Thursday, November 09, 2006
For someone as politically comfortable as I am, the vitriol and hatred was well past my tolerance level a LONG time ago!
I've concluded that this current societ/generation just has absolutly NO clue what it means to sacrifice or wait for ANYthing!
Don't feel well? Take a pill! (Don't give your body the nutrition and rest it needs!)
Too fat? Get liposuction! (Don't work out, run, or exercise... it takes too much time and effort!)
Don't have the money for what you want? Buy it on a credit card! (Don't work hard, and save until you can buy it.. that takes too much time and is a hassle!)
Today on the TODAY show, there was a doctor talking about "Anger illness" believe it or not! It's not a lack of self-control, manners, or any personal fault that a mom beats the hell outta' her kids... it's an ILLNESS! So, take a pill... you'll be alright. No need to learn patience, introspection, or work on your lack of self-control ... just get "treated". Give me a FREEKING flying break!!!!
No wonder we have no patience for the 35 Million Iraqis that are tying to form a strong, Democratic government FROM SCRATCH! It's not that we are reasonable, or even impatient... we have no clue what patience is!
And so, the Democrats rode in on a ripple of Iraqi dissent. (It can't be called a "wave" when it didn't even match the numbers of most historical 6th-year off-election gains) Well, the Americans are just too impatient. We haven't learned things worth attaining are worth fighting for, and worth finishing... not matter how long it takes.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Two things about the reaction to this book strike me in particular -
1) Much has been made of how Ms. Coulter delivers the messages in her book, not the messages themselves.
2) The vast critisizm comes from those who haven't even read the book. (Hey! I suffered through Roger & Me, Bowling For Columbine, and Fahrenheit 9/11, the least you guys could do is read a book or two!) But we'll get to the reactions later....
Ann's premise is simply this - Liberalism is in every way, shape, and form a religion. It is a set system of beliefs, values, and practices. And it is defended by its followers with hysterical and often unreasonable vigor and passion.
Human contact with DDT being fatal is as unverifiable as someone rising from the dead 3 days after being crucified - and yet, the liberals (in an attempt to bring down "Big Business") successfully asserted just that - and won!
Cerebral Palsy isn't caused by vaginal births, yet John Edwards claimed to be channeling the soul of a miscarried baby who told him that had she been c-sectioned out, she would be alive today. A regular snake-charmer we got there.
The church of liberalism has its own priests (educators), saints (Darwin, Scopes, Clinton) and ceremonies (abortion and protest marches) that bring the church together as a community, as well as furthering its belief system to the "infidels" and "unenlightened."
It has chosen spokespeople that (by virtue of having had "personal loss") are unassailable and untouchable from any criticism whatsoever, in effect - making them liberalism's human shields.
In typical liberal fervor, if one is to question Cindy Shitcan's shennanigans with Hugo Chavez, the liberal congregation shouts "her son died, how dare you disagree with her politics"... if the Jersey Gals are criticised for not pointing out the 9-11 commission's whitewash of "Able Danger" the choir leaps to its feat and calls you "meanspirited" for even questioning the wives of 9-11 victims.
Point-by-point and instance-by-instance Ann Coulter exposes the beliefs, values, and practices of the new liberal religion (Her book is chock-full of references, by the way). And, as with other religions, Liberalism's attempts to undermine and invalidate (from evolution to abortion to sex education) the beliefs, values, and practices of every other religion, particularly Judeo-Christian-Diest beliefs. (These, incidentially are the beliefs this country was founded upon, and that 80% of Americans still hold as "dear." )
But for the church of liberalism, there can be no other religion, and so all others must be maligned, undercut, and scoffed-at, and eventually destroyed (or made irrelevant -which has already happened.) Coulter chronicles these attacks clearly and suscinctly; rarely did I find the reading dry or "slow."
In GodlessAnn Coulter has accurately identified the un-named 300 pound gorilla in the room - Liberalism is indeed a religion. The fact that she did it in a particularaly un-sweetened or harsh way takes nothing away from the message itself.
Monday, June 19, 2006
A good friend of mine served in Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan campaign, for those that listen to NPR). He returned, and now his unit is rotating over to Bagdhad. He an I had a long discussion about his ongoing bout with PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for those who get their news from CNN)
What exacerbates ("makes worse" for those who went to liberal schools) his stress and problems is the two-faced crap that some Americans are giving him about "we support the troops, but the war is a lie."
