in a similar incident in which American soldiers lost their lives in searching a residence for insurgents. Wuterich mentioned that the time from when the bomb exploded until he and his men searched for the bombers was about 2 minutes. Wow! A whole two minutes in which to decide how to proceed so no one else gets killed. Wuterich reacted as his training taught him to react, or to put it another way, he did his job while keeping the welfare of the rest of the men his unit in mind.

And for his trouble he has been charged with 18 murders. Further, CBS has characterized Wuterich's interview with Pelley as his wanting to tell the truth about the day he "decided who would live and who would die in Haditha."

That's not at all what I got from watching Staff Sgt Wuterich and listening to his words. I think it is disgraceful that CBS chose to characterize Wuterich's thought process that way. And if I never EVER see Scott Pelley interview anyone again it will be way too soon. He can take his liberal bias and stick it up his self-righteous ass while he walks through a road full of buried mines in Iraq.

The fact of the matter is that US soldiers are fighting a war in Iraq; one that is unfathomably dangerous and from which more soldiers will not return. The very idea that against the Iraqi insurgents we have to observe rules and regulations about our military conduct is ludicrous. I'm not going to do one of those we-have-to-support-the-troops rants because by now everyone knows (or should now and perhaps let Scott Pelley know) that supporting them is the right thing to do no matter what a person's convictions about war might be. I just want to say that it is wrong and vile and absolutely heinous to undermine the decisions our military has to make in the span of a few seconds or a few minutes when all that faces them is unknown.

It was obvious to me that Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich did not get up the morning of November 19, 2005, scratch his butt, and swear an oath to go out and kill him some of the enemy. Further, when a military unit has to search a residence, they really can't do one of those "Yoooo Hooooo, anybody home?" shoutouts to make sure the women and kiddies are off premises before the grenades get tossed inside. Scott Pelley needs to grow the fuck up because that's what he seemed to think was in order. And maybe that works at the grand old 60 Minutes family picnic, but in a war zone? Not hardly.

I've decided that I don't want to watch another second of coverage about anything on 60 Minutes, but particularly not about the Iraqi war. Further, if I get any indication that Scott Pelley is going to show up on my tv screen, I'll turn the tube off before I'll watch his smarmy, condescending, unctuous, smug face again. Staff Sgt Frank Wuterich has been in my thoughts ever since I saw his interview last night. What a terrible ordeal he has had to suffer through first in Haditha, and now being charged with murder. He was simply doing his job, and for that, I admire his and his unbelievable courage.

Prince Frederic von Anhalt & Bill O'Reilly

2007-03-16T06:48:00.000-07:00

I don't think there has been anything funny about the whole Anna Nicole Smith debacle. I'm sick to death of seeing her image everywhere as though I should care about someone I've never met and someone whom public opinion seems to consider a train wreck. Only in this case I have no problem tearing my eyes away, and frankly, I wish the rest of the world would do the same. The coverage of Smith's death became ghoulish and tacky and over-exposed long ago. Enough already.

Well, except for this one item that showed up in today's news. This is hilarious.

Associated Press is reporting that Prince Frederic von Anhalt, better known as "Gabor's husband", is suing Bill O'Reilly for defamation. Von Anhalt has stated that he could be the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby girl. O'Reilly says that's hogwash. Okay, what he actually said was:

"Look, this guy's a fraud. We know he's a fraud. But let's - what I want to talk about is - he's done. His credibility is - is finished."

The thing is, it's not the lawsuit that's so funny. It's the suggestion implied in the lawsuit that when Bill O'Reilly speaks, the public at large takes his word as gospel. That becomes clearer when von Anhalt explains,

People give him dirty looks when he goes to the grocery store.

"They say, 'Look, here comes the fraud,'" he said. "I get lots of e-mails from people bad-mouthing me. It's very embarrassing."

Now, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that unless people state, "Look, here comes the guy Bill O'Reilly says is a fraud," it's a little hard to prove that people say what they say or think what they think because Bill O'Reilly shot his mouth off one night on his tv show. And how Bill O'Reilly is responsible for the amount of email messages von Anhalt receives is a mystery several layers lighter than who really is the father of her baby girl.

It sounds more to me like von Anhalt wasn't quite ready to give up his 15 minutes in the spotlight, so he's attaching his star to Bill O'Reilly's coattails hoping to grab some extra time with the media. Given the assumption that the attention von Anhalt says he's getting is because of Bill O'Reilly either adds yet another travesty to the whole Smith mess OR it's hilarious.

This time, I choose hilarious.

Obama Has A Dream[Works]

2007-02-21T07:38:00.000-08:00

The Washington Post is reporting that Barack Obama is raking in the bucks from some of Hollywood's biggest, and wealthiest, stars.

According to the Post:

"Obama banked checks from stars such as actors George Clooney, Barbra Streisand, and Morgan Freeman, Natalie Mains of the Grammy-winning Dixie Chicks, and director Ron Howard at a private fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton Hotel attended by 300 contributors who donated at least $2,300 each."

Not bad for a guy who thought the mere mention of his running for President was a "silly question".

Jennifer Anniston -- that bastion of astute political opinion -- had this to say about Obama:

"He's lovely."

To those who question Obama's qualifications to be President of the United States, Obama had this to say:

"I've been in Washington long enough to know it needs to change."

Okay, but let's keep this in some kind of perspective... I've been to Washington, DC once when I was 12 years old, and my best memory of the place is my father hopelessly trying to get us out of the circle in which we'd become trapped, and the only exit he could finally manage got us into Virginia. Even back then, when I was 12 years old, I was there long enough to know Washington needed changing if only so that people didn't become hostages of the traffic circles. So, excuse me if I'm a bit under impressed with not only Obama's length of residence but also his brilliantly banal conclusions about DC. The guy has a firm grasp of the obvious. That doesn't mean he's qualified to be POTUS, but given his logic, then I qualify for the job too.

DreamWorks studio founders Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg and David Geffen arranged the Beverly Hills fundraiser at which the numerous stars showed up with their checkbooks to support Obama's run for the Presidency. The Washington Post reports that while Katzenberg and Geffen have decided to support Obama in the 2008 Election, Spielberg has not yet given his endorsement.

So here's what I want to know: since when does anyone give a fat rat's ass who Steven Spielberg endorses for the job of POTUS? Who was the dimwit who afforded the guy who breathed life into ET the political recognition to have his support for POTUS matter one bit in a national election? True, Spielberg did give us Indiana Jones, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and Schindler's List. But let's not forget that he also gave us AI, The Terminal, War Of The Worlds, and Saving Private Ryan which were all way too long and tediously dull.

If anyone is seriously sitting on the edge of his/her seat waiting to see who Steven Spielberg will endorse as the cratz POTUS candidate for 2008, then I fear for the political future of the US. Why next thing you know, someone will seriously consider Al Franken as Senator material.

Norm Coleman vs... Stuart Smalley!

2007-02-15T07:43:00.000-08:00

Well, he's finally gone and done it. After several years of threatening, Stuart Smalley AKA Al Franken is finally going to completely desecrate the political system and run for US Senator from Minnesota.

According to the Associated Press,:

"Franken had been considering a run since 2003. He said several weeks ago that he would leave Air America and privately told prominent Democrats about his plans to seek office."

Apparently some people take Al Franken and his political aspirations quite seriously. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, contributors to Franken's political action committee include: Barbra Streisand, Phil Donahue, Larry Hagman and Norman Lear.

It doesn't surprise me that Phil Donahue would support Stuart Smalley for a senate job. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Phil Donahue supported Stuart for President. Those two men feed off each other and together produce some of the most skewed thinking I've ever heard.

For example, in his book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right, Stuart has a chapter titled: I Bitch-Slap Bernie Goldberg. The chapter recounts Stuart's appearance on the Phil Donahue show with Bernie Goldberg, the author of Bias: How The Media Distorts The News. It was obvious that Smalley was there to go after Goldberg, and that's exactly what he did. Only Smalley's retelling of the incident in his book is nothing like what happened on the show. I know because I saw the show.

