And It's So Easy Even A Caveman Can Do It.

In the Geico commercial, the pundit interviewer is told by an apparent female sociologist that “we are living in a day when individual ego is predominant.”

The opposing viewpoint is delivered by the caveman, who when invited to reply, says, “yes I have a response. Uuuuu-WHAT?”

Point taken. We are living in an age of hive mentality, and this is especially true when it comes to minority culture, it seems. A perceived or real slight at any one member or segment of a particular society is seen as an assault on the dignity of the entire hive, and no one now is learning this lesson better than is Don Imus, the radio talk show host of the CBS show “Imus In The Morning”, which is simulcast on MSNBC in the mornings Monday through Friday from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.

The “nappy headed hoes”, to borrow the offending Imus quote, of the Rutgers University Scarlet Knights Women’s Basketball team, who just lost to Tennessee in the championship NCAA women’s basketball tournament, certainly have a right to take offense and even to demand the firing of Don Imus, and truthfully, Imus has purposely disturbed enough hornets nests to know better by now. He is currently on a two week suspension from both CBS and MSNBC, and could very well end up being fired for this remark, despite the fact that he actually made them with a degree of admiration. In fact, he personally knows one of the players (who has also nevertheless expressed offense at the statement).

He certainly at least owes them an apology. But does he owe an apology to Al Sharpton, whose radio show Imus voluntarily appeared on? He did so doing as he has done non-stop the last several days, apologizing profusely while maintaining that he is a good person. Sharpton was not impressed, and called forth his own daughter. She stepped forward, whereupon Sharpton informed Imus that she, his daughter, was not a “nappy headed hoe.”

So, is the offending words the observation that the girls are “nappy headed”? Or that they are “hoes”? I could see where the first would apply to Sharpton’s daughter, and perhaps she should have a right to feel insulted at this slang. But I don’t see how the second qualifies as an offense to the daughter of Al Sharpton, unless she knows something her father evidently doesn’t. Unless they are implying that Imus meant that if you are nappy headed, then you must be a ho, especially if you are a college woman’s basketball team player with tattoos. Personally, I don’t think the man meant it that way, nor do I think he really meant it as an insult. I tend to think Don Imus just hasn’t caught on to the fact that he isn’t black.

Like I said, the girls have a right to take serious exception to this, and even they might be taking it hard to some extent for the wrong reason. One of them stated that they worked hard to get to where they got, in their underdog status, to rise to the level of playing in the NCAA championship game, and Imus took away from that sense of accomplishment. Yes, I can see that point. Then, unfortunately, one went on to inform us that they are “the future leaders of tomorrow”.

With that, she almost through what sympathy I initially had out the window. No matter how well you do in life, you’re still just like all the rest of us, just another cog in the wheel of life. You are just as deserving of respect, but no more so, than anybody else. That being said, these young women are certainly more deserving of respect than is implied by the term “ho”, nappy headed or otherwise. But that is true of any non-ho from any branch of society. If she or they think otherwise, maybe their egos needed to be brought down a notch or two. But so too does Don Imus, perhaps.

I just wonder how long the Sharpton’s and Jacksons of the world have been laying for him. Perhaps ever since show producer Bernard MacGurk delivered a scathing satirical “poetry” reading supposedly from Maya Angelou, in which the poetess delivered a tribute to her black ancestors, bemoaning the fact that the white man, “took from you your pride, your dignity-your spears.”

Yes, Imus has long been a raw, edgy, at times over the top show that always pushed the envelope, to use all the standard cliches in one line, but now he might soon be gone. After this week, of course, after he has concluded a telethon to raise money for children’s charities. Then, there are plans for Imus to meet with the Rutgers women’s team. Then, soon, the decision will be made. It don’t look good. Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are sticking to their guns in demanding that Imus be fired, and in the meantime at least one advertiser has threatened to withhold sponsorship, while at least one more is seriously considering taking the same action.

It would certainly save me the trouble of deciding whether or not to return to expanded cable. If they fire him, that would take away my main reason for paying the extra money for it, and certainly for watching MSNBC. But like I said, he’s pretty much brought this on himself. I could moan here and go on about the First Amendment, but really, the First Amendment cuts both ways. Sponsors have a right to withhold support and station owners and broadcasters have a right to respond to that reality, every bit as much as Imus technically has the right to make an ass of himself. In the grand scheme of things the First Amendment is pretty much worth just about as much as the paper it is reproduced on.