When he was in Kabul, he saw the positive effect our incurrision had on the country, the people, and the region. Children hugging our troops, mothers thanking him and praising the US for intervening. Friends I have that served in Operation Iraqi Freedom return saying the exact same thing - 35 million Iraqi's love us, and we're pissing off 20,000 people that want a return of the Ba'athists or are supporting a Taliban-style Caliphate.
Our troops in theatre see the schools and hospitals being built, see women going to school, voting, and even holding political office. Our troops over there KNOW what we are doing is right, just, and for the betterment of the region and the world. Then they get back here and they are told their friends "died for a lie", that the war is "wrong" and that they weren't liberators but pawns of a greedy oil-hungry administration. Then they hear "but we support the troops."
It the same as saying "I love my wife, but marriage is a farce, an abomination to the natural order of things, and a complete sham." If you were a wife, how would you feel if your husband said that?
There was PTSD in WWII, my father had it, and years after the war, he still woke up with nightmares - one resulted in him hanging out an 8-story hotel window because he was dreaming a Japanese prisoner had escaped out the porthole of his ship.
But the troops truly felt supported by the American public. People didn't negate the good they had done by focusing on the 200,000 that died in the firebombing of Tokyo or the 60,000 that died in the bombing of Dresden.
It's time we faced our own responsibililty in making our troops lives WORSE by focusing on 7 people (out of 160,000) who abused their authority at Abu Graib, and by not recognizing the truly beneficial changes that are taking place because of the hardwork, the sacrifice, and the bavery of our men and women in uniform.
Either way, stop being two faced and saying "I support our troops.... BUT....." 'cause if you do, you're just a lying hypocritical sack of dung contributing to the PTSD of many brave men and women.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Some redneck in Arizona hates the illegal immigrants
A Klansman hates the blacks, Jews, and Catholics
Hitler hated the Jews
Malcom X hated whitie
You hate smokers
You Hate George W. Bush
Are you proud of the company you are keeping? Don't you realize that hatred - ANY hatred - is a self-destroying entity that like acid eats away at your happiness and joy in life?
Do you REALLY want to be in the same company as Hitler, Klansmen, and Facists?
Your point might be valid and certainly worth discussing, and I am utterly open to discussion and debating facts and opinions. But I see so many people consumed by the dark hatred that must sit like smoker's tar upon your hearts.
I might disagree with what you have to say, but will fight to the death your right to say it... and will never make myself the indentured slave of hatred and evil because of WHAT you might say.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
So the "Let's call it anything but amnesty" bill has hit a major road bump!
First off, let me explain that I understand President Bush's desire for a "guest worker" program... regardless of the rhetoric, I believe there is an unmentioned and unspoken reasoning behind this, essentially that it's better to have a documented alien within our borders than an undocumented one. Of course, the Administration can't say as much, because that would tip a homeland security hand (which unlike the timetable Democraps - Republicans believe in playing our security cards close to the vest.)
So President Bush wants to know exactly WHO is within our borders - legal or not. This is a fair enough concern. However, the libtards such as U-boat commander Teddy Kennedy have taken the guest worker idea and tried to make it a free for all amnesty for all illegals. (Teddy can't be blamed, afterall, the Kennedy family is notorious for thinking that laws are nothing more than obstructions to having a good time... inconvenient and best ignored)
The fact is, there are 11 million people within our borders who feel they don't need to play by the rules and don't need to obey the laws (And that's NOT including the Kennedy and Clinton families!) One can NOT become a productive and loyal American if their "citizenship" is the result of an initial illegal act. "I'm gunna' be a good American once I stop spitting in the eye of every legal emigrant that got here on the up-and-up." It's like a woman expecting a healthy marriage to a man with whom she had an extramarital affair - if the relationship was originally based upon lies and deciet, how does one expect truth and honesty to suddenly blossom? It just ain't gunna' happen!
Side note - Isn't ANYONE upset by the fact that there are 11 MILLION individuals in the United States that don't have to register for Selective Service? They get all our benefits, but face NO possiblity of having to defend our country?
The fact is, the United States Constitution was written for the benefit and protections of American CITIZENS... NOT every Tom, Jose, and Miguel in the world. ILLEGAL ALIENS are not protected by ANY of the documents so cherished by Americans... namely the Bill of Rights.