The encounter began when Smalley accused Goldberg of misusing a quote from John Chancellor to make the case that the media is Liberal. But that's not all there was to Smalley's attack on Goldberg. Smalley went on to say that Goldberg not only misrepresented facts in his book, he outright lied. Goldberg waited until Smalley's little tirade was over, and then he politely asked Smalley to be specific. If Smalley was going to challenge Goldberg's reputation and ethics as a journalist, Goldberg wanted specific examples to prove such a case. At this point Donahue entered the conversation and told Bernie not to whine after which Goldberg informed Donahue that his reputation is being maligned. He is not whining in asking for specifics. When pinned down, Smalley could not come up with one single incident where Goldberg had lied or misrepresented facts. Not one. He hemmed and hawed and looked at the floor a lot. What he did not do was come up with substantiation for his charges. By the end of the segment, Smalley was very subdued. If he couldn't get away with outrageous hyperbole, he had nothing more to add, and Goldberg made it clear he wasn't putting up with any of Smalley's bullfeathers. As for Donahue, Bernie Goldberg describes him perfectly:

'Phil Donahue "has made the world safe for emotion masquerading as thought."'

On the basis of what I saw and heard for myself, I can only conclude that Smalley hasn't got a clue what the term "bitch slap" means. Further, Smalley wouldn't know a fact if he fell over it and it gave him a resounding affirmation premise.

As a comedian and satirist on Saturday Night Live, Al Franken could and did get away with putting events in whatever context would get him the biggest laughs and the most attention. That's what comedians and skit writers do, and Franken was no exception.

But as a radio talk show host representing a Liberal point of view, Franken had an obligation to stick to facts, not present all out conjecture. I listened to his talk show once, and I watched it on the cable Sundance channel twice. It was absolutely terrible. All Franken did was call Conservatives unflattering names. He gave no examples of why he was launching these attacks; he just expected that because he said it, it must be so. As a matter of fact, all I got from listening to Franken was that Conservatives are bad, bad, bad and don't you forget it.

The Fibberal Spin Machine is already in motion supporting Al Franken's bid for a senate seat in Minnesota. Franken himself has posted a very persuasive video on You Tube in which he articulately and sincerely outlines his case for why he should become Minnesota's next Senator. However, one video cannot erase the years of hyperbole Franken has used to forward his political beliefs. And just because he seems sincere and honest does not mean that he is. I hope Minnesotans keep that in mind next year when they vote for their next Senator.

Obama: He's Been Very Clear!

2007-02-12T07:55:00.000-08:00

Got that?

She Is Woman: Hear Her Roar For MORE

2007-02-08T14:25:00.000-08:00

I hate to say this, I really really do, and if I'm ever quoted I will have to strongly deny I ever said it, but Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer are starting to make Hillary Clinton look good to me. And you've gotta understand that I loathe Hillary Clinton. Actually I loathe both halves of the HillBilly Dynamic Duo, but that's material for another rant.

The subject for this one is Nancy Pelosi and her attempt to toss her weight around by demanding a bigger, badder jet than former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert had to chauffer her across country. She wants a jet that won't have to stop for refueling, and the reason for this is being chalked up to her personal security concerns. She is, after all, second in line to the Presidency. Never mind that no Speaker Of The House has ever had to step in and take over these duties; Nancy wants security and she aims to get it. Then too, there's also her desire to carry her family, lobbyists, and other lawmakers who may need a ride as she crosses the amber waves of grain toward her home.

The Washington Times has reported that the Pentagon recently denied a request made by Pelosi to fly her to a Democratic retreat in Williamsburg. This trip was a 2 hour drive from DC. A congressional source told the Washington Times that the Pentagon also informed Pelosi that:

"Non-governmental personnel, i.e. political supporters and contributors, may not fly. The plane may not ferry her to any political events and other members may only accompany her after approval by the House ethics committee, which means Republicans would have to OK it."
Immediate family members who fly with her must pay the U.S. Treasury for the flight.

As a result, Nancy is not a happy camper.

Which is why John Murtha decided to toss in his political weight. Murtha, who chairs the House Military Appropriations Subcommittee says he's spoken to Pentagon officials about supplying Pelosi with a bigger plane. Murtha denies that he's pressuring the Pentagon, though. Murtha said:

"I don't need to pressure them. I just tell them what they need to do."

Murtha went on to say that he believes the Pentagon is deliberately leaking information about this matter to the press to make Pelosi look bad. [I would just like to insert here that the Pentagon doesn't need to waste the time or effort on that. Pelosi can manage to look bad all on her own.] Murtha went on to say:

"They're making a mistake when they leak it because she decides on allocations for them."

Murtha is referring of course to who decides on the Pentagon budget. I guess I'd be considered out of line for suggesting that Murtha just made a somewhat veiled threat to the Pentagon, huh? But what else is it called when someone says give her the plane or we cut your purse-strings? On the other hand, is Murtha really dumb enough to threaten the Pentagon when they've got all those weapons? Well, of course, he is. The Cratz are in the Driver's Seat now, so they can do whatever they want.

Meanwhile, ABC News is reporting:

"Various Republican officials in recent days have claimed that Pelosi has requested a C-32 plane for her travels — a luxurious and specially configured version of the Boeing 757-200 commercial intercontinental airliner. The plane seats 45 passengers with business-class accommodations and a crew of up to 16, depending on the mission. It features a communications center, a fully enclosed stateroom for the primary passenger, a changing area, a conference facility, an entertainment system, and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed. The C-32 can cost as much as $22,000 an hour to operate. It's normally used by the first lady, the vice president, Cabinet officials and members of Congress upon request."

Here's the thing that bothers me. If Nancy Pelosi does not realize that by requesting a plane big enough so that it will not have to refuel as it takes her across the country, she is actually requesting transportation that exceeds what her predecessor needed to ensure his safety, and she's still bound and determined to get her way when it's clear she's also requesting a plane far more expensive to operate with luxuries she certainly doesn't need, then what is she doing in the House of Representatives in the first place? Because if this woman has no concept of size and cost, the LAST place on earth she should be is serving in a place that determines how tax dollars are spent.

I think everyone in the United States should get down on their knees tonight and pray to whatever Higher Being they respect to safeguard the life of George W Bush and Dick Cheney because the alternative is Nancy Pelosi in the White House. If that doesn't give you a case of the wild and wet snarkies, nothing will.

Global Warming and Al Gore

2007-02-05T09:37:00.000-08:00

I am not a scientist. What I know about scientific theory could fit into a thimble with plenty of room left over for an elephant. So, I, like most people, depend on real scientists to tell me the scoop on such phenomena as Global Warming through MSM. It's nice if they use terminology we laypersons can understand, but that's not absolutely vital. I'll look up what I don't know or recognize when the subject interests me.

And then along comes Al Gore who preaches about the adverse effects of Global Warming like his hair's on fire and may be one underlying cause. He attracts all kinds of attention, writes a book that for some odd reason people adopt like it's the Holy Scripture of Global Warming Doom, and next thing we know he's made a movie, been nominated for an Academy Award, AND the Nobel Peace Prize panel is considering him for its big prize.

Al Gore believes the group of scientists he hangs out with when they assure him humans are destroying the planet Earth. Given his position in the grand scheme of things, he has the public exposure necessary to rub our noses in his scientific theories whenever the mood strikes him and MSM is willing to give him additional space. There's just one little problem with all Al Gore's warnings and pumped up rhetoric. It's theory. Not fact.

The thing Al Gore and others using his scare tactics fail to mention is:

"A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions."

Dr. Timothy Ball, writing for The Canada Free Press explains scientific theory behind Global Warming this way:

The theory of Global Warming assumes that [carbon dioxide] is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law."

He goes on to say, "We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets."

So, what it comes down to for me is this...

Do I believe Al Gore who didn't know the difference between Michael Jordan and Michael Jackson but who is very good at mucking up issues with incendiary rhetoric, OR do I believe a credentialed scientist who can tell the difference between scientific theory and hard cold fact? Or how about this... I believe George Carlin who once noted that human beings simply do not have the means to destroy the entire planet with carbon dioxide. If George Carlin gets it, that's good enough for me.

I go for the hard cold fact every time. It will be interesting to see what the Nobel Peace Prize Committee and the Academy Of Arts and Sciences decide where to hang their views.

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Al Gore?? ROTFLOL!

2007-02-01T12:47:00.000-08:00

O M G

It has been announced by a Norweigan lawmaker that Al Gore has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. The reason for this ~~travesty~~nomination is because of Gore's work to make the world aware of the dangers of global warming.

In my opinion the Nobel Peace Prize ceased to have any relevance when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat. It got tossed under the bus completely when Jimmy Carter won it. Now Al Gore is nominated for furthering a theory which in some scientific quarters is still considered to be a myth. And this is the same Al Gore, mind you, who professes to have invented the Internet.

