Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Only In Kentucky
Let's face it. You have to go down into a really deep, dark place in your soul before you are capable of cutting off a man's beard-and making him eat it!
Of course, alcohol was involved. Whiskey, to be precise, and who knows what else. In another report, the perpetrator Troy Holt, in typical alcoholic fashion claims the fault lies mainly with his victim, Harvey Westmoreland, by whom he supposedly had been threatened, and by whom he claims he still felt threatened.
It is also worth noting that, although the men were friends, a significant part of their problem could be traced to a woman, one which allegedly one or the other (or both) had been seeing.
Whether or not this is true, it seems patently obvious that this has been brewing for quite some time. The controversy over the lawn mower was simply the spark that blew the lid off.
Interestingly, there is some evidence that beards among at least some prehistoric cultures were viewed as expressions of virility. If true, this cultural attitude might well be stored in the human unconscious, where It is possible that it could be accessed while in a deep state of alcohol intoxication.
Seen in this context, by cutting off Westmoreland's beard-which he had grown for eight years, and which was evidently very long and thick-Holt and his partner James Hill were not only humiliating their victim, but symbolically emasculating him as well.
In other words, its probably a damn good thing for Westmoreland that he and Holt were friends. If anybody needs "supervised diversion", it's these two guys.
Of course, alcohol was involved. Whiskey, to be precise, and who knows what else. In another report, the perpetrator Troy Holt, in typical alcoholic fashion claims the fault lies mainly with his victim, Harvey Westmoreland, by whom he supposedly had been threatened, and by whom he claims he still felt threatened.
It is also worth noting that, although the men were friends, a significant part of their problem could be traced to a woman, one which allegedly one or the other (or both) had been seeing.
Whether or not this is true, it seems patently obvious that this has been brewing for quite some time. The controversy over the lawn mower was simply the spark that blew the lid off.
Interestingly, there is some evidence that beards among at least some prehistoric cultures were viewed as expressions of virility. If true, this cultural attitude might well be stored in the human unconscious, where It is possible that it could be accessed while in a deep state of alcohol intoxication.
Seen in this context, by cutting off Westmoreland's beard-which he had grown for eight years, and which was evidently very long and thick-Holt and his partner James Hill were not only humiliating their victim, but symbolically emasculating him as well.
In other words, its probably a damn good thing for Westmoreland that he and Holt were friends. If anybody needs "supervised diversion", it's these two guys.
Friday, November 12, 2010
The Hopi Indian Tribe Declare War On The Radical Environmentalist Agenda
Recently, the Hopi Indian Nation ended its relationship with the Sierra Club, declaring the organization persona non gratis. The ultimate decision to end the relationship came after a unanimous vote of the tribal council. The reason was one of economic livelihood. The Sierra Club, in an effort to shut down a coal fired energy plant they claimed polluted the environment and contributed to Global Climate Change, won instead the ire of the Hopi Indian Tribe, recognized by the US Government as a sovereign entity in its own right. The tribe held that closing the plant would cost the Hopis in jobs and in economic development.
The Sierra Club held firm to its commitment, promising the Hopi long-term benefits in terms of a cleaner environment while holding out the promise of future jobs and economic development in the field of green energy. This however was not enough to ease the ire of the Tribe, which ordered them permanently off their sovereign lands.
When I first learned of this story from Moonbattery, I wanted to make note of it, but at the same time I wanted to find out more. Basically, I wanted to get the Sierra Club's side of the story, if for no other reason than just to get their spin on it, but also on the off chance that I might one day find myself blindsided with a previously unstressed other side of the story.
True to form, the Sierra Club makes no bones about their objection to the coal industry and their desire to rigidly regulate, if not entirely dismantle the industry. One article, entitled King Coal, elaborates their efforts and accomplishments in the West, particularly in Kansas. It is all the more surprising then that I have been unable to find anything about this incident involving the Hopi Indians on the Sierra Club's official website. I did, however, find some mention of the Hopi pertaining to another matter.
Interestingly, they had at one point been allies. The two had banded together and won an injunction to prevent uranium mining on Mt. Taylor, a sacred mountain to the Hopis, on the grounds of potential contamination of ground water and streams. They succeeded in winning a one-year moratorium on any further mining and exploration by declaring Mt Taylor a Traditional Cultural Property.
However, it is worth noting that this story was posted on the Sierra Club website on March of 2008, more than two and a half years ago. Since then, there has been nothing posted on the website pertaining to any kind of followup on the Mt Taylor controversy, even though the injunction was granted for only one year.
The story seems suspended at the following point-
The nuclear power industry is now seeking to resume operations, and in response the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division streamlined the permit process, allowing mining activities to proceed without notifying the affected tribes when the site is less than five acres, and ignoring Governor Bill Richardson's executive order requiring statewide tribal consultation to protect sacred places. New mining plans on Mt. Taylor are opposed by tribes because the state has failed to perform environmental analysis on underground drinking water supplies, groundwater withdrawls, and impacts from exploratory wells.
The emergency stay granted by the New Mexico State Cultural Properties Review Committee will give the state time to gather input from affected tribal groups and allow the tribes and the state Historic Preservation Division to carefully evaluate applications for mining permits. "The committee action means pueblos and tribes can't be ignored when there are imminent threats to a sacred mountain," says Tohe.
And that seems to be the end of it, with no word on whether the mining permits and exploration and/or mining resumed or whether there were further extensions on the injunction granted, or for that matter whether or not the entire project was scrapped, or even if the required testing turned up any kind of evidence as to any potential hazards or seeming lack thereof. We just don't know, at least insofar as anything I've learned from the Sierra Club or from any other source thus far.
Putting aside for the moment my considered suspicion over the likelihood that a state agency would "ignore" an Executive Order issued by a governor, which is curious enough, I find one other thing that I thought perhaps even more telling.
In the above linked Sierra Club article on Mt. Taylor, there was a link pointing to a website which seems to be a joint enterprise of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes, and which the Sierra Club points to as evidence of their collaboration with the Hopi. However, if you click on this link now, you will see-an empty page, one which is nevertheless identified in the url as the page of an article, albeit one which seems to have been deleted. It almost looks like the cyber equivalent of a jilted lover excising his unfaithful spouse's image from the wedding pictures.
The same website, however, in another post has a lot to say about the present rift between the Hopi and the Sierra Club. The title says it all-
Hopi Tribal Council bans environmental groups-
Actions by environmental groups threaten total economic collapse of the tribe, council declares
There's so much there its almost impossible to copy a small part of it which is adequately representative of the whole, but suffice it to say the Tribe felt their very existence was threatened by the Sierra Club, in addition to various other environmentalist groups working in tandem with them.
(Black Mesa Water Coalition photo
Roberto Nutlouis (left) and Lillian Hill at the Black Mesa Mine coal mine before it was closed.)
It's worth your time to go and read the entire article, because it could well be a signpost to what lies ahead in the coming years for all of us if these groups succeed in imposing their radical agenda.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Cigarettes With Graphic Warning Art Coming Soon-Collect All Seventy-Two
See now, there's an upside to big government after all. If our corporate tax rate wasn't the second highest in the industrial world, our government wouldn't have enough money to be able to do this.
But thanks to the new law giving the FDA power to regulate the tobacco industry, we soon will have the opportunity to buy packs of cigarettes with graphic warnings as to the possible consequence of smoking. This is your chance to invest in a potential collector's item. Most people that buy cigarettes will continue to discard the empty packs, insuring they will become rare after so many years.
Ah, but if you save them, store them and keep them in mint condition, in fifty years time each one in good to mint condition might fetch from five to ten dollars. That means that even if you live in New York City you will almost recoup at least half your investment. Or, if you are a more frugal investor, you can buy your smokes in a neighboring state or an Indian casino. You have to bear in mind though that not only will smokers buy them, it might become a big fad with non-smokers as well. You might even have schoolkids trading them, like baseball cards. Take advantage of such opportunities wherever and whenever it might arise. Fads are always temporary, whereas with patience and perseverance you might have an opportunity to double, triple, maybe even quadruple your investment over time.
Just remember, although its certainly not out of the question that the FDA will mandate that they must be laminated, its probably not likely. No matter how carefully you store and preserve them they will still be a fragile product, but you can increase the likelihood of preserving their long-term value simply by not purchasing packs of cigarettes in soft packs, but in the hard, or box packs.
You can get a head start on this new, exciting collector's opportunity. Just head over to the website of the FDA, where you can view or if you want even download the proposed gallery of up-coming cigarette artwork in either pdf or jpeg format.
But thanks to the new law giving the FDA power to regulate the tobacco industry, we soon will have the opportunity to buy packs of cigarettes with graphic warnings as to the possible consequence of smoking. This is your chance to invest in a potential collector's item. Most people that buy cigarettes will continue to discard the empty packs, insuring they will become rare after so many years.
Ah, but if you save them, store them and keep them in mint condition, in fifty years time each one in good to mint condition might fetch from five to ten dollars. That means that even if you live in New York City you will almost recoup at least half your investment. Or, if you are a more frugal investor, you can buy your smokes in a neighboring state or an Indian casino. You have to bear in mind though that not only will smokers buy them, it might become a big fad with non-smokers as well. You might even have schoolkids trading them, like baseball cards. Take advantage of such opportunities wherever and whenever it might arise. Fads are always temporary, whereas with patience and perseverance you might have an opportunity to double, triple, maybe even quadruple your investment over time.
Just remember, although its certainly not out of the question that the FDA will mandate that they must be laminated, its probably not likely. No matter how carefully you store and preserve them they will still be a fragile product, but you can increase the likelihood of preserving their long-term value simply by not purchasing packs of cigarettes in soft packs, but in the hard, or box packs.
You can get a head start on this new, exciting collector's opportunity. Just head over to the website of the FDA, where you can view or if you want even download the proposed gallery of up-coming cigarette artwork in either pdf or jpeg format.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Friday Night Lies
I hate to say this, I know there are more people than you could ever imagine who might disagree, at least privately, but I'm going to come on out with it-
There's more important things in life than high school sports, even football or basketball. So if one of your more talented players, a student who excels at both sports, is involved in a sexual assault of a younger female student, you should have no problem booting him from the team. After all, talent and ability notwithstanding, this is not the kind of person you would want to represent your school, correct? Just because he might well be instrumental, possibly even vital in getting you to the state finals, that should not really be an issue, right?