Especially when you consider that he has also seriously damaged his credibility as a host who typically can get major political interviews with politicians and presidential candidates, respected journalists, performers, and newsmakers of all stripes. John Edwards has been a frequent guest in the past, as has John McCain. Both of these and others might well be rethinking the wisdom of such appearances now.

Maybe he should just call it off, and bow out gracefully. There is always Sirius, or XM Satellite. After all, a big part of the current controversy stems from the fact that the public networks are in fact federally regulated, in addition to corporate sponsored. The First Amendment still applies, however, it is a true democracy. Unfortunately, what that amounts to these days is a kind of mob rule that fuels and drives a corporate plutocracy, with the rule of law executed by advertising dollars.

Wackjobs Have Rights Too

I never thought I would ever see the day that I would defend the right of uber-bitch Rosie O'Donnell to be a stupid ass, but that's just what I'm doing here. She has now officially joined the ranks of British historian and holocaust denier David Irving and those two little Nazi muppets Lynx and Lamb Gaede, of Prussian Blue, as permanently enshrined members of The Pagan Temple's Twilight Zone. Why?

Submitted for your approval: Rosie O'Donnell, progressive gay feminist activist and child advocate, comedienne, and all around pain in the ass, has come out publicly on ABC's The View with the opinion that 9/11 might well be an inside job designed to ignite support for the "war on terror".

She has further stated that the current dilemna of the British navy and marines personnel, to wit being held hostage by their Iranian captors for supposedly entering Iranian territorial waters, might actually have been purposely set up by Britain to pave the way for an invasion of Iran by the US. We will invade Iran soon, as planned, she promises.

She has made it clear on her blog and on The View, the ABC morning show of which she is a co-hostess, that she is a stalwart Bush basher and is willing to believe the worse about the administration, even to the point that she is wiling to accuse them of potential complicity in the terrorist attacks that caused the deaths of 3000 Americans in one fell swoop.

I've all but torn my hair out in the past at the ignorance of these ridiculous conspiracy theories, but here I find myself on O'Donnell's side, not because I have suddenly and amazingly come to some mystical revelation that she and her conspiracy theory whackjob adherents are right after all, but-

Enter Bill O'Reilly, of Fox New's "The O'Reilly Factor". According to him, Rosie should be fired for perpetuating these conspiracy theories, for the crimes of supporting the government of Iran and standing against her own country, and for causing pain and suffering to the victims of the attacks and those who lost life and limb in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, their families, etc.

Donald Trump of course chimed in saying he too believed O'Donnell should be fired, for pretty much all these same reasons, and presumably for being a fat ugly slob as well.

My response-Why do you hate America, Mr. Trump? Mr. O'Reilly, why do you hate freedumb?

As repugnant as I consider O'Donnell and many if not most of her views, including these reported here,she has as much a right to promote them as anyone has a right to promote any view. As some of O'Reilly's guests intimated to him on the subject, if O'Donnell is fired, it should be because Rosie's presence is demonstrated to have cost the program viewers. O'Reilly insists that it has, though I have heard other claims to the contrary. Perhaps that is why O'Reilly insists the ABC Network should take the step of firing her for her irresponsible behavior.

Sorry, but I consider that the proverbial slippery slope involving one of our most precious freedoms, the First Amendment right to free speech. Granted, it can be abused. You can't or are not supposed to incite violence, purposely engage in slander or libel, or engage in giving aid and comfort to the enemy, for just some examples.

Taken one at a time-in Rosie's surreal world, it is the US and the Bush Administration who is inciting violence, she is trying to do her part to end it.

Slander and libel have to be proven to be purposefully engaged in, otherwise the onus is on Bush and the Administration to disprove the claims.

Actually the true onus is on the American people to recognize bullshit whackjob conspiracy theories when they hear them, but that's a different matter.

As for giving aid and comfort to the enemy, we are technically not at war with a country, but with a radical ideology. Iran may be our enemies in a sense, but not in the legally binding sense of declarations of war. Neither are we at war with Iraq or Afghanistan as those nations are legitimately defined. Until such time as O'Donnell gives verifiable aid and assistance to a specific individual or group of people that are known terrorists, therefore, she is pretty much in the clear.

True, O'Donnell's views might be legitimately viewed as traitorous-but she is not technically a traitor. Some might even hold forth the view that she is a patriot. The point is, when it gets to the point that activists and pundits can demand that a person be removed from their jobs for holding forth views they consider repugnant, where does it end?