You know, I'm getting way too old for this shit, and it's time to face the fact that it isn't going to either go away or stop.

What is terribly amusing to me, though, is speculating on Bill Clinton's reaction to this news. I mean, Clinton hired a PR firm to lobby his name for the NPP, and he was unsuccessful. It would be a hoot if Gore won just to see the look on Clinton's face.

I can't wait to see how this one turns out.

Stay tuned.

Go Get 'Em Biden!

2007-02-01T08:51:00.000-08:00

Biden's playing CYA again, as he usually has to do at some point after he's opened his mouth, inserted his foot, and chewed away, but this time my complaint is less with him than it is with the Washington Post.

In reporting Biden's stupid remarks about Barack Obama, the Post includes, at the very end of the article, a description of Biden's run for the 2008 Cratz nomination for President this way:

"It's the second presidential bid for the talkative Biden, who pursued the White House in 1988, but withdrew from the race after allegations that his speeches contained passages from speeches given by a British political leader."

That's a very misleading way of putting the plagiarism charges against Biden.

Wikipedia defines the Biden incidents of plagiarism this way:

"Biden was forced to withdraw from the 1988 Democratic Presidential nominations when it was alleged that he had failed a 1965 introductory law school course on legal methodology due to plagiarism. "Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., fighting to salvage his Presidential campaign . . . acknowledged 'a mistake' in his youth, when he plagiarized a law review article for a paper he wrote in his first year at law school. Mr. Biden insisted, however, that he had done nothing 'malevolent,' that he had simply misunderstood the need to cite sources carefully." Biden withdrew from the race September 23, 1987, and reported the law school incident to the Delaware Supreme Court. The court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared him of any allegations.
Biden was also accused of plagiarizing portions of his speeches, and that he had copied several campaign speeches, notably those of British Labour leader Neil Kinnock and Senator Robert F. Kennedy. He denied those charges. "And he asserted that another controversy, concerning recent reports of his using material from others' speeches without attribution, was 'much ado about nothing.'"

Joe Biden is an admitted plagiarist, and not only that but he seems to be defending his behavior when he says there was nothing "malevolent" in his intent. He can do all the tongue shuffling he likes about what he did; the fact of the matter is that given his level of education, he had to know what he was doing whether or not his intent was "malevolent". Malevolence is not the standard one uses to determine plagiarism.

Further, dismissing other allegations of misconduct in stealing other peoples' words does not mean those incidents did not occur. It's the old what-the-meaning-of-is-is syndrome all over again. When someone is repeatedly accused of the same misbehavior, it's impossible to dismiss all the charges as false, no matter how much the accused objects. Especially when the accused leaves a trail of undeniable proof behind.

My beef with the Washington Post has to do with the fact that they minimized information that tells us exactly what kind of man Joe Biden is. While the guy may not be malevolent, and I don't personally know any such thing about him - I only know what he tells me, he is a thief. That makes him a less than honorable man, and I would really prefer no more of that caliber peerson get elected to the White House. Especially when the information that could have prevented it was right before our eyes.

Besides that, Biden is a moron. He described Barack Obama as "clean". C'mon. Seriously. The Cratz cannot be pinning their hopes on this guy, can they? Can they?

Joe Biden: The Next Clown To Be Sent In

2007-01-28T09:38:00.000-08:00

It's being reported in The Houston Chronicle that Joe Biden says it isn't a resolution from Congress objecting to Bush's build-up of troops in Iraq or the opposition from the American People that would embolden the enemy as some groups claim. Biden says:

"It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."

When the Cratz send in the clowns they go all out as evidenced by the rearing of Joe Biden's hair plugs into the arena of let's-bash-the-President's-attempt-to-fix-an-unfixable-situation. Joe Biden is an ass. He's also a serial plagiarist, but that's meat for a different entry and has no bearing on this one.

Just for the sake of clarity here, I'm not defending Bush. I'm saying it's not helpful at this time to have morons like Joe Biden jump on the bandwagon of criticism of US war tactics. Joe Biden has no Off Switch on either his opinions or his mouth, and he isn't too terribly concerned if what flows from either source makes sense. He's running for Prez in 2008. If he wins, there will have to be a National Slit Your Wrists Day because this guy is a disaster.

Joe Biden states, as though it's a fact, that George W Bush went to war with no strategy AND he did it prematurely. That makes me wonder if Joe Biden has any recollection of when the US went to war against Iraq, as in what prompted it and what the plan was at the time.

Iraq had violated numerous UN Resolutions. UN Inspectors were not permitted into the country to examine for WMD's. On October 15, 2002, a Congressional Resolution authorized use of military force against Iraq if compliance with former UN Resolutions was not met. President Bush gave numerous public warnings to Iraq. He gave a formal deadline for the UN Resolutions to be met. The plan was to capture Baghdad and rid Iraq of WMD's. I would have expected a Senator involved in the process of work on Capital Hill to remember such significant events as the ones which led the country he represents into war.

Now Biden, along with many of his colleagues, wants to rewrite history. And this guy thinks he should be the next President of the United States? If the cratz really do want a shot at getting into the White House come 2008, a good way to prepare themselves for such a conquest might be to tell the truth about the situation we're in. Not their version of the truth. Not the political and media manufactured notions of the truth. The truth that withstands the real veracity test -- the truth that can be supported with facts.

Until he can do that, Joe Biden ought to sit down and STFU because he's making a fool of himself.

Jimmy Carter Will NOT Go Away

2007-01-26T16:32:00.000-08:00

I can't stand Jimmy Carter. I think it best to get that out of the way right up front. In the debate about who is the worst president the United States has ever had, Jimmy Carter heads my list. He's also on my Dick List too. And he's also near the top of my List Of People With Shit For Brains.

I don't care how many houses the guy builds; I wouldn't set foot inside one of them for fear the ceiling would collapse around me.

The only person I've ever heard talk about Jimmy Carter in glowing terms is Chris Matthews from MSNBC's Hardball. Whenever Matthews interviews the former worst excuse for a President this country has ever seen, he practically drools all over Jimmy and looks at him the way one might gaze upon The Holy Grail. That's why I don't take Chris Matthews seriously any more. Anyone who could look at Jimmy Carter like that needs to have his head examined.

Lillian Carter, Jimmy's mother, once said about her children that when she looks at them she sometimes thinks she should have remained a virgin. She wasn't exactly the brightest bulb on the string either, but I have to give her credit for knowing her kids. If I'd have had a brood like Jimmy, Billy, and Ruth Stapleton, I'd have wished for virginity myself.

But at least her other kids didn't become POTUS. Jimmy did, and he was proof positive that The Peter Principle is alive, well, and functioning overtime in Plains, Georgia.

Jimmy's back in the news because he wrote yet another book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The guy just will not stop doing that, but then apparently there are people who do read the garbage he gets published. For sure 15 board members of the Carter Center, based in Atlanta, Georgia, read the book because they all resigned their board seats because of it. According to information posted at The Carter Center website, there are 23 people who sit on the Board of Trustees. When 15 of that group resigned, that left the Board somewhat as decimated as Jimmy Carter's thought processes.

On January 23, 2007, Jimmy Carter defended his new book saying that it is accurate and it is needed. He said the accusations made about his book concern him, but they do not deflect from its importance and veracity.

What a difference 3 days makes. Today it's being reported in the Washington Tmes that Jimmy Carter is now apologizing for what he terms, "a 'stupid' book passage." The offending passage states,

"It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel."

I haven't gone into any lengthy detail about why it is I loathe Jimmy Carter so much, but this would be a good place to mention that one reason (one of many I might add) is because he's so blatantly anti-semetic. All you need to do to verify that is re-read that passage.

Now, what I'd like to know is what's keeping the other 8 members of that Board from leaving the Carter Center too?

A Question For The Former Co-Prez

2007-01-24T09:11:00.000-08:00

It is being reported in The Washington Times that, as part of his plea agreement deal with respect to charges filed against him for stealing documents pertinent to the 9/11 attack on the United States from the National Archives, former National Security Advisor for the Clinton Administration, Sandy Berger, agreed to take a polygraph test which was never administered by the Justice Department.

18 Republicans from the House of Representatives have urged the Justice Department to proceed with this polygraph test to try to determine exactly what information Sandy Berger stole and what original documents for which there were no copies, he destroyed.