Well, evidently most of the citizens of this small little town in Hardin County Texas don't quite see it that way. When Rakheem Bolton, one of the star players on their school football team, was accused of sexual assault, the Grand Jury failed to return an indictment on him. A second Grand Jury did so, but he managed somehow to plea bargain his case down to one of simple assault. He later engaged in an altercation with one of his teachers, which earned him a requirement to engage in anger management courses. Otherwise, some one hundred fifty hours of community service staring him in the face and a few remorseful statements to the press, and he's back on the football field.
One of the cheerleaders on his squad then got in trouble for refusing to join in the squad's cheers for him when he made a play. She was told she had to forget about what happened and either join in with the rest of the squad in cheering him on, or she had to resign her position.
Sounds reasonable enough. Of course, it would probably be easier for her to accede to these demands if she were not the girl he and two others assaulted and, according to her, raped. Her father led her off the court when patrons of the school team, their former friends, neighbors, and fellow community citizens, verbally abused her for what they took to be her bad sportsmanship-or maybe it was her unladylike conduct.
She sued the school on First Amendment grounds, claiming that she had the right to not cheer her assailant. Unfortunately the Fifth Circuit Court Judge who heard the case disagreed, going so far as to sanction the girl for what was described as a frivolous lawsuit, even ruling that she was liable for the school's legal expenses. The family is appealing the verdict, but its probably a lost cause. Justice is often cold and hard when it is applied fairly and according to precedent, and the truth is there is no free speech issue here.
A better, perhaps more realistic attorney would have tried a different approach than the use of the First Amendment as grounds for a suit. Not being an attorney myself, I wouldn't know what that would be, but there would have to be something, you would think, some legitimate grounds with which to defend the rights of a young girl against an oppressive, humiliating, and perhaps even dangerous environment enforced by her own school against her, a victim, in favor of her oppressor. Maybe some kind of civil rights suit might have been more appropriate.
After all, this girl was subjected to an ordeal that went beyond one night at a football game. She was ostracized, mocked and humiliated during school hours on a regular basis, and it got so bad her younger sister transferred to another school.
The larger point, in reality, is that there never should have been a need to bring any kind of action in court. The offending player should have been removed from the squad permanently, but the people of that small town in Hardin County Texas, as much as the school officials involved in this sorry case, may have had other, varying priorities.
For one thing, the defendant was black, the girl white, and it was widely assumed the first Grand Jury failed to render an indictment because of that, due to the presence of a number of blacks on the Jury.
But even more perniciously, the school seems to have been far more intent on keeping a valued member of their sports team than in seeing to the welfare of the one lone girl, evidently feeling that, in some way that is unclear, she willingly put herself in the position where she should have known she was endangering herself. In other words, she was asking for it.
For the record, this happened at a party where a number of team members and cheerleaders were present, and alcohol was a factor. But even that much is beside the point. The girl has been expected to give up her position on the cheer-leading squad, sacrifice her own social standing at school, as well as her dignity, peace of mind, and in effect her basic rights, in order to help salvage the potential future of her assailant.
Bear that in mind the next time you hear somebody pontificate about how we should look out for the welfare of our children. With all too many people, that's apparently only good for so much, and as long as it doesn't stand in the way of a winning record.
There's more important things in life than high school sports, even football or basketball. So if one of your more talented players, a student who excels at both sports, is involved in a sexual assault of a younger female student, you should have no problem booting him from the team. After all, talent and ability notwithstanding, this is not the kind of person you would want to represent your school, correct? Just because he might well be instrumental, possibly even vital in getting you to the state finals, that should not really be an issue, right?
Well, evidently most of the citizens of this small little town in Hardin County Texas don't quite see it that way. When Rakheem Bolton, one of the star players on their school football team, was accused of sexual assault, the Grand Jury failed to return an indictment on him. A second Grand Jury did so, but he managed somehow to plea bargain his case down to one of simple assault. He later engaged in an altercation with one of his teachers, which earned him a requirement to engage in anger management courses. Otherwise, some one hundred fifty hours of community service staring him in the face and a few remorseful statements to the press, and he's back on the football field.
One of the cheerleaders on his squad then got in trouble for refusing to join in the squad's cheers for him when he made a play. She was told she had to forget about what happened and either join in with the rest of the squad in cheering him on, or she had to resign her position.
Sounds reasonable enough. Of course, it would probably be easier for her to accede to these demands if she were not the girl he and two others assaulted and, according to her, raped. Her father led her off the court when patrons of the school team, their former friends, neighbors, and fellow community citizens, verbally abused her for what they took to be her bad sportsmanship-or maybe it was her unladylike conduct.
She sued the school on First Amendment grounds, claiming that she had the right to not cheer her assailant. Unfortunately the Fifth Circuit Court Judge who heard the case disagreed, going so far as to sanction the girl for what was described as a frivolous lawsuit, even ruling that she was liable for the school's legal expenses. The family is appealing the verdict, but its probably a lost cause. Justice is often cold and hard when it is applied fairly and according to precedent, and the truth is there is no free speech issue here.
A better, perhaps more realistic attorney would have tried a different approach than the use of the First Amendment as grounds for a suit. Not being an attorney myself, I wouldn't know what that would be, but there would have to be something, you would think, some legitimate grounds with which to defend the rights of a young girl against an oppressive, humiliating, and perhaps even dangerous environment enforced by her own school against her, a victim, in favor of her oppressor. Maybe some kind of civil rights suit might have been more appropriate.
After all, this girl was subjected to an ordeal that went beyond one night at a football game. She was ostracized, mocked and humiliated during school hours on a regular basis, and it got so bad her younger sister transferred to another school.
The larger point, in reality, is that there never should have been a need to bring any kind of action in court. The offending player should have been removed from the squad permanently, but the people of that small town in Hardin County Texas, as much as the school officials involved in this sorry case, may have had other, varying priorities.
For one thing, the defendant was black, the girl white, and it was widely assumed the first Grand Jury failed to render an indictment because of that, due to the presence of a number of blacks on the Jury.
But even more perniciously, the school seems to have been far more intent on keeping a valued member of their sports team than in seeing to the welfare of the one lone girl, evidently feeling that, in some way that is unclear, she willingly put herself in the position where she should have known she was endangering herself. In other words, she was asking for it.
For the record, this happened at a party where a number of team members and cheerleaders were present, and alcohol was a factor. But even that much is beside the point. The girl has been expected to give up her position on the cheer-leading squad, sacrifice her own social standing at school, as well as her dignity, peace of mind, and in effect her basic rights, in order to help salvage the potential future of her assailant.
Bear that in mind the next time you hear somebody pontificate about how we should look out for the welfare of our children. With all too many people, that's apparently only good for so much, and as long as it doesn't stand in the way of a winning record.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Rachel's Tomb-To The Arabs With Love, From The UN
Rachel's Tomb is one of the most sacred places in Jewish tradition, reputed for well over one thousand years-by Jews, Christians, and Muslims-to be the burial spot of the beloved Jewish Matriarch Rachel, the wife of Jacob.
Now it has been decided by the United Nations organization UNESCO, that it will no longer be recognized as a world heritage site, and that, furthermore, Rachel's Tomb should henceforth be recognized not even as a Jewish site, but as an Islamic mosque.
This provocation has been going on since 1996, and has gained currency in the Arab world, especially with the Turks. That's one thing in and of itself, its something quite again for the UN to deign to decide the issue. It's not really surprising though, since when it comes to issues such as this, especially those that touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the UN is the world's biggest lap dog to the Muslims. This is in fact a title for which they have fought long and hard to attain.
The Israelis, to their credit, have let it be known they will no longer cooperate with UNESCO, going so far as to describe this latest action as tantamount to an act of war.
So it looks like yet another round of conflict between the proponents, adherents, and defenders of the "religion of peace", and the one tiny little country that can't seem to achieve it with them, regardless of how hard they try.
There can be no doubt, this insanity is going to keep on until one day the Jews might well feel they have no other option but to embark on the massive wholesale slaughter of their surrounding Arab population, who in fact seem to be desirous of just that, possibly out of some internal collective desire to die as martyrs, or even more possibly out of some ancient and primeval suicidal impulse that is unique to them as a group.
As for the UN, I for one want them off of US soil. This fiasco, this shameful act of collusion, is just one more reason among a multitude of reasons as to why I feel that way, and wish the Israelis good luck in solving their own problems in however way they see fit. I'm afraid they are, unfortunately, pretty much on their own.
WARNING-Don't Read This Post If You Have A Weak Stomach
Melissa Lee Williams, who lives four doors down from her estranged husband, knocked on his door. He had a friend visiting him, and requested that one of them eat her pussy. When the husband refused, that might have been a good clue to the friend to not offer to honor the request, but some people are kind of thick. Especially when they are drunk, as everybody seems to be in this story. Melissa dropped her pants, whereupon the ex-husband's friend made ready to go at it.
Here comes the sickening part-
While Danny Williams “declined said invitation,” the other man, Adam Watson, told cops that he “agreed to perform at her request.” However, as Watson approached Williams, “he became overwhelmed by horrible vaginal odor emitting from Melissa Williams.” Watson, understandably, “declined to proceed any further.”
And here's where it gets scary. Melissa produced a knife and told her husband that "somebody's going to eat my pussy or I'm going to cut your fucking throat!"
The police came and found her naked from the waist down, holding the knife, and took her into custody.
And the rest is history. If you want to read the police report, you can find it at The Smoking Gun page linked above.
My question is, is it possible that what made her so desperate is the same thing responsible for the smell? And what was that? I can't get the thought out of my head and can't think of a point of comparison, because I myself have experienced this, and believe me, there are few if any things more repulsive.
Think in terms of a jar of spoiled milk mixed with equal parts cat urine and rancid diarrhea shit from eating spoiled beef left out in the sun for a fucking week, and you start to get the idea.
So why did I feel compelled to share this? I don't know, I guess I needed to get it out of my system. It's just nice to know I'm not the only person to have gone through this. Just be glad this post isn't a scratch and sniff. Because you know you would just love to, wouldn't you?
Here comes the sickening part-
While Danny Williams “declined said invitation,” the other man, Adam Watson, told cops that he “agreed to perform at her request.” However, as Watson approached Williams, “he became overwhelmed by horrible vaginal odor emitting from Melissa Williams.” Watson, understandably, “declined to proceed any further.”
And here's where it gets scary. Melissa produced a knife and told her husband that "somebody's going to eat my pussy or I'm going to cut your fucking throat!"
The police came and found her naked from the waist down, holding the knife, and took her into custody.
And the rest is history. If you want to read the police report, you can find it at The Smoking Gun page linked above.
My question is, is it possible that what made her so desperate is the same thing responsible for the smell? And what was that? I can't get the thought out of my head and can't think of a point of comparison, because I myself have experienced this, and believe me, there are few if any things more repulsive.