Again, I come by this position honestly. I have watched with bemusement and amazement as it has been demanded that people be fired for, for example, stating that blacks are good at certain sports due to the way their ancestors were bred by former slave-owners. Makes sense to me, so why the fuss? Regardless of whether it's right or wrong, does it warrant a person being fired? Nope. Not in my opinion.

Neither should Michael Richards be continuosly tortured for his unfortunate use of "the N word" in a comedy performance. Neither should Mel Gibson be constantly derided for his drunken anti-Semitic tirade every time he is mentioned in public. Neither should an actor from the hit ABC drama "Grey's Anatomy" lose his job over his use of the slang word "faggot" (especially when he used it in the context of denying that he called another performer on the show that derogatory name).

And neither should Rosie O'Donnel be fired,despite the fact that she makes me want to see somebody just slap the living shit out of her sometimes. After all, she would be the first person to take the first opportunity to herself demand that somebody else be punished for saying something that she found offensive.

So yes, it's fine to get some satisfaction out of the prospect of the chickens coming home to roost. But the First Amendment is more important than Rosie O'Donnell,or any of the people I have mentioned in the context of this post.

To me, Rosie O'Donnell is a person with a lot of inner rage that seems to me to approach hatred. Just look at her long enough and you can see what I mean. She might hide it for awhile, but the woman oozes anger and rage all but seeps from her pores. Personally, I think she was molested as a child or teenager by a trusted family member or friend and never came to grips with it. That's one reason why she is so involved with children's issues, and yet, so far as I know, she stays relatively clear of child sex abuse issues. I might be wrong here, if so it would be understandable, as I don't watch Rosie O'Donnell enough to know in great detail what her positions all are. I do know she derided Michael Jackson from time to time, but shit, who hasn't?

Of course the question needs to be asked, why wouldn't she set an example and step forward? Well, remember, Rosie is perhaps most importantly known as a gay activist. For her to step forward and admit to being a victim of incest or some other form of sexual exploitation or molestation would invite questions as to the reasons for her sexuality. And the idea that some people might draw the conclusion that Rosie's lesbianism is based on such a serious psychological trauma as molestation would not be conducive to mainstreaming and acceptance of the gay lifestyle. That would be just too much for her to bear.

As a result, she keeps it hidden within, and the rage builds and builds, until it suddenly erupts, with more and more frequency as the more time passes, it seems. She seems to have a particularly hateful view of authority figures. Or maybe it's just conservative authority figures.

Of course, I could be just as wrong and off base on all this as Rosie is about 9/11, the current Iran hostage crisis, and, well, just about every issue she opens her mouth about. However, I have a right to express my views within reason, and so does she. Yes, I understand that she would probably not be as tolerant of my right to free speech as I am of hers, but what the hell? If ABC fires Rosie it should be solely for the reason that she is causing The Views ratings to go down the tube. No other reason is acceptable, and as such, and until such time, Rosie should stay put, though it would be nice were The View to give equal time to other viewpoints. Again, that's on them too.

So, I guess that's it. To paraphrase the words of the character Jim Halpert from the NBC hit comedy "The Office"-

Congratulations, Universe. You win.

Partisan Hacks-Why I'll Never Be One

Ann Coulter has finally done it. She's succeeded in pissing me off. Well, ok, she done it once before, with her statements about the 9/11 Widows, who, according to her, were the first women she had ever seen "enjoy their husbands deaths so much".

Well, her latest salvo tops even that one. She has now gone way over the top by putting the blame for the recent scandal of the Walter Reed Outpatient Treatment Center-on the Democrats.

Yep, according to Annie, this whole mess would have never come about if only those evil Democrats did not insist on civil service protections for federal employees. Because of this, you see, it's impossible for all practical purposes to fire any government employee, therefore they can merrily draw their pay while doing diddly squat while Building 18 is overrun by rodents and mold gathers on the walls. She even implies that in the event that they were ordered to correct any such problems that might arise, they could just pretty well tell their supervisors to go suck eggs.

She then goes on to remind us that when former Senator Max Cleland, a decorated Vietnam War veteran-and double amputee as a result of his service in that conflict-ran for re-election in 2002, he was accused by the Republican Party of being a terrorist sympathizer for having the temerity to insist that federal employees of the newly created boondoggle-err, Department of Homeland Security-be granted the same civil service protections as all other federal employees.

Those goddamned labor loving Democrats!! Don't they know that federal employees are mere worker ants, and should be fired at the drop of a hat if they don't toe the line and do what the fuck they're told-sort of like federal prosecutors?