The Washington Times also reports

"Mr. Berger pleaded guilty in April 2005 to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified material, including documents outlining the government's knowledge of terrorist threats to the United States. Fined $50,000 and barred from access to classified material for three years, he faced a year in prison and a $100,000 fine, but his plea deal reduced the fine and kept him out of prison."

Lanny Breuer, Sandy Berger's attorney, still maintains that Mr Berger, "made a mistake and fully cooperated with the government's investigation into his behavior. Well, yeah, that's one way of spinning it, if you buy the assertion that Berger's stuffing documents down his pants in an effort to sneak them out of the National Archives so he could do with them whatever he wished is accurately termed "a mistake". I hardly think when it comes to stuffing documents down one's pants one can truthfully and with a straight face be categorized in mistake territory. Add to this the fact that no one except Berger really knows how many documents he stole and how many he destroyed, and I think we've eliminated "mistake" in any possible context from the picture completely. Unless, of course, you're a Clinton or a FOB or a FOH in which case you kind of get used to bizarre behavior being sloughed off as inconsequential.

What I would like to see is someone from MSM ask Candidate HRC what Sandy Berger was so hell-bent on hiding from the 9/11 Commission or anyone else who might want to take a look at the Clinton policy regarding terrorism during his Administration. As former Co-President she should certainly know.

And by the way... isn't there something in the US Constitution that prohibits someone from serving more than 10 years as President? Has anyone checked into the legality of how this affects a co-president who has already served 8 of the allotted 10 year term limit?

Just wondering is all. I think there's going to be a lot of that until the 2008 elections are decided. Wondering I mean.

But for now I'll just stick to wondering what the Clintons and Sandy Berger were so worried about someone seeing with regard to their policy on terrorism. Alberto Gonzalez better find some time on his appointment calendar. He's got a lie detector test to administer.

Election 2008: Bring On The Cratz!

2007-01-21T06:30:00.000-08:00

It has been reported on The Drudge Report that Governor Bill Richardson has formed an exploratory committee to look into the possibility of his becoming POTUS in 2008. It has also been reported that Senator Hillary Clinton has the same goal in mind.

That means so far we've got two of three stooges ready, willing, and able to lead the United States. Fortunately this is not Hamlin, neither of those mental giants has the charisma of the Pied Piper, so we don't have to be concerned about too many of our citizens marching off to oblivion following those two pathetic examples of what will crawl out from under rocks and run for Prez in the early campaign stages.

First, there's Bill Richardson, currently Governor of New Mexico. Richardson served in the Clinton Administration as Secretary of Energy. You can read about the scandal surrounding his tenure HERE and HERE.

It should also be noted that in 1995, Bill Richardson traveled to Baghdad and convinced Saddam Hussein to release two U.S. aerospace workers who had wandered across the Kuwaiti border into Iraq. Those of us who have heard Bill Richardson speak on various political talk shows understand that he was able to accomplish his success with Hussein because, for Hussein, it was either do what Richardson wanted or be bored to death with gibberish. Richardson was so proud of his achievement, he stated that he would not be using photographs of the the aerospace workers and him in his campaign. This is a typical Bill Richardson statement; you figure it out.

But the BIGGIE, the real champion of all those sprinting for the POTUS position (okay, in her case it's probably not sprinting but more of a heavy hipped, thick ankle sashay) is.... drumroll puhleeze... Hillary Rodham Clinton. This is hardly gasp-worthy news since Hillary has been boasting since she's roughly 2 years old that she's wanted to be Prez. Fortunately wanting and actually doing are two very different things.

There are so many reasons not to elect Hillary Clinton to anything, and that would include even the Miss Cankles of 2007 Contest, that it's hard to know where to begin. Since Hillary declared herself co-president during the Clinton Admoinistration, it is thus fair to include her right beside Bill for all the scandals, including the impeachment debacle, the US endured during the HillBilly years. To read more about what charges that entails, go HERE and then go HERE to read about what Hillary can do on her own.

I am most curious to see what the Cratz, who all took such high moral ground during the name calling of the George W Bush years when "Liar, liar, pants, on fire" was/is the national mantra, say in defense of Hillary who never developed an even passing acquaintanceship with the truth her whole political life. William Safire put it best when he noted that Hillary Clinton is a "congenital liar."

But there's more. I'd like Hillary to explain the FJB and its relevance to her anti-semetic attitude. I'd like her to try to explain away her knowledge of Bill's many affairs and her deliberate cover-up of each and every one of them. If we're going to point fingers and scream, "Liar!" at anyone, Hillary more than deserves first dibs.

This is not the time to bring in the clowns to run US policy either domestic or abroad. There's too much at stake to be considering has-beens who cannot hold up under even minor scrutiny to run the country. Hillary Rodham Clinton brings way too much baggage with her to be Prez of the United States. And I am not referring to either those over-sized carry-ons under her eyes, or the boxes of stuff she managed to heist on the way out the White House door first time around. I'm talking about unresolved matters like where her campaign contributions come from and to whom she owes what favors for these donations. Remember Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and John Huang? And what about the Lippo Group itself, and all those Buddhist Monks who took vows of poverty yet came up with pretty darn nice campaign contributions. And what about Travelgate? And Whitewater?

Wes Prudden said it best where the Clintons are concerned. He said:

"Bill and Hillary Clinton were what landed at the nation's feet the day the body politic threw up."

I say let them rest in peace. Under no circumstances resuscitate.

How Many Miles Before Experience Sets In?

2006-12-20T13:19:00.000-08:00

A grandmother put her 1-month old grandchild through an x-ray machine at the Los Angeles International Airport. Maybe she was the only person standing in line at the x-ray machine so that no one else saw her do this and could warn airport personnel they were about to zap an infant with x-rays. Still, how does something like that happen and no one notices?

But the rest of the article is equally as interesting.

Paul Haney, deputy executive director of airports and security for Los Angeles' airport agency ~~ and what a title that dude has! ~~ says that this was an innocent mistake by an inexperienced traveler. Uh huh. So, does that mean the grandmother thought babies routinely get put through the x-ray screening device? Because if that's the case and others make it, perhaps there should be some kind of warning sign about not subjecting people to the x-ray process. Except that the only other instance of this kind of thing Haney cited occurred in 1988 when some other mental giant put an infant in a car seat through the x-ray machine.

But going by Haney's logic, I'm curious how many frequent flyer miles this grandmother has to log before she may be considered an experienced traveler and thus her grandchild is safe.

The article noted that the baby was taken to the local hospital where doctors determined that he did not receive a dangerous dose of medication.

Okay, I want to know how that was determined. And I also want to know how reliable that determination is. Will those doctors sign a notarized statement guaranteeing that this child will not grow up to be sterile?

Bet they won't. Bet they'll even consider that suggestion foolish. After all, who could possibly determine such a thing so many years in the future?

Which is true. But then what's also true is that it's downright stupid to be able to ascertain that this child has received no long term damage by such exposure. Which has never stopped anyone from making ridiculous statements which will take years to prove. Experts said TMI posed no serious health threat when it occurred, and just because Jimmy Carter is still up and around and able to take nourishment does not negate the fact that many people died in the TMI area from various cancers.

Nothing can be done about this incident now, but if that child were mine? The woman calling herself Grandma would never ever come within 5 miles of my child ever again. And I don't care if she logs millions of frequent flyer miles and gets a certified sheepskin from Paul Haney to prove it.

Bogus Study: 9 Out Of 10 Americans Have Premarital Sex

2006-12-20T06:40:00.000-08:00

The headline screams: Most Americans Have Had Premarital Sex.

The shocking information disclosed in the rest of this article claims more than 9 out of 10 Americans have had premarital sex. Further, this statistic includes women born in the 1940's. No mention is made of men born in the 1940's leading one to assume that either they've become chaste or dead.

But let's for just a sec go back to that "more than 9 out of 10 Americans" statement. Wouldn't "more than 9 out of 10" be better described as plain old 10? I mean since 10 can be assumed to be the high end of this equation, there's nowhere else for more than 9 to go except for 10. But to my way of thinking, the only purpose this kind of phrasing achieves is to let us know that more than 9 out of 10 Americans are humping like bunnies with free weekend tickets to one of those cheesy Love Hotels in the Poconos with the sunken bath tubs and the mirrors on every available surface. I guess that reads better than 10 out of 10 Americans are slutty.