Think in terms of a jar of spoiled milk mixed with equal parts cat urine and rancid diarrhea shit from eating spoiled beef left out in the sun for a fucking week, and you start to get the idea.
So why did I feel compelled to share this? I don't know, I guess I needed to get it out of my system. It's just nice to know I'm not the only person to have gone through this. Just be glad this post isn't a scratch and sniff. Because you know you would just love to, wouldn't you?
When You Need Expert Testimony, Who Better To Call Than A Hollywood Actor?
Today, Tuesday November 9th, there will be a public hearing in Anchorage Alaska due to objections from environmental and Native American groups to plans to develop the area involved in a 2008 petroleum lease sale in Alaska's Chukchi Sea.
The former Minerals Management Service-now called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement-sold leases totaling 2.7 billion dollars, mostly to Shell Oil, in February 2008. The leases involved are in the Chukchi off Alaska's northwest coast.
A subsidiary of Shell had planned to drill exploratory wells in the Chukchi in summer 2010, but that's been put on hold now due to a decision applied by a federal judge, who in siding with Oceanus said that "environmental information was lacking".
Therefore, the hearing scheduled for today will involve The BOEMRE "collecting testimony on the effect of possible natural gas development and whether missing information is essential", while Oceanus is determined to block any further plans for development. Their secret weapon-an expert Hollywood witness.
In this case the "expert" witness is actor Ted Danson of Cheers and Three Men And A Baby fame, and a few other offerings, most of which is even more forgettable than the aforementioned movie. The proof of that being-I've forgotten them. Well, he did portray a curmudgeonly and politically incorrect doctor who smoked and insulted everybody. I think the name of it was "Please Watch My Show, I Know I'm A Leftist Nut But I Promise My Character Isn't".
Recently though he's been in Alaska filming a movie called Everybody Loves Whales, starring Drew Barrymore. Now bear in mind that any actor worth his salt researches every aspect of his role. He doesn't just learn his lines, he learns about the character and situation the character is in, along with every aspect of the personality of the role, to the point that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. This in a very real way tends to make him an expert on every subject involved in his performances.
Ted Danson then happens to be an authentic, expert Bostonian alcoholic ex-baseball player and womanizing bar owner, baby-sitter, diaper changing, chain-smoking, cursing doctor who is politically incorrect and a curmudgeonly devotee of mediocre actresses, whales, and the ocean.
Who better for Oceanus to call to testify at an open public hearing involving the future of oil leases, with potentially billions of dollars at stake.
What will be the basis of Danson's testimony?
Oceana attorney Mike LeVine said Danson's testimony will focus on the lack of basic scientific information about the Chukchi Sea ecosystem.
Well, he is an expert on not knowing jack shit, so maybe he's on pretty solid ground there after all.
The former Minerals Management Service-now called the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement-sold leases totaling 2.7 billion dollars, mostly to Shell Oil, in February 2008. The leases involved are in the Chukchi off Alaska's northwest coast.
A subsidiary of Shell had planned to drill exploratory wells in the Chukchi in summer 2010, but that's been put on hold now due to a decision applied by a federal judge, who in siding with Oceanus said that "environmental information was lacking".
Therefore, the hearing scheduled for today will involve The BOEMRE "collecting testimony on the effect of possible natural gas development and whether missing information is essential", while Oceanus is determined to block any further plans for development. Their secret weapon-an expert Hollywood witness.
In this case the "expert" witness is actor Ted Danson of Cheers and Three Men And A Baby fame, and a few other offerings, most of which is even more forgettable than the aforementioned movie. The proof of that being-I've forgotten them. Well, he did portray a curmudgeonly and politically incorrect doctor who smoked and insulted everybody. I think the name of it was "Please Watch My Show, I Know I'm A Leftist Nut But I Promise My Character Isn't".
Recently though he's been in Alaska filming a movie called Everybody Loves Whales, starring Drew Barrymore. Now bear in mind that any actor worth his salt researches every aspect of his role. He doesn't just learn his lines, he learns about the character and situation the character is in, along with every aspect of the personality of the role, to the point that he literally becomes the character he is portraying. This in a very real way tends to make him an expert on every subject involved in his performances.
Ted Danson then happens to be an authentic, expert Bostonian alcoholic ex-baseball player and womanizing bar owner, baby-sitter, diaper changing, chain-smoking, cursing doctor who is politically incorrect and a curmudgeonly devotee of mediocre actresses, whales, and the ocean.
Who better for Oceanus to call to testify at an open public hearing involving the future of oil leases, with potentially billions of dollars at stake.
What will be the basis of Danson's testimony?
Oceana attorney Mike LeVine said Danson's testimony will focus on the lack of basic scientific information about the Chukchi Sea ecosystem.
Well, he is an expert on not knowing jack shit, so maybe he's on pretty solid ground there after all.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Almost One Third Of Gay Voters Voted Republican
It was a pleasant surprise to learn the GOP pulled 31% of the gay vote in the last election. When you consider that not all gay people might be open with their orientation, even with pollsters, the numbers might be more, or less, or roughly the same, but no matter how you slice it, such numbers are an obvious sign of growth. It's even more surprising when you consider the rap on Republicans and the criticisms aimed at them, some of which are not without merit.
One example is the failed GOP Senate candidate from Colorado, Ken Buck. When I heard him say, on Meet The Press, that being gay is a choice, I waited for a follow-up, some kind of explanation that would put the statement in context. When none was forthcoming, I almost came to the conclusion that Buck was being blackmailed to throw the election.
You don't have to be gay to realize how nutty such a statement sounds. All it takes is an exercise in logic. I am straight, and I imagine I came to be straight in the same manner every other straight person came to be straight. One day, I got a full blown erection-over a woman. In my case it was an incidental woman model in an old Matt Helm movie. She uttered no lines in the film, I don't recall her name, she was just a model in what if I remember correctly was see-through lingerie.
There was no choice involved. I didn't sit there thinking, you know I think I'd better make a decision. Do I want to experience sexual desire over Dean Martin, or over this random female bit player without a speaking part who just happens to look hot?
Some time after this, I experienced my first wet dream, involving a female classmate at my elementary school. The strange thing about that was, this was a girl with whom I was friendly, but not all that close, nor was I particularly attracted to her consciously. My subconscious mind was probably telling me, this is available to you if you just make your move. Unfortunately, I was not sufficiently skilled in the art of dream interpretation, or for that matter much of anything else, and before long that window of opportunity slipped away. I just forgot about it, and her, as she slipped more into the background of my school life-such as it was.
For whatever reason which I no longer remember clearly, I chose not to pursue the matter. But the initial attraction, at least, had nothing to do with choice. And that brings me back to Ken Buck.
I think what Buck really meant was not that people choose whether or not to become gay, they choose as to whether or not to act on those impulses. If that is what he meant, he should have said so, but of course, even this stance brings with it a load of questions as to the ability of any given person to be a fair and impartial representative of their constituencies and their issues and concerns.
Republicans should really avoid this political hot potato, because no matter what they say or do they are going to offend somebody. They either come across like they are pandering to one group or the other, or they sound like a would-be theocrat, one who is ruled more by their religious philosophy than an adherent to any kind of coherent policy view.
To say the states should deal with the issue of gay marriage may sound to some like an exercise in avoiding a tough issue, but in reality that is the legitimate federalist approach. There is no excuse to allow for yet more federal government intrusion into what should be a state prerogative. Sure, you can infer a constitutional right to gay marriage, as easily as you can infer a "right to life" for the unborn, but its nebulous at best.
Bear in mind, although 31% of gays voted Republican, this has got to be seen as a national average. What do you want to bet that in Colorado, the numbers weren't quite so good for Ken Buck? Now I'm not suggesting that the GOP simply pander to prospective gay voters in the hopes of improving their share of that voter demographic. For one thing, the fact that they got 31% to begin with proves that is unnecessary.
Still, there are some things they can and should do. The Defense of Marriage Act is a cynical piece of legislation that should be repealed, as it is just one more federal intrusion on the prerogative of the states no better or worse than any similar measure from the other end of the spectrum. By the same token, any kind of federal law mandating the states provide for gay marriage rights, or any such decree by judicial fiat, is similarly inadvisable, and frankly unacceptable.
A simple party platform affirming the rights of gay Americans as equal citizens, with rights neither inferior nor superior to other Americans, as predicated by any simple reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, entitled to all the rights and protections of other Americans, should suffice. This would not have to imply a support for gay marriage or adoption, things that, again, should be decided at the state level.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid even this relatively minor move would be met with howls of protest by many of the rank-and-file traditional Republican voters, so its probably never going to happen. In addition, some of the more radical gay activists would view it as a transparent attempt to gain support, a paper tiger with no teeth and with bleeding gums. So what else is there?
DADT is something where there can and should be room for honest and open debate, with each side of the equation receiving a fair hearing. A person's sexuality should not be an impediment to promotion in rank nor should it be a consideration of job security, but on the other hand any changes in policy should be approached with caution and respect. My own feeling is the military brass should set their own rules, with some civilian oversight. I'm reasonably sure it would turn out better than some heavy handed decree from the civilian authorities which would then be turned into a political football on both sides. It would probably come down to a ban on fraternization, which is in place anyway in general terms, and that would be the extent of it.
There are other things, but no matter what policy you approach, its going to encounter storms of protest and discontent. There's nothing you can do about that, but people should remember, gay rights and homosexuality was never an issue or a controversy until gay activists made it so. I'm sure there are many who would question that, but remember this-most of the laws against homosexuality were in place from a time when one could be prosecuted for having sex with a married woman, or for having sex out of wedlock, or for engaging in interracial sex. They were put in place during a time and place when morals and ethics were decreed by a relatively small cabal of social leaders, and those who acted against their mores were strictly stigmatized. It wasn't just gays, it was a lot of different actions that could get you ostracized by your local communities and society at large. Back in those days, if a woman or a younger girl had a child out of wedlock, she was automatically considered a whore, a tramp, and even her innocent child was considered a bastard, not quite good enough to associate with the children from the "good families".
You could also be prosecuted for engaging in anal or oral sex-even with the person with whom you were married.