Actually, Anne misses the mark, like all partisan hacks do. This ain't the fuck about Democrat versus Republican. It's about the welfare of our fucking veterans. Oh, wait, I'd better not use the word welfare, that might be misconstrued. Anybody with a brain knows the only people that have a right to fucking welfare are multi-national corporations and illegal immigrants.

Ok,then, it's about the well being of our veterans. You know, the people that have been sent to a fucking stupid ass unnecessary war and are in a great many cases returning sans legs, arms, faces, scrotums, and sanity. Yeah, the ones the GOP loves so much yet just can't agree to funding embryonic stem cell research that might cure them. After all, that might prevent the births of multiple thousands of potential "souls" that can then be saved, and then sent to be yet more fucking cannon fodder.

Those are the ones this is about, not the fucking Democrats, not the fucking Republicans. It's about taking care of the ones that are supposed to be taking care of us.

It's not about casting blame, it's about demanding solutions to the red tape and bureaucracy that BOTH parties have encouraged and nurtured over the decades which in turn has resulted all too often in this kind of horseshit.

Baaaaad Anne. Baaaaad Anne.

Vacation Aruba-Paulus Van Der Sloot's Huge Penis

There are many natural scenic wonders on the small Caribbean island of Aruba, just off the coast of Venzuela. Not the least among these is the recently filmed bulge in the slacks of Paulus Van Der Sloot, filmed as he was leaving the islands lone prison in the company of his wife, having gone there for the purpose of visiting their 17 year old son, Joran. He, of course, has been held recently, along with two friends, in connection with the mysterious disappearance of Alabama High School student Natalie Holoway. For a brief time, Paulus himself was detained on suspicion of complicity after the fact in relation to the disappearance, and is still considered a suspect, though no grounds have yet been provided which are sufficient to detain him further. As he and his wife walked from the prison, hand in hand, the camera crew for MSNBC felt compelled to zoom in on Van Der Sloot's crotch, an event which was then aired on the cable networks "Scarborough Country" with Joe Scarborough.

Someone was reported to have said, "Damn, how long has she been in there, thirty minutes, an hour? He must stay happy to see her."

"Nahh, man, he's just hangin' ten," another is reported to have said. "At least"

Afterwards, in a further development which may in part or in whole be related, or may not be, the various media networks have extended their weekly lots in drawing for which anchors, analysts, and news crews will migrate here in the hopes of covering the story of Miss Holloways disappearance, and of hopefully rescuing her if alive, or otherwise retrieving her body for a return home and proper burial. Many are determined to assist in any way possible in uncovering the truth behind the crime, if indeed a crime has been committed. To these ends, they have all joined together, these media outlets from all over the U.S. , and set up camp in Aruba-a beautiful Carribbean island which has long been noted for it's tropical climate and it's balmy ocean breezes, it's endless miles of sandy beaches and surf, an island paradise of which ease and comfort and leisure is matched only by the glamor and excitement of it's nightlife, it's casinos and nightclubs and discotheques, it's first rate food, it's golf courses and tennis courts, and the many beautiful and natural scenic wonders, in a setting noted for it's cleanliness, and unusually low unemployment, poverty, and crime rate.

They have come, and will continually do so, from a variety of outlets, from all the major television networks and 24 hour cable news channels, and possibly, it is rumored, from other cable channels, as diverse as Nikolodeon, Bravo, USA, Animal Planet, and Turner Clasic Movies. The print media as well may end up being fully represented, from such varied outlets as Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, High Times, Playboy, The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, The Christian Science Monitor,and a contingent of some fifty odd cub reporters from the Weekly Reader.

Beth Holoway, the mother of Natalie, (who has by now been missing for about a month to the day since she failed to show up for the return trip home from her unofficial High School Senior trip to Aruba), was heartened at the news of the ever increasing interest of the news media, as were other family members and friends. She hopes that this will turn the tide of the investigation, and lead finally to results. She is certain that young Joran is hiding something, and that Paulus, her father, is involved as well.

One things for certain, Greta Van Sustern, of Fox News Channels "On The Record", plans to follow the story as long as it takes, and seems determined to stay in Aruba until the mission is accomplished, however that might turn out. Some may recall that it was an interview with the elder Van Der Sloot, conducted by Greta in the presence of Mrs. Holoway, that lead to the Dutch nationals temporary incarceration on suspicion of aiding and abetting his son and his friends. Despite the fact that he has now been released, Greta is unwavering in her determination to get to the truth.