The study that produced these results was conducted by Lawrence Finer from the Guttmacher Institute based in New York. Lawrence proved, to his own satisfaction if no one else's that:

"Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."

Well, hold on for just a doggone minute Lawrence Finer, because I'm here to tell you that your study is flawed. Useless even.

The statement indicates that the sex in question is premarital sex. By definition, it's only premarital sex if one is planning to get married. Nowhere in the article did I notice any mention of the subjects being quizzed as to their marital status at the time of the alleged sexual contact. Which means that if the couple in question were not planning to be married at the time they humped, then whatever answer they gave was not applicable to this study. However, we are given to understand that their answers were included anyway based on the concept that if the subjects had sex while unmarried they fit the profile for this study. Yet the conclusion does not state anything about unmarried participants. The conclusion refers to premarital sex.

I have no idea who the mental giants are who authorize money be spent on idiotic studies like this one. Apparently the Guttmacher Institute disagrees with government suggestions of sex abstention, and they have addressed their differences by trying to show that people are gonna have sex no matter what, so stop with this stuff about staying chaste. I maintain that they have far from proved their position simply by the way they've posted their results.

I rest my case.

Thumper and 10 Fascinating People

2006-12-18T09:26:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I watched the Barbara Walters television special on the 10 most fascinating people of 2006. Because I wanted a link to put with this entry, I googled her show, and that's how I came to find out that Martha Stewart told Howard Stern that she has a dildo named Thumper. I have no trouble believing that Martha Stewart names her favorite things. I have a huge problem wrapping my mind around Martha Stewart taking time from shaving chocolate curls and playing Scrabble and helping herself to the food off other peoples' plates to pencil in time with a dildo. Further, if you ask me, and granted no one did, I find that tidbit of information more fascinating, albeit it in a slightly distasteful way, than any of the names on Barbara Walters' list of fascinating people.

But I'm digressing. The subject was that deplorable tv show.

First off, you gotta wonder what this world is coming to when Barbara Walters breaks her own rules. She clearly states that it is a requirement to be on her List to be alive. Then comes the "however" to explain the fact that she profiled a dead man through his wife. I'm referring, of course, to Steve Irwin. Now, I know it's practically comitting heresy in some sectors to say this, but I fail to see what's so all fired fascinating about a guy who routinely played with crocodiles getting stung to death by a stingray. I don't mean to be insensitive, but I am not fascinated by someone who thinks he's smarter than any of Mother Nature's scariest creatures. To me that simply exhibits an overzealous need for attention and a level of arrogance usually associated with getting oneself killed.

The rest of those profiled by Walters were indeed alive, but fascinating? Good God... how desperate have we become that we accept this pathetic list of people as captivating and absorbing? Maybe self-absorbed, but captivating? Puhleeeeeeeze.

Brangelina? Who cares?

Jay-Z? Yeah, I need integrity lessons from someone who believes he learned his ethics lessons by being a troof-ful drug dealer.

John Ramsey? I have no clue why he was included on this list. He's had a difficult life full of entirely too much tragedy. But as far as I could see, he did nothing to make himself more compelling in 2006 than he was in say 2005.

Patrick Dempsey? Had Walters addressed his being seized by the throat by Isaiah Washington and all the intimate details of that encounter, maybe we could stretch fascinating a bit to include him. Except Walters simply wanted to talk to him about being a sex symbol. Since George Clooney beat Dempsey in that contest at People Magazine this year, wouldn't Clooney have been a more obvious, although still a boring, choice?

Andre Agassi? I figured he was included because his speech after losing his last match at the 2006 US Tennis Open was reminiscent of Lou Gehrig's farewell speech in Yankee Stadium only without so much microphone feed-back.

Anna Wintour? She thinks we can tell what the political climate of the country is by watching what hideous outfits top of the line designers create for absolutely no one sane to wear. That may make her demented; it does not make her fascinating.

Rev Joel Osteen? Okay, now we're getting into people who make my skin crawl territory. I do not find people who make me want to wash in any way fascinating.

Sacha Baron Cohen? Ditto on the making my skin crawl and wanting to wash. If I never have to see that moron wearing his green thong again, it will be waaaaay too soon.

All of this made way for the Number 1 Most Fascinating Person in 2006. This is where I almost hurled. It is also where I shouted a long string of expletives at my television set.

The person who received this Barbara Walters Dubious Distinction was... _{no drumroll just pass the barf bags}...

Nancy Pelosi.

It seems to me that the first thing Nancy Pelosi should do before taking on her position as 2 heartbeats away from the Presidency, is learn how to talk with those teeth of hers. They're too big for her mouth, and they make her strongly resemble The Big Bad Wolf, or, if you prefer, Martin Sheen -- who also had to work very hard to overcome his huge new teeth.

The second thing Nancy Pelosi should do after officially becoming Speaker of the House is sit down and STFU because every time she opens her mouth she makes a fool of herself.

The third thing Nancy Pelosi should do after dusting the podium and serving coffee to all others in the House is stop talking about using her Mommie voice to get results. It would also make her seem a touch more professional if she'd drop the "just a housewife" phrase from her vocabulary.

And finally, if Nancy Pelosi really cared about this country, she'd resign so none of us had to hear the sound of her moronic voice spewing verbal diarrhea all over the place whenever she can find a microphone that's plugged into an outlet.

Since it is highly unlikely that Barbara Walters will give up her idea to feature 10 people at the end of each year on a television special, I simply suggest that she change the title of her program to one that more accurately describes the content of her show. I think it should be called The Top Ten Media Hogs of Year Whatever. She can maintain her rules about inclusion only being for those who are alive, but then I strongly suggest she follow her own guidelines and not drag someone's widow or widower into the act.

Of course, in spite of what's likely or unlikely, the best solution would be to retire this ghastly program completely because THAT would really be fascinating!

THIS Is News?

2006-12-05T08:10:00.000-08:00

First thing in the morning when I log into my ISP, I immediately look at the headlines on the start-up page. That gives me an idea what's going on in the world, and if something catches my interest, particularly for a blog post, I track down more information and a link I can use in the entry.

Lately I've been noticing more and more crap listed in those headlines of the day. Stuff that only someone with very very low standards could begin to classify as news. Granted, it may be considered Entertainment News, but that's not where it's listed. It's in with the important news stories of the day.

Which is how I came to learn that Britney Spears may never leave home without her Master Card, but she doesn't mind leaving her panties on the bedpost.

I also found out that Pamela Anderson is divorcing Kid Rock, and I learned that Jackie Chan got hurt making Rush Hour 3.

But today's big headline really blew me away. Never mind that dozens of people are sick from eating at a Taco Bell, and isn't this food poisoning thing becoming kind of a habit? Never mind that Robert Gates, the White House choice for Secretary of Defense, believes the US is losing the Iraqi war and that in the next year or two, if Iraq is not stabilized, this could lead to a "regional conflagration". (Does this guy have a firm grasp of the obvious or what?!) No, the big news story is that George Clooney's beloved pot bellied pig, Max, died.

No word yet whether we fly US flags at half-mast through the rest of December.

Mainstream Media is now deciding for us that what we really want to know about involves high profile movie stars or morons who through some fluke of Public Relations magic got to be household names. We need to care that Serena Williams' dog bit someone, and even more tragically that George Clooney's pet pig died.

Even though my first response is, "Who gives a shit?" I realize there are those out there who apparently do care. But that's why God created The National Enquirer... to satisfy those who live vicariously through the rumor, innuendo, and often times quite legitimate information provided to tabloid rags by Paris Hilton's hair stylist or the guy who takes care of Carmen Electra's dry cleaning. But that doesn't make any of this stuff hard news that belongs with headlines about important events going on in the world. Yet that's where Mainstream Media puts it.

They should be ashamed of themselves, and we should demand so much better.

Banned By Blogstein

2006-12-01T09:13:00.000-08:00

Dr Blogstein has come up with another brilliant idea which those of us who accept his wisdom certainly do appreciate.

Dr. Blogstein bans things. Very bad things. Things that have needed banning for years if only someone had had the courage to speak up and label these despicable items for what they are: Ban-worthy!

My favorite on the current list of banables is:

"What are you doing on Saturday night?"

I really hate that one and it should have been banned ages ago. Thank you, Dr Blogstein for exposing this particularly heinous question.

Now, could you please say it again... one more time? Please?
Unfortunately the last one got deleted.