So when you look at it in that context, its quite understandable there would also be laws against homosexuality. The major difference here is, not many people gave it much thought. Gays pretty much kept to themselves and kept their lifestyles secret. For one thing, they had no legal outlet such as marriage, and for another, they knew they would be despised by society at large, who out of ignorance looked at them as insane, or debauched, or in some cases possessed by unclean and malignant spirits. Homosexuality as an issue was always way, way, way back in the public consciousness-in fact it was all but nonexistent-for the simple fact gays themselves were not a part of the public consciousness. At most, they were seen as a relative handful of individuals afflicted by a sickness that led them to engage in a shameful act. In some cases it was a point of amusement. It was not all that long ago that the worse insult one man could say to another was "suck my dick" or in the case where the two parties were aware of another man's or boy's homosexual tendencies, to call the other person that gay person's name.
It's not so surprising then that when gays finally came out of the closet in the beginning, they did so with an explosive force that took no prisoners. That was certainly understandable, but there's been no letup from some quarters, and who have been the main target of their outrage? Of course, that would be the purveyors of what they see as the traditional values that have always scapegoated them as at worse evil proponents of a sick sub-culture, and at best as victims of some evil spiritual soul-destroying sickness. It's no surprise then that they haven't been inclined to support the Republican Party, whom they see as the champions of the same system that has maligned and marginalized them throughout history.
If the latest election numbers are any indication, however, they are starting to some degree to see the Democrats as cynical opportunists who are using them for their votes, but not really willing to do much beyond lip-service in the way of redressing their grievances. This is in no small part due to the fact that many of their stated aims are impractical, and also because their tactics are to many reprehensible enough it would amount to trading two votes for one in the name of justice, which is never going to happen.
But in the interim along the way to this awakening, many gays have come to see that, social considerations aside, they have as much to gain by supporting Republicans, maybe in some cases more, than they do by sticking with the Democrats. A large percentage of gays are of above average intellect and income, and like everyone else are susceptible to the allure of a lower tax rate, especially when they see how Washington has wasted money. Many as well are attracted to the more libertarian aspects of basic conservative philosophy-live and let live, another philosophy that gets little beyond lip service from the Democrats. And how can they not be attracted to the prospect of a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government. It's one thing to look toward government as the guarantor of civil rights and equal protections under the law. It's another thing all together to want the government sticking its nose into every aspect of your life, both public and private, to the point where you are or at least feel dependent on their good graces for everything from the roof over your head to the food you eat and even the air you breathe. And this is all the more true if you are a business person or a professional of some sort who suddenly finds that a good portion of your working life is spent adhering to some mandated obligation to fill out forms, making sure every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed-a service that in reality you provide to them, and for which you yourself must pay, not just with the time you spend doing it, but with your own hard-earned tax dollars as well.
The question then becomes not why are so many gays suddenly supporting Republicans, but why wouldn't they?
It's now up to the Ken Bucks of the Republican Party to realize that, sometimes, its best to keep your personal beliefs to yourself, in at least some regards. This wouldn't make them any more hypocritical than the person who refrains from stating that consuming alcohol is a sin, or that the blood of Christ is the only way to salvation. You can believe that all you want, but the minute you state that in public, in the course of a run for electoral office, you run the risk of broadcasting the appearance of making a policy statement. You shouldn't be too surprised at that point if the neighborhood Hindu family decides to sit the election out, or maybe even go to the trouble to vote against you.
That's not to say you should hide your beliefs, just that you should be circumspect in how you express them, while making clear that as a public figure you have an obligation to respect and defend the constitutional rights of all your constituents, regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and that, as a Republican, you intend to do so in strict adherence to a literal reading of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That won't be enough to win over the folks at GLAAD or any other advocates of the so-called LGBT community. It is way too easy though to look askance at the antics of the Folsom Street Fair or various other Gay Pride Parades, some of which seem purposely designed to shock the sensitivities of the traditionalists among us. We can laugh or shake our heads in dismay at the activities of groups that demand that script changes be made to movies and otherwise threaten boycotts if such demands are not met, or who purposely devote time and resources to outing closeted gays who only want to live their lives in peace and a minimum of drama, just for political effect.
When we see them acting out in outrageous ways, all but copulating in public in some cases, engaging in acts of masturbation and other lewd behaviors, while simultaneously demanding that they be accepted in our neighborhoods and communities with respect and even deference, demanding the right to marry and adopt, its easy to dismiss them as just another arm of the leftist lunatic fringe, which is in truth what they are.
But we should never make the mistake of assuming that these people speak for all gay people. The people of GOProud might now represent a minority among those gay people who are politically active, but they do represent a sizable portion of a gay community that is conservative, responsible, respectable, and deserving of our support, just as they themselves supported many Republican candidates, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. In some cases, their support for Republican candidates might have been enough to contribute to their victories.
By accepting them in turn, and gay people in more general terms, however, we make it clear we don't do so as just another hyphenated American interest group, but as American citizens, who just happen to be gay, yet who we recognize and affirm as having the same rights and responsibilities as any other American citizen-no more or no less.
That should be enough to make progress among not just gays, but truthfully among any demographic group who truly wants what is best for himself, his family, community, and his country.
Everything else in the way of specific policy proposals geared toward them is for the most part, with very few exceptions, mere Democrat window dressing meant to promote controversy with an aim to divide and conquer.
One example is the failed GOP Senate candidate from Colorado, Ken Buck. When I heard him say, on Meet The Press, that being gay is a choice, I waited for a follow-up, some kind of explanation that would put the statement in context. When none was forthcoming, I almost came to the conclusion that Buck was being blackmailed to throw the election.
You don't have to be gay to realize how nutty such a statement sounds. All it takes is an exercise in logic. I am straight, and I imagine I came to be straight in the same manner every other straight person came to be straight. One day, I got a full blown erection-over a woman. In my case it was an incidental woman model in an old Matt Helm movie. She uttered no lines in the film, I don't recall her name, she was just a model in what if I remember correctly was see-through lingerie.
There was no choice involved. I didn't sit there thinking, you know I think I'd better make a decision. Do I want to experience sexual desire over Dean Martin, or over this random female bit player without a speaking part who just happens to look hot?
Some time after this, I experienced my first wet dream, involving a female classmate at my elementary school. The strange thing about that was, this was a girl with whom I was friendly, but not all that close, nor was I particularly attracted to her consciously. My subconscious mind was probably telling me, this is available to you if you just make your move. Unfortunately, I was not sufficiently skilled in the art of dream interpretation, or for that matter much of anything else, and before long that window of opportunity slipped away. I just forgot about it, and her, as she slipped more into the background of my school life-such as it was.
For whatever reason which I no longer remember clearly, I chose not to pursue the matter. But the initial attraction, at least, had nothing to do with choice. And that brings me back to Ken Buck.
I think what Buck really meant was not that people choose whether or not to become gay, they choose as to whether or not to act on those impulses. If that is what he meant, he should have said so, but of course, even this stance brings with it a load of questions as to the ability of any given person to be a fair and impartial representative of their constituencies and their issues and concerns.
Republicans should really avoid this political hot potato, because no matter what they say or do they are going to offend somebody. They either come across like they are pandering to one group or the other, or they sound like a would-be theocrat, one who is ruled more by their religious philosophy than an adherent to any kind of coherent policy view.
To say the states should deal with the issue of gay marriage may sound to some like an exercise in avoiding a tough issue, but in reality that is the legitimate federalist approach. There is no excuse to allow for yet more federal government intrusion into what should be a state prerogative. Sure, you can infer a constitutional right to gay marriage, as easily as you can infer a "right to life" for the unborn, but its nebulous at best.
Bear in mind, although 31% of gays voted Republican, this has got to be seen as a national average. What do you want to bet that in Colorado, the numbers weren't quite so good for Ken Buck? Now I'm not suggesting that the GOP simply pander to prospective gay voters in the hopes of improving their share of that voter demographic. For one thing, the fact that they got 31% to begin with proves that is unnecessary.
Still, there are some things they can and should do. The Defense of Marriage Act is a cynical piece of legislation that should be repealed, as it is just one more federal intrusion on the prerogative of the states no better or worse than any similar measure from the other end of the spectrum. By the same token, any kind of federal law mandating the states provide for gay marriage rights, or any such decree by judicial fiat, is similarly inadvisable, and frankly unacceptable.
A simple party platform affirming the rights of gay Americans as equal citizens, with rights neither inferior nor superior to other Americans, as predicated by any simple reading of the Fourteenth Amendment, entitled to all the rights and protections of other Americans, should suffice. This would not have to imply a support for gay marriage or adoption, things that, again, should be decided at the state level.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid even this relatively minor move would be met with howls of protest by many of the rank-and-file traditional Republican voters, so its probably never going to happen. In addition, some of the more radical gay activists would view it as a transparent attempt to gain support, a paper tiger with no teeth and with bleeding gums. So what else is there?
DADT is something where there can and should be room for honest and open debate, with each side of the equation receiving a fair hearing. A person's sexuality should not be an impediment to promotion in rank nor should it be a consideration of job security, but on the other hand any changes in policy should be approached with caution and respect. My own feeling is the military brass should set their own rules, with some civilian oversight. I'm reasonably sure it would turn out better than some heavy handed decree from the civilian authorities which would then be turned into a political football on both sides. It would probably come down to a ban on fraternization, which is in place anyway in general terms, and that would be the extent of it.
There are other things, but no matter what policy you approach, its going to encounter storms of protest and discontent. There's nothing you can do about that, but people should remember, gay rights and homosexuality was never an issue or a controversy until gay activists made it so. I'm sure there are many who would question that, but remember this-most of the laws against homosexuality were in place from a time when one could be prosecuted for having sex with a married woman, or for having sex out of wedlock, or for engaging in interracial sex. They were put in place during a time and place when morals and ethics were decreed by a relatively small cabal of social leaders, and those who acted against their mores were strictly stigmatized. It wasn't just gays, it was a lot of different actions that could get you ostracized by your local communities and society at large. Back in those days, if a woman or a younger girl had a child out of wedlock, she was automatically considered a whore, a tramp, and even her innocent child was considered a bastard, not quite good enough to associate with the children from the "good families".
You could also be prosecuted for engaging in anal or oral sex-even with the person with whom you were married.
So when you look at it in that context, its quite understandable there would also be laws against homosexuality. The major difference here is, not many people gave it much thought. Gays pretty much kept to themselves and kept their lifestyles secret. For one thing, they had no legal outlet such as marriage, and for another, they knew they would be despised by society at large, who out of ignorance looked at them as insane, or debauched, or in some cases possessed by unclean and malignant spirits. Homosexuality as an issue was always way, way, way back in the public consciousness-in fact it was all but nonexistent-for the simple fact gays themselves were not a part of the public consciousness. At most, they were seen as a relative handful of individuals afflicted by a sickness that led them to engage in a shameful act. In some cases it was a point of amusement. It was not all that long ago that the worse insult one man could say to another was "suck my dick" or in the case where the two parties were aware of another man's or boy's homosexual tendencies, to call the other person that gay person's name.