"Paulus seems to be trying to hide something", she is reported to have been overheard confiding. " I have this idea that it's huge. I mean, it's just too obvious."

A Vacation Guide To Aruba

I have an idea that all the news reporters and pundits of cable news channels, and other media outlets in addition, have a weekly lot drawing contest every week, probably on a Monday, to see which one will get to go the next week to this beautiful Carribean Island off the coast of Venezuela. Ostensiby in search of a month long missing student from Alabama, more than likely long dead, and in hopes of a media exclusive. Perhaps in the hopes of solving the mystery of who committed the crime, and why. Or, rather, of proving what everybody seems to think they know, as to the guilt of one Joran Van der Sloot, with possible aid after the fact from his father Paulus, a "Judge in Training". All they have done so far is got in the way of the investigation, and frankly, enough is enough. Even the normally fastidious Bill O'Reilley, of Fox Channels "The O'Reilley Factor", has gotten caught up in this ratings bonanza.

They just can't help themselves, probing and prodding, knowing full well that, according to the islands laws, which seem to be modeled after that of The Netherlands, of which Aruba is a protectorate, the police are obliged to keep all pertinent information as regards the investigation secret. Any leaks of any consequence would result in the case being thrown completely out of court. Still, Greta Van Sustern, Bill O'Reilley, Joe Scarborough, etc., etc., keep shooting at the walls of the dyke. And Natalie Holloway's mother, step-father, and other relatives, are encouraged to keep digging, keep probing, until they find the truth. This was understandable at first, as it was beginning to look like the authorities had bungled the investigation, and there might even have been a hint of favoritism going on. And I'm not suggesting that the media should totally back off. But they should moderate their stance somewhat. Otherwise, the girl or her body might never be found. Worse, there may never be a criminal case. Now that would be a bungle of monumental proportions.

Mercury And Autism

It has just recently come out that the CDC may have possibly been involved in helping certain pharmaceutical companies hide the effect of mercury in childhood vaccines. There has recently been a stir caused by rumors that the effects of Mercury may in fact be a contributing factor, possibly the chief if not the only one, in the sudden increase of autism among children, by some estimates as many as one out of every one hundred sixty six children born in the U.S. Also scrambling to protect the pharmaceuticals from any future potential lawsuits is U.S. Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee).

Environmental Attorney Robert F.Kennedy Jr. has been advocating research into this potential, and encouraging further investigations, and has given interviews to Rolling Stone and to Salon.com, which are now available on the Internet. He has run into a string of bad luck, however, in getting any air time on the major media outlets. Appearances by him to discuss this subject have been canceled, by The Today Show, Good Morning America, and others. Equally disturbing is the lack of attention shown to David Kirby, author of the book Evidence Of Harm, which chronicles the use of mercury in vaccines and aerosols, and points to the potential that this may indeed be a contributing factor to a problem that is approaching epidemic proportions. It is as though Kirby and Kennedy both are persona non-gratis. But perhaps the scariest episode involves radio talk show host Don Imus, of Imus In The Morning (WFAN).

He has been pushing this issue, and an investigation of it, whereupon he himself recently became the subject of an investigation by The Wall Street Journal for allegedly misuse of donor funds to The Imus Ranch, a charitable endeavor run by him and his wife Deirdre for the purpose of providing a positive experience for children afflicted with cancer. There proved to be no substance to the allegations, and the investigation was therefore terminated, but the Wall Street Journal refused to print a retraction on it's front pages, where it first ran the story. Imus has intimated, in fact insisted, the entire episode was a sham, and was meant to be a warning to him. Don't mess with the pharmaceutical industry, or else.

It would be easy to dismiss this as a paranoid rant, if it were not for the cancellations of Kennedy's appearances, and the shunning of author David Kirby. Then, there is Chris Matthews who, on an appearance on Imus's show this morning, which is simulcast on MSNBC from 6 a.m. to 9: a.m.,brushed aside any suggestion that he himself might want to cover the promising scandal. And it is easy to see why, when you consider the amount of advertising money invested by the pharmaceutical companies in the television media, that a member of that media might be wary of tackling the issue, fearful of displeasing his corporate bosses. In fact, one wonders if perhaps the word might have all ready been put out. Don't touch this issue.

And, of course, we all know how close the pharmaceutical industry is to the Bush administration. But have they gone so far as to turn the CDC from watch dog to lap dog? It's a scary thought.