Thank Goodness For {Delete}

2006-12-01T08:10:00.000-08:00

Wednesday I had the Day From Hell on the Internet. Wordpress and Blogger were both down. Pogo was impossible, and Firefox, that miracle wonder browser (NOT), was just a mess of crashes.

And then Blogmad got into the act. The Shout Box was lagging, and because Wordpress was down, one of my blogs became deactivated. I could not get it reactivated, no matter what I tried. It was the last straw.

So I wrote an angry, sarcastic, mean-spirited rant and posted it here pretty much spilling my guts about all the problems but taking it out specifically on Blogmad.

My first response was from Ms Demmie, and I apologize to her. Since I've deleted my rant, her comment went along with it. It was a good comment, and she has legitimate issues with Blogmad which she expressed a whole lot nicer than I did mine.

I also got a comment from Paul at Blogmad. He very nicely and quite politely answered my issues, and he told me he'd fix my problem with getting Enema Portal For Groan Ups back into the Blogmad rotation. In addition he gave me some extra credits to make up for any I lost the day before.

The first attempt at fixing my activation problem did not work. Paul did not give up. By this morning my problem had disappeared, and I'm now back in rotation getting the hits I wanted.

Keeping in mind that this is blogging we're talking about here, I doubt very much if anyone will consider my suggestion to Canonize Paul even though I strongly believe Sainthood would not be out of line for him. I have become so accustomed to dealing with incompetence, rudeness, and downright hostility from people who are supposed to be providing me customer service that when I find someone within some company who really does want to make something right for me, I immediately start thinking about petitions to glorify that person if only to prove that there still are good guys out there if we are patient enough to wait for them to show up.

So, today, Paul From Blogmad is my hero. He ignored my snarly attitude to simply and effectively deal with the problem. I appreciate that enormously.

I've seen people complain about various services available to us bloggers, and many times, from the descriptions given, it takes an Act of Congress and a written dispensation from God to get their issues addressed. Further, getting someone's attention does not necessarily mean the problem will be solved.

That has not been my experience at Blogmad either in the past or now. The people there with whom I've dealt are some of the best Good Guys around, and I thank them for their efforts to not only continue giving us a free service, but to deal with us even when we're (okay, I'm) snarly.

One more thing....

Dr Blogstein? Could you please, please, PLEASE re-enter your comment? I swooned before and I want to swoon again.

Michael Richards vs Gloria Allred

2006-11-23T02:10:00.000-08:00

By now everyone has heard about or seen Michael Richards go berzerk with racial slurs during his stand-up comedy act. Thanks to the internet, there's no need to miss one sordid, ugly word of his tirade against a heckler from his audience during his performance. What amazes me is where this story is leading.

I have not paid particularly close attention to this story because, frankly, I am not shocked or blown away by the fact that people still use the "N" word or say blatantly racist or bigoted things. I'm a woman... we get our own share of the verbal dump morons take whenever they have nowhere else to go to vent their frustration or rage or insecurity. So, if Mel Gibson or Michael Richards or Kelly Ripa make insulting remarks, I'm not shocked or appalled, and I really don't understand why anyone else is either.

But with Michael Richards, I have to say I didn't see this next step coming. After his apology I mean. Okay, after his apology -- such as it was. I don't think it's possible to satisfactorily apologize for hurling the insults he used and have it be perceived as anything other than trying to save your own ass. Still, I expected that would be the end of it. Hah! Not by a long shot.

The person Michael Richards insulted has decided to take this whole incident much further. He has contacted or been contacted by Gloria Allred who will represent him in... well it's hard to know what exactly to call this because there's really no name for the kind of case it represents. I don't know if there's a legal term for Sticks And Stones, but if there is I'm sure Gloria Allred will slither out from under her rock and find it.

Here's the plan...

Michael Richards, the guy he offended, and a retired judge will sit down together and discuss the way in which Richards has harmed this other man. The retired judge, who by the way, has absolutely no legal authority to do anything, will determine how much compensation the offendee should receive for what Richards said. After the "compensation" figure is determined, it's then up to Richards whether or not he'll pay it.

And if he doesn't? Well then, according to Alred, Richards will just have to accept responsibility for whatever comes next. Legally that would be... nothing but whatever publicity Allred can scare up for her client. But essentially Michael Richards can thumb his nose at this whole business, and there's nowhere else for it to go. Gloria Allred is doing her best to make it sound like something more can happen, but that's just the usual Allred smoke and mirrors.

I really hope this story goes away without anymore attention. Michael Richards' behavior is indefensible, but I think situations like this get settled in the court of public opinion.

Gloria Allred, however, is a whole other matter. Her injection into this mess comes down to taking sides between a racist and someone who epitomizes a huge, crimson, pus-oozing, infected carbuncle on the entire legal profession.

In a case like that, rather than choose, I just want to go wash.

Natural Born Psychos

2006-11-14T15:04:00.000-08:00

I have been termed a "Natural Born Psycho" by someone who has never met me. Wouldn't know me if he or she fell over me.

The person who labeled me a Natural Born Psycho refers to him/herself as a Citizen Against Lies. That being the case, why do you suppose this person calls me a psycho without ever having exchanged one single solitary word with me? This person, who is the self-appointed distinguisher of truth, defines all republicans with the same crust infested dirty broad brush of psycho and never, in all the lurid insulting following discourse, seems to have a problem with that.

I believe it is safe to assume that the term psycho as it is applied to Republicans on Citizen Whachamacallit's blog is not a flattering term. So, to be sure I understood just what exactly it is I'm being accused of, I looked up the definition of psycho. It is a person with any severe mental disorder in which contact with reality is lost or highly distorted. This would include paranoids and schizophrenics. Eeeeesh. If I didn't know better, and based on that, I'd say I'm one pretty darn scary person. I'd also advise that if I saw me coming, I'd better turn tail and run as fast as possible in the opposite direction.

Except I do know better. And I'm getting awfully tired of uninformed pissant political hacks taking out their personal frustrations by ramping up the cratz negative talking points to call me names because they don't like George W Bush. Hey Citizen Whozerwhatzits? All Republicans are not Natural Born Psychos. Furthermore, since we are now clear on the meaning of Psycho, would you mind explaining to me what a "Natural Born Psycho" is? As opposed to say an UNnatural Born Psycho. If you want to be so all fired quick to toss around labels like that, then kindly explain the semantics of it to me. And I'd really like to know if I stay away from the Natural Born Psychos, is it okay to hang out with the Unnatural Born ones?

One of the issues Citizen Whozerdingy used to make points about those crazy wingers is that George W Bush wanted to suspend Habeas Corpus. Okay, first of all, Citizen Himzerherzits, do you know what Habeas Corpus is? Because there was no indication in your diatribe that you have any idea what this term means in time of war. Further, you gave no indication that you are even aware that Bush's move to suspend Habeas Corpus is not unprecedented. Abraham Lincoln did it during the Civil War, and you know what Citizen Whozername? THAT was before we had foreign terrorists flying our own air craft into very tall buildings killing 3000 people. THAT was when it was brother against brother and the issue of whether or not States could secede from the Union was decided. But to know anything about that, you'd need to have a working knowledge of history. You know, be informed. I didn't get the impression from reading your ramblings that your goals included anything more than thrilling to the sight of your written words on a blog layout.

And that's mainly what annoys me so much about many of the political blogs out there. Very few are kept by people who have a working knowledge of facts. It's all about name calling and verbally vomiting whatever Cape Cod Orca or Stretch Pelosi said during a sound byte on last night's news. There's no room for debate. You either agree with the Fibbies, or you're a liar, a psycho, and unnaturally born.

Fortunately I've got a thick skin, and I know all about sticks and stones, so I'm not the least bit injured or more than mildly insulted at being labeled a Natural Born Psycho. I've been called worse by better people than an ignorant Fibbie. No, being insulted would really be as much a waste of time as trying to debate political policy with an authority on psychosis. Instead I'll just make another bowl of popcorn and read the next blog on the Fibberal rotation. They breed you know. And they do so love to make fools of themselves.

"Our Demands" Compliments Of Total Kaos

2006-11-12T07:43:00.000-08:00

I love this list. It's absolutely perfect and exactly what we have every right (or should that be Left?) to expect now that the cratz are taking over Congressional leadership...

Our Demands

1) All disease is to be cured by public sponsored embryonic stem cell medical breakthroughs.

2) Social Security is to be made fully solvent for all time.

3) 0% unemployment.