It's not so surprising then that when gays finally came out of the closet in the beginning, they did so with an explosive force that took no prisoners. That was certainly understandable, but there's been no letup from some quarters, and who have been the main target of their outrage? Of course, that would be the purveyors of what they see as the traditional values that have always scapegoated them as at worse evil proponents of a sick sub-culture, and at best as victims of some evil spiritual soul-destroying sickness. It's no surprise then that they haven't been inclined to support the Republican Party, whom they see as the champions of the same system that has maligned and marginalized them throughout history.
If the latest election numbers are any indication, however, they are starting to some degree to see the Democrats as cynical opportunists who are using them for their votes, but not really willing to do much beyond lip-service in the way of redressing their grievances. This is in no small part due to the fact that many of their stated aims are impractical, and also because their tactics are to many reprehensible enough it would amount to trading two votes for one in the name of justice, which is never going to happen.
But in the interim along the way to this awakening, many gays have come to see that, social considerations aside, they have as much to gain by supporting Republicans, maybe in some cases more, than they do by sticking with the Democrats. A large percentage of gays are of above average intellect and income, and like everyone else are susceptible to the allure of a lower tax rate, especially when they see how Washington has wasted money. Many as well are attracted to the more libertarian aspects of basic conservative philosophy-live and let live, another philosophy that gets little beyond lip service from the Democrats. And how can they not be attracted to the prospect of a smaller, more efficient, less intrusive government. It's one thing to look toward government as the guarantor of civil rights and equal protections under the law. It's another thing all together to want the government sticking its nose into every aspect of your life, both public and private, to the point where you are or at least feel dependent on their good graces for everything from the roof over your head to the food you eat and even the air you breathe. And this is all the more true if you are a business person or a professional of some sort who suddenly finds that a good portion of your working life is spent adhering to some mandated obligation to fill out forms, making sure every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed-a service that in reality you provide to them, and for which you yourself must pay, not just with the time you spend doing it, but with your own hard-earned tax dollars as well.
The question then becomes not why are so many gays suddenly supporting Republicans, but why wouldn't they?
It's now up to the Ken Bucks of the Republican Party to realize that, sometimes, its best to keep your personal beliefs to yourself, in at least some regards. This wouldn't make them any more hypocritical than the person who refrains from stating that consuming alcohol is a sin, or that the blood of Christ is the only way to salvation. You can believe that all you want, but the minute you state that in public, in the course of a run for electoral office, you run the risk of broadcasting the appearance of making a policy statement. You shouldn't be too surprised at that point if the neighborhood Hindu family decides to sit the election out, or maybe even go to the trouble to vote against you.
That's not to say you should hide your beliefs, just that you should be circumspect in how you express them, while making clear that as a public figure you have an obligation to respect and defend the constitutional rights of all your constituents, regardless of race, sex, creed, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and that, as a Republican, you intend to do so in strict adherence to a literal reading of the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
That won't be enough to win over the folks at GLAAD or any other advocates of the so-called LGBT community. It is way too easy though to look askance at the antics of the Folsom Street Fair or various other Gay Pride Parades, some of which seem purposely designed to shock the sensitivities of the traditionalists among us. We can laugh or shake our heads in dismay at the activities of groups that demand that script changes be made to movies and otherwise threaten boycotts if such demands are not met, or who purposely devote time and resources to outing closeted gays who only want to live their lives in peace and a minimum of drama, just for political effect.
When we see them acting out in outrageous ways, all but copulating in public in some cases, engaging in acts of masturbation and other lewd behaviors, while simultaneously demanding that they be accepted in our neighborhoods and communities with respect and even deference, demanding the right to marry and adopt, its easy to dismiss them as just another arm of the leftist lunatic fringe, which is in truth what they are.
But we should never make the mistake of assuming that these people speak for all gay people. The people of GOProud might now represent a minority among those gay people who are politically active, but they do represent a sizable portion of a gay community that is conservative, responsible, respectable, and deserving of our support, just as they themselves supported many Republican candidates, including Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. In some cases, their support for Republican candidates might have been enough to contribute to their victories.
By accepting them in turn, and gay people in more general terms, however, we make it clear we don't do so as just another hyphenated American interest group, but as American citizens, who just happen to be gay, yet who we recognize and affirm as having the same rights and responsibilities as any other American citizen-no more or no less.
That should be enough to make progress among not just gays, but truthfully among any demographic group who truly wants what is best for himself, his family, community, and his country.
Everything else in the way of specific policy proposals geared toward them is for the most part, with very few exceptions, mere Democrat window dressing meant to promote controversy with an aim to divide and conquer.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Surprise Surprise-Olbermann Will Return
Well, well, well, guess who's going to be returning to MSNBC after all. Yes, Keith Olbermann has completed what might be the shortest indefinite suspension without pay in the annals of recorded history, and he's going to be back on the air as early as Tuesday.
I'm not surprised in the least, nor am I disappointed. In fact, I'm quite pleased. Let's face it, Olbermann is a perfect example of what the left is really all about, and as such he does provide a service.
And let's be real here, this is all the whole brouhaha was about anyway. Olbermann is one of these kinds of guys that are just one step from sliding completely over the edge at any given time, given just the right push. It hasn't been that long ago that he took a two-week vacation because Tucker Carlson, of all people, was making sport of him.
The fool can't even take criticism from me. FROM ME! Yes, he blocked me from following his Twitter account, and when that didn't stop me from fucking with him, he BLOCKED ME FROM EVEN READING HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bragging. I'm just pointing out-who the fuck am I that he should worry what I think?
I was fairly sure Olbermann wasn't really indefinitely suspended. He was just given a few days off, to give him a chance to cool off, calm down, and recover from the disappointment of the election results, as otherwise, he probably would have gone completely off the rails.
If he seems somewhat more subdued than usual by the time he returns, I think we can just assume he must have had his meds adjusted. If MSNBC was smart, though, they'd give him his typical two weeks. You just never can tell when you're dealing with these excitable Type A personality types, especially when they really start to come unhinged.
I'm not surprised in the least, nor am I disappointed. In fact, I'm quite pleased. Let's face it, Olbermann is a perfect example of what the left is really all about, and as such he does provide a service.
And let's be real here, this is all the whole brouhaha was about anyway. Olbermann is one of these kinds of guys that are just one step from sliding completely over the edge at any given time, given just the right push. It hasn't been that long ago that he took a two-week vacation because Tucker Carlson, of all people, was making sport of him.
The fool can't even take criticism from me. FROM ME! Yes, he blocked me from following his Twitter account, and when that didn't stop me from fucking with him, he BLOCKED ME FROM EVEN READING HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT. Don't get me wrong, I'm not bragging. I'm just pointing out-who the fuck am I that he should worry what I think?
I was fairly sure Olbermann wasn't really indefinitely suspended. He was just given a few days off, to give him a chance to cool off, calm down, and recover from the disappointment of the election results, as otherwise, he probably would have gone completely off the rails.
If he seems somewhat more subdued than usual by the time he returns, I think we can just assume he must have had his meds adjusted. If MSNBC was smart, though, they'd give him his typical two weeks. You just never can tell when you're dealing with these excitable Type A personality types, especially when they really start to come unhinged.
The Momma Bama Might Be On To A Way To Cut The Deficit
Although the Administration denies it, the current trip to Mumbai India has been estimated to cost close to 200 million dollars a day. No word if this is the cost for the entirety of the ten day Asian trip, but if it is that would make the total cost a staggering two billion dollars. No word from the White House as to the actual cost, but the Indian past of the visit would have to be considerable. The President's contingent is so huge, presidential entourage is reportedly not only renting the entirety of the Taj Mahal hotel, but many rooms from two other luxury hotels as well. Then there are the automobiles, as many as forty-five of them, in addition to an air fleet that includes two jumbo jets and a couple of attack jets in addition to Air Force One. There have even been reports that a number of ships will be stationed outside the Mumbai ports, due to concerns over potential terrorist attacks from off the Indian coast.
This is more than just a diplomatic mission, although Obama will address the Indian parliament. It is a business trip, one which has been arranged by the American and Indian wing of-wait for it-
The Chamber of Commerce. The trip was almost derailed due to criticisms of the Chamber's donations to Republican candidates, but it was brought back on track. This trip was just considered too vital to allow politics to get in its way.
It's ostensibly an effort to get India, and other Asian countries, to allow more American products to be imported. Of course, first he has to convince American manufacturers to produce such goods, which they will only do if there is a cost-effective way to produce and then to export such products with any hopes of adding to their companies profit margins.
In other words, whatever the cost of the trip, it is probably a waste of time and resources, given the Obama addiction to tax and regulation. But at least Obama, when he visits the Gandhi Museum, will have the benefit of a bomb-proof air-conditioned above ground tunnel to make sure he can go to and fro the museum in relative comfort and security.
And, just to be on the extra safe side, coconuts will be removed from trees along the routes listed on the President's itinerary. Can't take the chance of one of those things falling on the presidential noggin, you see.
Yet, for all the obvious terrorist concerns, with the related and incredibly extreme measures taken to insure the President's security, he does not see fit otherwise to even acknowledge the very real terrorist problems faced by Mumbai, or greater India, nor will he visit the site of the last major terrorist attack which resulted in the loss of dozens of lives.
And, one other note that even further illustrates the lack of any kind of sense of irony-First Lady Michelle, at the encouragement of an NGO, is slated to visit Mumbai's oldest red-light district, where she will meet with commercial sex workers.
Well, that might be one way to help defray some of the cost of the trip. I'm not sure what the rate of exchange is these days, but she might actually want to consider working for rupees as opposed to American dollars. For that matter the Obamas might possibly even encourage what remains of the Congressional Democrats to join in and make this a regular thing. They should take their cue from history, and follow the precedent set by the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula.
Think of it as Pay To Play. This might well be an opportunity for the Obamas to lead by example. If the President is amenable, and the Momma Bama is willing to put herself out to this extent, surely the Democratic members of Congress would be willing to follow suit, with their wives and husbands too. Since Nancy Pelosi is so determined to remain the Democratic Minority Leader, she could take on the role of Congressional Whore House Madam. Since Barbara Boxer would probably object to such a title, we'll just call her Senator Whore. Henry Waxman could be in charge of prosecuting any Democratic member who fails to show up with wife in tow and ready to put out for the team. Barney Frank could play a role as well, as this is something with which he has past experience.