4) The elimination of Wal-Mart.

5) Karl Rove arrested for his role in planning 9-11.

6) Free health care, cradle to grave, for all. Paid for through the use of grants, maybe?

7) 0 dead or injured children.

8) Positive and verifiable increase in national test scores.

9) Drivers licenses for illegals.

10) The Bush daughters drafted into the military.

11) The elimination of the combustion engine.

12) More Arctic ice for the polar bears.

13) $2.00 a gallon gas tax.

14) Hang Dick Cheney.

15) Pardon Saddam Hussein.

16) Illegalization of cigarettes.

17) Legalize marijuana.

18) Repeal the 2nd Amendment.

19) The words ‘conservative’ and ‘Republican’ are to be replaced with ‘Nazi’ and ‘fascist’.

20) Make hunting punishable by death.

21) The fairness doctrine is to be implemented.

22) Crosses are to be banned from all public and private arenas.

23) The divisive word ‘Christmas’ is to be banned and replaced with ‘Holiday’.

24) Civil and Miranda rights are to be given to all captured terrorists, insurgents, and non-uniformed foreign fighters.

25) Bring our military boys and girls home where it’s safe.

26) Use diplomacy to make allies of North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela.

27) Canonize Castro.

28) Raise taxes on the rich until they are middle class.

29) End all poverty(Allow Link cards access to sales at Best Buy).

30) Put an end to terrorism through the use of appeasement policy.

31) Impeach George W. Bush.

32) Allow Al Queda untapped access to the American phone system.

33) Repeal all gender identity.

34) More port security – 100% container inspections.

35) Maximum wage implemented.

36) As promised, win the war in Iraq.

37) Lower taxes.

38) No impeachment for Bush.

39) Continued tyranny of the minority.

40) Properly equipt and armor our troops.

41) Lower gas prices and windfall profits tax.

42) New, inexpensive alternative fuels.

43) No digging in ANWR, off the East and West coasts, or in the Gulf of Mexico.

44) Eliminate dependency on foreign oil.

45) Tag Israel a terrorist state.

46) Massive tax on SUVs.

47) Amnesty. Amnesty. Amnesty.

48) Reinstate tax on the dead.

49) Free condoms in school lunches.

50) Begin Congressional hearings on fast food restaurants.

So there you have it, our 50 demands.

So let’s get to it Lefties, time is running short.

Look At The [Lack Of A] Brain On B_ _ _

2006-11-10T17:44:00.000-08:00

I've been censored by a pathetic Left Wing Fibberal Moron.

There's a blog in the Blogmad rotation that is so blatantly Fibberal it defies logical description. It is maintained by a guy who seems to think he has a clue what the cratz are up to while he also breathes fire on the entire Winger constituency. His ignorance is almost profound in its depth.

After the mid-term election blow-out he wrote one of those agonizingly insipid posts that was nothing but gloating and misinformation. So I commented pointing out his misrepresentation of the facts.

I don't want to argue political ideology with a fucking moron. That's a complete waste of my time. What I did want to point out was if said moron is going to write about what he perceives to be some grand victory, the least he could do is get his facts straight. He claims the Wingers accuse the Cratz of having no plan; however, The Brain claims they not only DO have a plan, but he knows what it is and it's awesome.

This is outright fabrication OR wishful thinking OR even a combination of both. But it's definitely NOT true. Both Charles Rangel, a cratz Representative from New York and Stretch Pelosi have confirmed for the press that the cratz have no plan whatsoever they wish to share with or implement with the Winger leadership. None.

Forget John D-Student Kerry's pathetic list of Plans that ran the gamut from how to save Iraq to how to fix the wrinkles in his forehead, the cratz have no intention of putting themselves on the line of future liability by stating for the record that they are doing anything but vigorously opposing the Winger leadership. This scenario began under Tom Daschle who was known for his obstructionist policies, and it continues under Stretch Pelosi.

The cratz are in this for the smear tactics and accountability hearings they now have the subpoena power to conduct until hell freezes over OR until they find a soccer stadium large enough to accomodate the hordes that want to witness Saddam Hussein hang for his crimes: whichever comes first, and frankly I wouldn't bet on either one at the moment. Henry Waxman is darn near wetting his pants at the mere concept of gaining access to whatever information he wants so that he can look important by holding hearings and getting his face all over the media. Have you seen Henry Waxman? This is not a face one would wish to encounter on a daily basis. Henry's face is quite reminiscent of Lon Cheney in Phantom Of The Opera. Hardly a warm Kodak Christmas Greeting image.

The Brain can spew all he likes about how wonderful it is that his Fibbies finally hit the big time and are back in control of Congress. That's something else I wouldn't consider debating with someone who doesn't have the sense God gave him to sit down and shut up when he's making a fool of himself. It's a fact: The Cratz are back, and if that makes anyone sleep easier at night, more power to them. Frankly it scares the beejeesus out of me, but then I have an aversion to getting blown up by terrorists and having to depend upon my protection from someone like John Kerry who can't even tell a bad joke without fucking it up.

Anyone with even half the sized brain The Brain claims to have would realize that this may just not be the time to get carried away with all that gloating. Remember how the Cratz were all about impeaching George Bush for everything he has done in his entire life even when their "proof" went "poof"? Well Howard Dean is already backing off that little scenario, and John Conyers, who was a leading proponent for impeaching Bush, now says that option is "off the table."

So I wouldn't be so fast to assume any Fibberal supporter really knows what the cratz have in mind. Especially when they don't seem to know themselves.

And one more suggestion for Brainly B _ _ _. Get your act together and get your facts straight before you start tossing around your pathetic knowledge of the Constitution and your evaluation of the current political climate, because, Honey? You are one dumb, uninformed, wet-behind-the-ears shit.

Poor Misunderstood Charlie Rangel

2006-11-10T17:06:00.000-08:00

Now, see, here we go. Not even a week into the anticipated Cratz take over of the House and Senate, and already the verbal battles start over absolutely nothing. And what gets me is one of the least likely to stir up trouble is the first mouth on the chopping block. Poor Charlie Rangel.

The New York Times quoted Charlie Rangel as saying:

"Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?"

Immediately Chip Pickering, Representative from Mississippi, had this to say:

"I hope his remarks are not the kind of insults, slander, and defamation that Mississippians will come to expect from the Democrat leadership in Washington."

Charles Rangel will be the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee when the new leadership takes over in January. Having seen Charlie on numerous political talk shows, I know he couldn't have meant anything derogatory about Mississippi. It's just those nasty Wingers looking for another excuse to stir up semantic trouble again.

OR could it be that the people of Mississippi have good reason to be concerned about Charlie Rangel's thoughtless words? He says

“I certainly don’t mean to offend anyone. I just love New York so much that I can’t understand why everyone wouldn’t want to live here.”

However, Mr Pickering had this to say about Mississippi:

“From the coast to the Delta to the Pine Belt to the hills and across Mississippi,there is beauty in every city, charity in every heart, love in every church, and majesty in every countryside.”

The best evaluation of Charlie Rangel's words, though, came from David Hampton, who edits the editorial page at the Clarion Ledger in Mississippi. Mr Hampton said,

“Regional insults aside,the more serious issue is Rangel will head the powerful Ways and Means Committee at a time when there already is reluctance to continue to address Katrina-recovery needs and a perception that Mississippi got more than it should have in recovery funds.”

Yes, I think Mr Hampton nailed it right on the head.

So when are the cratz going to begin sensitivity training for those whose words end up on the front pages of newspapers all over this country? Maybe John Kerry didn't really mean to insult The Troops... but he did. And maybe Charlie Rangel doesn't really have anything on his mind at all when it comes to withholding funds from Mississippi in their clean-up from Katrina. But his words don't convey that.

THIS is the party whose leadership is going to turn things around in this country? Well, maybe. Just so long as they don't speak.

Uh Oh! Here Comes Lanny...

2006-11-09T17:31:00.000-08:00

I got a nasty surprise when I turned on my television set this morning. So nasty, in fact, that as quickly as I turned it on, I turned it right off again.

There in all his grinning from ear-to-ear glory was Lanny Davis being interviewed by someone I didn't recognize. It seems Lanny has written a book called (of all things) Scandal: How "Gotcha" Politics Is Destroying America.