Let's face it, since your policies have brought the national debt to a staggering fourteen trillion dollars, and you are responsible for running trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, it might not be enough for Democrats to demand higher taxes on the rich and productive members of society-not in this political climate.
Since the Daily Mail has stated that the expense of this Mumbai trip is as grandiose as anything ever exhibited by the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors, you should take your cue from the Momma Bama. Don't allow her to take this responsibility on all by herself. We know you are all whores anyway. Since you will never set an example of austerity, and you've already fucked us good, at least allow us to return the favor.
This is more than just a diplomatic mission, although Obama will address the Indian parliament. It is a business trip, one which has been arranged by the American and Indian wing of-wait for it-
The Chamber of Commerce. The trip was almost derailed due to criticisms of the Chamber's donations to Republican candidates, but it was brought back on track. This trip was just considered too vital to allow politics to get in its way.
It's ostensibly an effort to get India, and other Asian countries, to allow more American products to be imported. Of course, first he has to convince American manufacturers to produce such goods, which they will only do if there is a cost-effective way to produce and then to export such products with any hopes of adding to their companies profit margins.
In other words, whatever the cost of the trip, it is probably a waste of time and resources, given the Obama addiction to tax and regulation. But at least Obama, when he visits the Gandhi Museum, will have the benefit of a bomb-proof air-conditioned above ground tunnel to make sure he can go to and fro the museum in relative comfort and security.
And, just to be on the extra safe side, coconuts will be removed from trees along the routes listed on the President's itinerary. Can't take the chance of one of those things falling on the presidential noggin, you see.
Yet, for all the obvious terrorist concerns, with the related and incredibly extreme measures taken to insure the President's security, he does not see fit otherwise to even acknowledge the very real terrorist problems faced by Mumbai, or greater India, nor will he visit the site of the last major terrorist attack which resulted in the loss of dozens of lives.
And, one other note that even further illustrates the lack of any kind of sense of irony-First Lady Michelle, at the encouragement of an NGO, is slated to visit Mumbai's oldest red-light district, where she will meet with commercial sex workers.
Well, that might be one way to help defray some of the cost of the trip. I'm not sure what the rate of exchange is these days, but she might actually want to consider working for rupees as opposed to American dollars. For that matter the Obamas might possibly even encourage what remains of the Congressional Democrats to join in and make this a regular thing. They should take their cue from history, and follow the precedent set by the Roman Emperor Gaius Caligula.
Think of it as Pay To Play. This might well be an opportunity for the Obamas to lead by example. If the President is amenable, and the Momma Bama is willing to put herself out to this extent, surely the Democratic members of Congress would be willing to follow suit, with their wives and husbands too. Since Nancy Pelosi is so determined to remain the Democratic Minority Leader, she could take on the role of Congressional Whore House Madam. Since Barbara Boxer would probably object to such a title, we'll just call her Senator Whore. Henry Waxman could be in charge of prosecuting any Democratic member who fails to show up with wife in tow and ready to put out for the team. Barney Frank could play a role as well, as this is something with which he has past experience.
Let's face it, since your policies have brought the national debt to a staggering fourteen trillion dollars, and you are responsible for running trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, it might not be enough for Democrats to demand higher taxes on the rich and productive members of society-not in this political climate.
Since the Daily Mail has stated that the expense of this Mumbai trip is as grandiose as anything ever exhibited by the ancient Egyptian Pharaohs and Roman Emperors, you should take your cue from the Momma Bama. Don't allow her to take this responsibility on all by herself. We know you are all whores anyway. Since you will never set an example of austerity, and you've already fucked us good, at least allow us to return the favor.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Keith Olbermann-Worst Person In The Cable News World Gets The Axe
I know its tempting to draw parallels between NPR's firing of Juan Williams and MSNBC's sacking of Keith Olbermann, but the similarities on the surface don't immediately speak to the very real differences.
Here's the major difference, as I see it. Juan Williams was fired because certain influential patrons and donors to NPR had wanted him gone for a long, long time. In Olbermann's case, he was fired not to appease MSNBC's supporters, but their critics, who had over the years acquired a multitude of mostly good reasons to come to despise this shill.
I can't feel sorry for him. He was a hypocrite who lambasted his critics, stifled dissent, criticized Fox News for their own advocacy and support for the right while never allowing the opposite side nearly a third as much rebuttal time as Fox or any other competitor allowed its own ideological opponents, was due to his own ego and arrogance impossible to get along with according to those who worked with him and would know him best, and finally-and here's maybe the main point-he involved himself in hiring and personnel decisions to the point that he had people fired from the network if he did not agree with their own point of view or they did not tow his ideological line.
Do I think MSNBC should have fired the jerk? No, really I don't, but that's their call. I just wish they'd be a little more honest and forthcoming as to their real reasons, which probably had more to do with the up-and-coming acquisition of NBC by Comcast than it did to any amount of air time or donations he gave to Raul Grijalva or to Jack Conway. There is also the little uncomfortable fact that his ratings were in the ditch. That was acceptable for a while, as over the last few years the network had little to no chance to supplant Bill O'Reilly in that time slot. They had to field somebody, and it would appear to be a judgment call that Keith Olbermann could at least staunch the bleeding.
But after so long it got to the point that he was such an albatross around the network that he was dragging the entire enterprise down the tubes with him. That's what happens in a train wreck. When one car goes off the rails it tends to drag most of the others off with it and in the end derails the entire system. On the night of the election, Keith Olbermann's antics, along with those of his compatriots involved in the coverage, were in fact akin to a train wreck. If you happened to be driving past, you couldn't help but crane your neck in a perverse need to see the blood. It wasn't a pretty sight. But in reality, this was a long time coming. This last election, with all its implications, insured the need of a sacrificial victim to appease the ratings gods. Keith Olbermann was the obvious victim to place upon that sacrificial altar.
All that being said, I will miss Olbermann, assuming it is true that he will not be coming back. So will many others on the right. One could not help but appreciate the spectacle of Olbermann as the perfect illustration of the kind of thought process employed by the left laid bare for all to see, warts and all, with no pretense of impartiality, or for that matter any kind of rational thought process to speak of. Olbermann was the left, a true personification of all of its nuttiness-ordinarily a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. But in his case, the insanity blazed forth with a kind of perverse pride and demanded not just recognition, but vindication, much like the insane uncle you keep locked up in the attic because you know if he ever gets out, it won't be long before he does the same thing that made you lock him away to begin with.
This has probably been coming for a long time, in reality. NBC was probably just waiting for the right excuse and thanks to Politico, they were able to finally make that break. They had their opportunities at various times in the past. After all, this is a man who, as a journalist, has a tendency to rely on the kind of disreputable sources that make the Weekly World News seem like the Weekly Standard.
Naturally, he was not a real journalist, he was a pundit. And as such, he has always had his proponents, advocates, staunch defenders who will still rally to his cause, and who are in fact supporting him now and demanding he be reinstated.
Maybe they will successfully plead his case and this too will blow over. After all, its pretty obvious that the stated reason for Olbermann's suspension is not a reason, but a mere pretext.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that a new day has dawned. If Olbermann does return, what you might well see is the cable news version of a chemical castration.
Here's the major difference, as I see it. Juan Williams was fired because certain influential patrons and donors to NPR had wanted him gone for a long, long time. In Olbermann's case, he was fired not to appease MSNBC's supporters, but their critics, who had over the years acquired a multitude of mostly good reasons to come to despise this shill.
I can't feel sorry for him. He was a hypocrite who lambasted his critics, stifled dissent, criticized Fox News for their own advocacy and support for the right while never allowing the opposite side nearly a third as much rebuttal time as Fox or any other competitor allowed its own ideological opponents, was due to his own ego and arrogance impossible to get along with according to those who worked with him and would know him best, and finally-and here's maybe the main point-he involved himself in hiring and personnel decisions to the point that he had people fired from the network if he did not agree with their own point of view or they did not tow his ideological line.
Do I think MSNBC should have fired the jerk? No, really I don't, but that's their call. I just wish they'd be a little more honest and forthcoming as to their real reasons, which probably had more to do with the up-and-coming acquisition of NBC by Comcast than it did to any amount of air time or donations he gave to Raul Grijalva or to Jack Conway. There is also the little uncomfortable fact that his ratings were in the ditch. That was acceptable for a while, as over the last few years the network had little to no chance to supplant Bill O'Reilly in that time slot. They had to field somebody, and it would appear to be a judgment call that Keith Olbermann could at least staunch the bleeding.
But after so long it got to the point that he was such an albatross around the network that he was dragging the entire enterprise down the tubes with him. That's what happens in a train wreck. When one car goes off the rails it tends to drag most of the others off with it and in the end derails the entire system. On the night of the election, Keith Olbermann's antics, along with those of his compatriots involved in the coverage, were in fact akin to a train wreck. If you happened to be driving past, you couldn't help but crane your neck in a perverse need to see the blood. It wasn't a pretty sight. But in reality, this was a long time coming. This last election, with all its implications, insured the need of a sacrificial victim to appease the ratings gods. Keith Olbermann was the obvious victim to place upon that sacrificial altar.
All that being said, I will miss Olbermann, assuming it is true that he will not be coming back. So will many others on the right. One could not help but appreciate the spectacle of Olbermann as the perfect illustration of the kind of thought process employed by the left laid bare for all to see, warts and all, with no pretense of impartiality, or for that matter any kind of rational thought process to speak of. Olbermann was the left, a true personification of all of its nuttiness-ordinarily a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. But in his case, the insanity blazed forth with a kind of perverse pride and demanded not just recognition, but vindication, much like the insane uncle you keep locked up in the attic because you know if he ever gets out, it won't be long before he does the same thing that made you lock him away to begin with.
This has probably been coming for a long time, in reality. NBC was probably just waiting for the right excuse and thanks to Politico, they were able to finally make that break. They had their opportunities at various times in the past. After all, this is a man who, as a journalist, has a tendency to rely on the kind of disreputable sources that make the Weekly World News seem like the Weekly Standard.
Naturally, he was not a real journalist, he was a pundit. And as such, he has always had his proponents, advocates, staunch defenders who will still rally to his cause, and who are in fact supporting him now and demanding he be reinstated.
Maybe they will successfully plead his case and this too will blow over. After all, its pretty obvious that the stated reason for Olbermann's suspension is not a reason, but a mere pretext.
Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that a new day has dawned. If Olbermann does return, what you might well see is the cable news version of a chemical castration.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
The Banking Queen
UPDATE: The Boston Herald Responds, saying "Frank's road rage acceptance speech was an out-of-body experience".
"Sorry, Barney Frank, but you can't be trusted."
So you think you are a victim? What better time to raise hell about it than in the course of your victory speech?
When I saw reports from people on certain blogs insisting that Barney Frank was in trouble, I had a strong idea that they might be getting a little carried away. Actually, a whole hell of a lot carried away, to the point they seemed as though they might be on the verge of becoming modern day berserkers. Unfortunately, their zeal was infectious, and I too started to ponder the impossible, and actually hoped it might be true. I even tried to write the outline of a potential campaign advertisement, probably way too late for it to be produced, and probably far too risque for a New England campaign spot in any event.
I also did a tarot reading for the race, and drew the Seven of Swords. Of course you have to understand, Tarot is subjective as hell. It's neither wrong nor right, its merely a means of focusing the unconscious mind to the discernment of trends and of probable though by no means definite outcomes. Of course, you still have to interpret the card. In this case, the Seven of Swords is a card that entails the need for diplomacy, but in the sense of a low-class, conniving individual who uses his intellect to subvert and to gain by way of cunning tactics and strategy what he could never accomplish by direct, straightforward effort. That describes Barney Frank to a "T". Sure, he's combative in debate or on committee, but that's a different story. His arrogance and combativeness is as much of a diversion, a guise, as much as a spirited defense or assertion of his values, such as they are.
I should have called him as the probable winner, but could not bring myself to do it. That's because I had, like so many others, unrealistic hopes as to Franks imminent political demise.
Well, I was wrong to entertain such hopes, though actually I wasn't wrong enough to think they were valid. In the meantime, I thought I should share a comment I received in response to a comment I made on the socialist blog Thoughtstreaming, from Ducky, who is from Massachusetts and presumably from Frank's district.
Pagan, under Reagan there was a massive upward shift of wealth. Now it's happening again and they are going to do you raw. Get ready, because Rand is going to shove a plank up your ass.
What does Jimmy Carter have to do with this? The fact is that there has not been progressive government in America for quite some time.
I take a little comfort in the election in Massachusetts. Some little ex-marine with a Wharton MBA started talking supply side trash in a race against Barney Frank. Even started on about gerrymandering in Barney's district which made the Glenn Beck show.
This guy Bielat was touted as the Republican renaissance in Massachusetts. Tip of the spear an barney kicked his fucking teeth in. Wiped the floor with him and the entire Republican challenge went down.
Then in his victory speech Frank kept pounding and gave the little fool a history of the district and how the redrawing in the 60's resulted in a Republican rep for a few elections. Then called him a liar and told him he was an ass to think people wanted SS privatized. Leveled him, left him with nothing.
I'd like to see more progressives like that instead of this crop of clowns who invite fucking Rick Warren a bigoted piece of filth to speak at the inauguration. Bipartisan solutions. The good news is that the blue dog dems got absolutely pounded. Mst of their useless asses got kicked to the curb.
Maybe what we have that can still pass for progressive will do the right thing and when the time comes that people like Baby Doc have completely fucked things up they will be able to say we were against this and voted that way, this is what we stand for and we have the voting history to prove it.
It will take a while but it can be done. Meanwhile, for you, it's the Full Ayn Rand and they WILL do you raw.
That is probably an all too typical attitude from a Massachusetts voter toward Frank, and in fact, is a typically partisan attitude. Its the precise reason certain politicians and office-holders will retain their office as though it were ordained from on high, no matter how corrupt or even incompetent they might be in any given case.
In this case, never mind that Barney Frank ran a gay brothel out of his own apartment, one which was very likely set up in order to facilitate blackmail and coercion of closeted influential gays (I refuse to believe a sitting Congressman would run a gay or for that matter any kind of brothel out of his house just to supplement his income, or for simple fun and games).
Never mind that Barney Frank is one of the major architects of the housing bubble and resultant mortgage mess and financial and banking meltdowns.
All that matters is Frank is a progressive politician who wants to raise taxes on the rich and on big business, and is otherwise a reliable supporter and staunch advocate of the progressive agenda. Nothing else matters at all.
That is why it is my staunch hope that when the new House of Representatives is sworn in, there will soon after be a subpoena issued to Barney Frank, and for a good many others as well. They should go over his life with a fine toothed comb, though of course only as it pertains to his political career. They should not, out of the absurd fear of being called homophobic, shy away from investigating his sexual relationships with men who have benefited from his congressional authority and influence.
But mainly, he should be brought to account for his role in the collapse of the banking and housing markets.
This is a right-of-center country which a couple of nights ago took another step just a little farther to the right than usual. They were sent there to, in the oft-repeated phrase that is almost by now a cliche', "drain the swamp".
There are some inhabitants of that swamp who will unfortunately be dispatched in no other manner, but go they must. Barney Frank is one of the ones who must go. If the people of Massachusetts can't see fit to vote him out, then we can simply demand he be investigated, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and at a bare minimum censured by the House.
Hopefully, though, there is a good long prison term in Barney Frank's future. But like everything else in this politically correct and corrupt Washingtonian culture, the people will have to rise up and demand it.
"Sorry, Barney Frank, but you can't be trusted."
So you think you are a victim? What better time to raise hell about it than in the course of your victory speech?
When I saw reports from people on certain blogs insisting that Barney Frank was in trouble, I had a strong idea that they might be getting a little carried away. Actually, a whole hell of a lot carried away, to the point they seemed as though they might be on the verge of becoming modern day berserkers. Unfortunately, their zeal was infectious, and I too started to ponder the impossible, and actually hoped it might be true. I even tried to write the outline of a potential campaign advertisement, probably way too late for it to be produced, and probably far too risque for a New England campaign spot in any event.
I also did a tarot reading for the race, and drew the Seven of Swords. Of course you have to understand, Tarot is subjective as hell. It's neither wrong nor right, its merely a means of focusing the unconscious mind to the discernment of trends and of probable though by no means definite outcomes. Of course, you still have to interpret the card. In this case, the Seven of Swords is a card that entails the need for diplomacy, but in the sense of a low-class, conniving individual who uses his intellect to subvert and to gain by way of cunning tactics and strategy what he could never accomplish by direct, straightforward effort. That describes Barney Frank to a "T". Sure, he's combative in debate or on committee, but that's a different story. His arrogance and combativeness is as much of a diversion, a guise, as much as a spirited defense or assertion of his values, such as they are.
I should have called him as the probable winner, but could not bring myself to do it. That's because I had, like so many others, unrealistic hopes as to Franks imminent political demise.
Well, I was wrong to entertain such hopes, though actually I wasn't wrong enough to think they were valid. In the meantime, I thought I should share a comment I received in response to a comment I made on the socialist blog Thoughtstreaming, from Ducky, who is from Massachusetts and presumably from Frank's district.
Pagan, under Reagan there was a massive upward shift of wealth. Now it's happening again and they are going to do you raw. Get ready, because Rand is going to shove a plank up your ass.
What does Jimmy Carter have to do with this? The fact is that there has not been progressive government in America for quite some time.
I take a little comfort in the election in Massachusetts. Some little ex-marine with a Wharton MBA started talking supply side trash in a race against Barney Frank. Even started on about gerrymandering in Barney's district which made the Glenn Beck show.
This guy Bielat was touted as the Republican renaissance in Massachusetts. Tip of the spear an barney kicked his fucking teeth in. Wiped the floor with him and the entire Republican challenge went down.
Then in his victory speech Frank kept pounding and gave the little fool a history of the district and how the redrawing in the 60's resulted in a Republican rep for a few elections. Then called him a liar and told him he was an ass to think people wanted SS privatized. Leveled him, left him with nothing.
I'd like to see more progressives like that instead of this crop of clowns who invite fucking Rick Warren a bigoted piece of filth to speak at the inauguration. Bipartisan solutions. The good news is that the blue dog dems got absolutely pounded. Mst of their useless asses got kicked to the curb.
Maybe what we have that can still pass for progressive will do the right thing and when the time comes that people like Baby Doc have completely fucked things up they will be able to say we were against this and voted that way, this is what we stand for and we have the voting history to prove it.
It will take a while but it can be done. Meanwhile, for you, it's the Full Ayn Rand and they WILL do you raw.
That is probably an all too typical attitude from a Massachusetts voter toward Frank, and in fact, is a typically partisan attitude. Its the precise reason certain politicians and office-holders will retain their office as though it were ordained from on high, no matter how corrupt or even incompetent they might be in any given case.
In this case, never mind that Barney Frank ran a gay brothel out of his own apartment, one which was very likely set up in order to facilitate blackmail and coercion of closeted influential gays (I refuse to believe a sitting Congressman would run a gay or for that matter any kind of brothel out of his house just to supplement his income, or for simple fun and games).
Never mind that Barney Frank is one of the major architects of the housing bubble and resultant mortgage mess and financial and banking meltdowns.
All that matters is Frank is a progressive politician who wants to raise taxes on the rich and on big business, and is otherwise a reliable supporter and staunch advocate of the progressive agenda. Nothing else matters at all.
That is why it is my staunch hope that when the new House of Representatives is sworn in, there will soon after be a subpoena issued to Barney Frank, and for a good many others as well. They should go over his life with a fine toothed comb, though of course only as it pertains to his political career. They should not, out of the absurd fear of being called homophobic, shy away from investigating his sexual relationships with men who have benefited from his congressional authority and influence.
But mainly, he should be brought to account for his role in the collapse of the banking and housing markets.
This is a right-of-center country which a couple of nights ago took another step just a little farther to the right than usual. They were sent there to, in the oft-repeated phrase that is almost by now a cliche', "drain the swamp".
There are some inhabitants of that swamp who will unfortunately be dispatched in no other manner, but go they must. Barney Frank is one of the ones who must go. If the people of Massachusetts can't see fit to vote him out, then we can simply demand he be investigated, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and at a bare minimum censured by the House.
Hopefully, though, there is a good long prison term in Barney Frank's future. But like everything else in this politically correct and corrupt Washingtonian culture, the people will have to rise up and demand it.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Tarot Reading The Democratic Party, Republican Party, And-The Tea Party!
The first of hopefully many Republican victories has just been called, and I have a new Senator-Rand Paul. So much for the crying I was supposed to be doing tonight, according to somebody who I imagine will be drinking himself to sleep tonight. In the meantime, I'm going to let this be my cue to give my generalized reading, first for the Democratic Party.
Now at first glance, I'll admit this doesn't seem to make much sense in the context of a party of losers, but then again, that's exactly what you have to do, look at it in context. What it means is, a good many Democrats are going to be packing their bags and going off into the sunset. The only bad thing about it is, the implication here is they are going to be enjoying their retirement from public life, and in their private lives they will while away their golden years. I would prefer to see them suffer like they have made so many of the rest of us suffer with their ill-advised, arrogant, and stubborn policies.