Lanny Davis would certainly know about Scandal AND "Gotcha" politics since he spent the latter part of the 1990's becoming one of the lead apologists for the Clintons. Lanny showed up on every talk show that would have him and cried, besought, and downright begged the American people not to think badly of Willie Clinton because Willie couldn't keep his you-know-what tucked in his briefs. Lanny blew any credibility he may have had for himself by defending the indefensible: a President whose extra-curricular activities included spraying a blue dress in the Oval office during the midst of a blow job.

Lanny seems to have even more in common with the Clintons than I thought. Just as they will not go away, neither will Lanny.

Apparently Lanny's book, Scandal, is an evaluation of both Democrat and Republican scandals and how both sides are at fault for never letting up on the verbal attacks against each other. Lanny wants that to stop. But that's not all Lanny wants.

According to the reviews I've read of Lanny's book, he makes a convincing argument for bringing back civility to public discourse. If only he'd stopped there, BUT, alas, he just couldn't do it. No, Lanny has to make one run at rehabilitating the reputations of the Clintons. For God's sake, why? They are what they are, we've long ago figured out the meaning of "Is", now could we just get on with whatever comes next and forget about the Clintons completely?

How can Lanny Davis possibly expect the public to move on from one of the biggest scandals in political history when the chief players in that scandal will not have the grace and the sense God gave them to sit down and STFU? It seems to me that while Lanny Davis was willing and able to play the Clinton's personal stooge in the late 1990's, he's also willing to pick up that mantle yet again and begin paving the way for Hillary in 2008.

Get the barf bags; I'm afraid Scandal is only the beginning.

I Did The Right Thing!

2006-11-09T17:21:00.000-08:00

You Should Have Voted For Bush

(You May Want to Hide This From Your Left-y Blogger Friends)

Who Should You Have Voted For in 2004?

I don't have any Left-y Blogger Friends

I Say A Little Prayer For...

2006-11-08T05:59:00.000-08:00

George Bush and Dick Cheney. I mean down-on-my-knees, eyes closed, head bowed, earnestly begging God to see to the continuing good health of both those men. Not that I wouldn't always pray for the good health of our President and Vice-President, but now is a crucial time to do it. And that would be thanks to the Cratz.

An unexpected gift from all those voters who put the Cratz back in the majority in the US House of Representatives, have given us something that will be providing me with nightmares for years to come. Nancy Pelosi is now Speaker of the House.

Do you have ANY idea what that MEANS? Good God. It means that Nancy Pelosi is now third in line to be President of the US. So if something happens to Bush and Cheney, our lives are in the hands of Stretch Pelosi.

What's so bad about Nancy Pelosi? Well, if you discount her hypocrisy and if you overlook the fact that she seems to think she's Atella The Hen, I guess there's just the fact that her voice sounds like a sausage grinder crunching shards of glass whenever she opens her mouth. I'd never make it through a State of the Union Address without wanting to sweep Pelosi into the nearest trash bin.

And then there is what she says:

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

"The president led us into the Iraq war on the basis of unproven assertions without evidence; he embraced a radical doctrine of pre-emptive war unprecedented in our history; and he failed to build a true international coalition."

"We must remain focused on the greatest threat to the security of the United States, the clear and present danger of terrorism. We know what we must do to protect America, but this Administration is failing to meet the challenge. Democrats have a better way to ensure our homeland security."

"If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their face off."

"If you take the knife off the table, it's not very frightening anymore."

"Anybody who's ever dealt with me knows not to mess with me."

Nancy Pelosi has been described by one Democratic activist as, "Teresa Heinz without the accent." If that's not enough to curl your toes up to your eyebrows, nothing is.

So thanks all you Cratz voters who turned the tables in the House of Representatives. I hope you're satisfied.

Me? I'm going to stay on my knees praying for the continued good health of Bush and Cheney.

Incompetent Presidents a la Howard Dean

2006-11-02T12:47:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean seems to think George W Bush is the most incompetent president of our time.

While I'd hate to argue with a man who ought to be able to recognize incompetence a mile away coming straight at him so he bellows in the face of it, I beg to differ about that "incompetent president in our time" stuff.

That position has been all sewn up for quite a while now, and it doesn't go to either of the Bush presidents, and, even by Howard's standards, it sure doesn't go to Tricky Dicky Nixon. No, the most impetent president of our time is Jimmy Carter. Even people in his own party, and that would include Slick Willie acknowledge that when it comes to competence, Jimmy dropped the ball so many times he should have been named Fumble Fingers. Why else would Jimmy have been named "the best ex president we've ever had? And even that's questionable since Jimmy managed to oversee as many blunders out of office as he authored in it.

Jimmy's own mother, bless her pointed little head, said that sometimes when she looked at her children she thought she should have remained a virgin. She made no exceptions, although chances are she had Billy on her mind, and I don't think she was too pleased with Ruth Carter Stapleton stomping for Jesus with Larry Flynt. It's a sad thing when a president's mother questions giving up her virginity so he could be ~~hatched~~ born.

I think it's too soon to be labeling George W Bush anything. History tells that kind of tale, not Howard Dean. Still, if I were a betting person, I'd place all my marbles on Jimmy Carter. They just don't come any dumber nor more incompetent than him.

THIS Is NOT An Apology

2006-11-02T07:07:00.000-08:00

"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform..." John Kerry

Not only does John Kerry need to learn something about telling the truth, he also needs to learn how to form and deliver an apology.

If one is truly sorry for hurting someone else, an apology is supposed to take responsibility for that behavior in an effort to heal the feelings of the one injured. If the words offered are qualified in any way, then what is being received is not an apology at all. It's that simple.

So when Kerry says he regrets that his words were misinterpreted, he is not apologizing to anyone. He is feeling sorry for himself and making it clear (in case we missed it the first time) that we are not smart enough to get his intent.

While I am not part of the military, I am among those who was offended by his words. I do not accept his feeble attempt at excusing his behavior, and I will not accept responsibility for being part of the problem in the first place.

It is time for John Kerry to sit down and STFU because he's making a fool of himself.... AGAIN!

Purlie Rowz Sez Boooooo!

2006-11-01T12:54:00.000-08:00

Before changing Purlie Rowz's costume for the next season, I thought I'd post her in her Halloween finery.

I Love Dennis Miller

2006-11-01T12:03:00.000-08:00

Dennis Spells It Out

It all comes down to common sense, and once again, the best of that comes from Dennis Miller.

Digging The Hole Deeper

2006-11-01T10:33:00.000-08:00

This was posted at The Drudge Report.

It is also being reported that Kerry appearances on the campaign trail to promote cratz candidates are being cancelled. Kerry will not be appearing in Minnesota, nor will he be appearing with Bob Casey in Philadelphia.

True to form, the Kerry Spin Machine has this to say about why appearances will not be forthcoming:

"We made a decision not to allow the Republican hate machine to use Democratic candidates as proxies is the distorted spin war," said David Wade, a Kerry spokesman, in a statement.

Yeah, right. That darn old Republican hate machine again. Except that doesn't explain Imus telling Kerry to shut up, Harold Ford telling Kerry to apologize, and Bruce Braley, a cratz candidate in Iowa, wanting Kerry to stay away from him.

Kerry really ought to follow the advice of Bill Clinton when it comes to digging holes. Willie says the best thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging. Add Imus' shutting up into the mix and we might just have Kerry right where we want him.

John "D-Student" Kerry

2006-11-01T05:31:00.000-08:00

"I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes. I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves. Enough is enough..."

John Kerry's response to statements that he should apologize to the US military for his comments about education and how it effects having to go to Iraq was typical of his usual righteous indignation the intent of which is to shift the focus from his deplorable statements and blame someone else because he's an idiot.

I mean, there he goes again. Just when I think this pompous ass, who is a traitor to his veteran soldiers, cannot possibly open his mouth any further to chomp on his U2 boat sized foot manages to wow us all with yet another sampling of his stupidity and insensitivity during a time of War.

John Kerry is a disgrace to the uniform he once wore. He made that abundantly clear when he accused his fellow soldiers of heinous atrocities during the Vietnam War. He compounded his idiocy during his involvement with the Winter Soldier debacle. Now he wants to take potshots at soldiers in Iraq claiming that if a person does not pursue a good education, Iraq is where he or she ends up. So, in other words, according to John "D-Student" (thank you Mark Levin) Kerry, our soldiers in Iraq are there because they're stupid.

And then when the moron gets called on what he said, what does he do? Attack the Bush Administration and Republicans in general for his own loose lips. Typical Kerry behavior. Despicable.