But, they are gone, or will be. I'll take that. The other implication might be even better. Many Democrats might well decide to take an early retirement-get out while the getting's good, so to speak-rather than run for re-election two years from now.
That might be more of a strategy like many Democrats actually followed this year. The execrable Chris Dodd of Connecticut comes to mind. Get out and make room for fresh faces that don't hold the same old baggage. But the problem is, they will be carrying precisely the same old baggage of arrogance, elitism, and adherence to the ideology of failed leftist policies.
Democrats won't rest, will never surrender, until they transform America into a European style socialist democracy, and Republicans can't afford to let up for a minute.
As for the GOP-
They need to bear in mind, the American people are not enthralled with them so much as they are just disgusted with Democrats. I remember in 2006, I voted Democratic out of a very naive, borderline retarded belief that enough Blue Dog Democrats would enable the moderate wing of the party to bring it back towards the center.
It wasn't long before I realized that wasn't going to happen, and that I had made a drastic miscalculation. In fact, it wouldn't have made but precious little difference if I had been right in a good many regards. Democrats, even the moderate wing of that party, just have a belief in government as the central force for positive change, and as such, want to give it too much power, over too much of American society. That isn't going to change.
But the Republicans shouldn't take that as a blank check. Show us the plan. But if that plan involves a watered down version of Democrat policies, we'll show you the door as well. It happened to you once. It can and will happen again. We didn't bring you to the dance so you could go off in some dark corner on the upper floors and fuck the maid and then sneak back down and act like everything's peachy.
You know what you were elected for. Do that, and nothing else.
That brings us to the real heroes of this election-the Tea Parties!
We are going to be confronted by the spectacle of people rising to the top with the intention of being the leader of the pack. And certainly, there will be some leaders. Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and a host of others.
What they, and we should remember, is that we aren't really looking for THE ONE! That kind of shit is what Democratic Party wet dreams are made of. We aren't looking for a messiah. We already have our holy writ, as it were, and its called the Constitution. Just like we see it as it is written, unlike Democrats who need to look for hidden meanings behind every article and clause, so we also don't need so much as a leader, but a follower, one who will be our voice, our representative, our expression of fidelity to the founder's document.
Together, we can overcome anything, if we hold fast to those principles, and not let anything divert us from that course.
Now at first glance, I'll admit this doesn't seem to make much sense in the context of a party of losers, but then again, that's exactly what you have to do, look at it in context. What it means is, a good many Democrats are going to be packing their bags and going off into the sunset. The only bad thing about it is, the implication here is they are going to be enjoying their retirement from public life, and in their private lives they will while away their golden years. I would prefer to see them suffer like they have made so many of the rest of us suffer with their ill-advised, arrogant, and stubborn policies.
But, they are gone, or will be. I'll take that. The other implication might be even better. Many Democrats might well decide to take an early retirement-get out while the getting's good, so to speak-rather than run for re-election two years from now.
That might be more of a strategy like many Democrats actually followed this year. The execrable Chris Dodd of Connecticut comes to mind. Get out and make room for fresh faces that don't hold the same old baggage. But the problem is, they will be carrying precisely the same old baggage of arrogance, elitism, and adherence to the ideology of failed leftist policies.
Democrats won't rest, will never surrender, until they transform America into a European style socialist democracy, and Republicans can't afford to let up for a minute.
As for the GOP-
They need to bear in mind, the American people are not enthralled with them so much as they are just disgusted with Democrats. I remember in 2006, I voted Democratic out of a very naive, borderline retarded belief that enough Blue Dog Democrats would enable the moderate wing of the party to bring it back towards the center.
It wasn't long before I realized that wasn't going to happen, and that I had made a drastic miscalculation. In fact, it wouldn't have made but precious little difference if I had been right in a good many regards. Democrats, even the moderate wing of that party, just have a belief in government as the central force for positive change, and as such, want to give it too much power, over too much of American society. That isn't going to change.
But the Republicans shouldn't take that as a blank check. Show us the plan. But if that plan involves a watered down version of Democrat policies, we'll show you the door as well. It happened to you once. It can and will happen again. We didn't bring you to the dance so you could go off in some dark corner on the upper floors and fuck the maid and then sneak back down and act like everything's peachy.
You know what you were elected for. Do that, and nothing else.
That brings us to the real heroes of this election-the Tea Parties!
We are going to be confronted by the spectacle of people rising to the top with the intention of being the leader of the pack. And certainly, there will be some leaders. Jim DeMint, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and a host of others.
What they, and we should remember, is that we aren't really looking for THE ONE! That kind of shit is what Democratic Party wet dreams are made of. We aren't looking for a messiah. We already have our holy writ, as it were, and its called the Constitution. Just like we see it as it is written, unlike Democrats who need to look for hidden meanings behind every article and clause, so we also don't need so much as a leader, but a follower, one who will be our voice, our representative, our expression of fidelity to the founder's document.
Together, we can overcome anything, if we hold fast to those principles, and not let anything divert us from that course.
Oh I'm Such A RAAAAACIIIIIST!
Yo, why would anybody want to vote against the Democrats? Just look here at a sample of some of the great folks who support the Democrats. Bask in their wisdom. Then ask yourself-who could possibly vote against the Democrats and their policies?
Me, that's fucking who?
Me, that's fucking who?
Tarot Reading The Kentucky Senate Race
As Jay Bookman of The Atlanta Journal Constitution might imagine, when Rand Paul wins tonight, I am going to be celebrating. But that doesn't mean I am not going to be watching, and listening, and otherwise paying attention to what he says and more importantly what he does.
Not too long ago, Kentucky's senior Senator, the hopefully soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, made the statement regarding the Tea Party something to the effect that "these people are nuts. They need to be reigned in". That is a paraphrase, but close enough for me to wonder if maybe McConnell as Majority Leader might be such a great idea. He seems to be supportive of Paul, even though Paul defeated his chosen candidate, Secretary of State Trey Grayson, in the GOP primary to replace departing Senator Jim Bunning, who is retiring, and with whom McConnell did not get along.
The Page of Cups in reverse state is a reminder to Paul's supporters, especially in the Tea-Party, that Washington politics is a rough sport, a dirty, nasty, and even a dangerous business. Paul will be pulled and influenced by forces like he could never have imagined, even though his own father has been a long-time Congressman from Texas. Yes, that will help, but word of mouth is only good for so much. You can empathize with a person you see suffering a debilitating wound, but no matter how close you are to that person, you can never appreciate the dire agony they are undergoing until you experience it yourself.
Paul is going to be beset with all manner of proposed deals and compromises. Some he will go along with, and some he hopefully will not. It's up to those of us who put him in there to remember that he is up there to represent us, and when it becomes necessary, to remind him of that fact.
But for now, let's just get ready to celebrate. Yes, Paul will win, and he will win handily, maybe by double digit margins. Thank you, oh wise and beneficent Aqua Buddha.
But really, lest we too forget, the real reason Paul is going to win this thing running away-
Tarot Reading The Nevada Senate Race
Whoops. Does this mean Harry Reid is going to steal the election. There's certainly been all kinds of allegations of voting irregularities involving the unions, especially the SEIU. This card would seem to make that suggestion. But does that necessarily mean it would be a successful effort? If Reid wins, I don't see a clear path to a Republican takeover of the Senate, unless O'Donnell pulls off an upset in Delaware or McMahon pulls one off in Connecticut. Even then, the GOP would also have to win California and Washington, hold Alaska, and win all the other races deemed as toss-up. Granted, in this environment anything is possible.
Its been one nasty race, that's for sure. One newspaper opinion piece even goes so far as to say Nevadans shouldn't show the world they are stupid by voting for Sharon Angle.
That is a typical Democrat ploy. Such arrogant elitism, like Obama stressing that people are voting against Democrats because they are afraid, or confused, or just don't understand or have all the facts, is one reason so many voters can't get to the polls to vote Republican quickly enough. And lately you've got John Kerry saying America is going through a period of "Know-Nothingness".
Well, EXCUUUUUUSE my Fwench but is it ever so slightly possible we know all too well what the fuck is going on, and the problem is, we just don't fucking like it? Of course, what do we know? We are just American citizens, and voters, who don't know enough sometimes to not vote against our own best interests. But sometimes we do know better, and what would be better for us right now would be for the slimy, smarmy Harry Reid to be shown the door and voted out on his ass.
Unfortunately, Harry Reid has a lot of power and influence in Washington, and in Nevada. I don't know exactly how they cast their votes in the state, but hey-what's a few missing ballots here and there? I mean, its not like they would be missed, right?
I Think Fiorina Will Win After All
UPDATE-Yep, I know I called this for Boxer, but on second thought, and this is not JUST wishful thinking, I can see how the card applies to Fiorina emerging victorious. She will be a Republican who ran as a conservative in a bad year for Democrats, trying to represent a state that is overwhelmingly Democratic. As such, if she does win, she will find herself having to thread the needle quite a few times.
Plus, this is going to be a big Republican year, maybe the biggest in recent (and maybe not so recent) memory. It's going to be a tough call to make, but I'm reversing myself here. I do however still maintain that Moonbeam is going to win the governor's race. That might be good for Fiorina. Maybe Moonbeam will provide a sterling example as to why Californians might want to rethink this whole Democrat thing.
-End of Update-
I hate to think this, but I'm calling this for Boxer. I just don't see how Fiorina pulls it out. That's too bad, but the Two Of Swords, reversed, would seem to apply more to Boxer. This is the first real contest she's ever faced-ever, in her life, I am inclined to believe. If she were a Senator from any other state, she would probably be long gone-well, except for New York, Vermont, or Massachusetts. Her arrogance is almost Kennedyesque.
(Video removed due to technical loading problems)
She is nothing, absolutely nothing, but a leftist hack politico. But hacks do have this advantage-they have people who are heavily invested in keeping them in their place, and towing the line. In Boxer's case, that is not only an easy job description to fulfill, its her natural calling.
It might be close, but I think Boxer wins, thanks in part also to Meg Whitman's candidacy for governor dragging Fiorina down.
Tarot Reading The Illinois Senate Race
Yes we can! Vote against the Obama agenda that is. This year, its the Republicans who are "fired up"! Democrats-yeeeah, not so much. Republicans win the Senate, and the governor's race as well. Rahm Emmanuel might not have such an easy time winning that Chicago mayor's race after all. This race in particular is going to be a big embarrassment for "The Won".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)