If an ILLEGAL alien is arrested we have NO OBLIGATION to afford them a trial by jury, a speedy trial, an attorney who speaks Spanish, a right to face their accuser, a right to non-self-incrimination. Even that clause against "cruel and unusual punishment" DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM!
If they want those protections, then by God, they will just have to wait in line and become an American like everybody else!
Another side note - How much money do we spend for courtroom translators and multilingual - strike that! - BI-lingual ballots, notices, signs etc.... Here in Denver there are more native-language Russians than Hispanics (linguistically speaking) - why no translators and ballots for THEM?
So, the solution? Make America what it once was - inviting to the entire world.... but NOT to those who would enter illegally!
You get caught in America without a visa or green card? Oh! So sorry, it might take a year, or 5, or 15 before the docket frees up enough to hear your case. An Attorney? Not unless you can afford one, bub!
No Habla Englais? Chupa mi pito
The ONLY way we will stop the flow of ILLEGALS into the US is to make the idea of getting caught so dreadful, that it's not worth the risk, and Yes! that will take care of the 11 million here as well.
Si usted puede leer esto, ¡Hogar de vuelta!
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
The statement "Liberals don't have kids" may seem like a request from your humble neo-con, but it's actually a statement of fact (according to USAToday).
Now, I've often joked in chat rooms that between their love of abortion and homosexuality, liberals are bound to disappear off the face of the earth through attrition alone, I didn't take into account the accelerating nature of their world-view and self-centeredness.
A liberal is an individual who is completely ME oriented. This may seem like a misnomer, after all, isn't it the liberal who wants to save the rainforests because they are concerned about the world? Isn't it the liberal who doesn't want to harm the children with second hand smoke? Isn't it the liberal who promotes minimum wage 'cause they are thinking of those poor working class folks? Isn't it the liberal who fights for affirmative action so minority students can get into Harvard?
Well, it's liberals who do those things, yes, but not for the reasons stated. Those are their clarion calls, granted, and that's what rationalization they will use, yes. But liberals are also delusional.
Liberals support affirmative action because they think Blacks, women, and Hispanics are just too stupid to get into Harvard without their help.
They support minimum wages because it makes them feel good to be attacking business owners and "helping out" the "little guy." The little guy.... how condecending can you get? It's not because they think someone who isn't working hard enough for 10 bucks an hour deserves to get paid more than his worth, it's because it makes THEM (the do-gooder-liberal) FEEL GOOD.
Liberals are ALL about making THEMSELVES feel good. Do you have any idea how many Kerry/Edwards stickers I see on the backs of cars that "flip the bird", make-fun-of, or chastise some guy on a street corner with a sign? They are loving and compassionate as long as you think they way they do, and as long as they are getting credit for being a "do-gooder." Wanna' see some true judgemental hatred? Light up a ciggarette in Boulder, Colorado! So much for compassion towards others.
So, given the fact that liberals are all about themselves, and making themselves feel good, why should it be a surprise that they don't want kids? Being a parent is about sacraficing one's self for another. When they are first born, children demand your sleep time for feedings. They demand money. They demand watching-after. They demand energy, attention, teaching, guidance, and a HUGE investment of time. A liberal is NEVER gunna' spend that much time on someone else! And the greatest deterent - after all that sweat, those tears, and that time spent - the child will leave and be self sufficient. This, NO LIBERAL can abide! Independence? Autonomy? A liberal expects any investment to be quid-pro-quo. "I raised you, so you are indebted to me for the rest of my life!"
Errily similar to their attitude regarding government, isn't it?
Liberals need dependence in order to live. They must be dependent on the government, and their kids must be dependent on them. Furthermore, liberals are relient on being GIVEN things, not giving with no outlook of return (which is what being a parent is ALL about!) So, having kids is not even in the realm of desireable situations for a liberal.
- Saddamites - Ba'athists and other Saddam loyalists intent on wreaking havok because they are no longer a minority with absolute power.
- Extreme Islamofacists - those who don't like the idea of democracy, who want Iraq to be an Islamic State similar to their neighbor, Iran
- Terrorists - Al Queda and other terrorist groups that hate anything Western. They are in Iraq because it's easier than flying to New York and they can try to kill Americans in their own backyard.
Now, a geography lesson (and not the kind you get at Gateway High School, thank God!)
Iraq has a population of approximately 35 Million individuals - Men, women, and children.
-end of geography lesson -
To make the math easier, let's say there are 20 thousand individuals causing problems in the entire country of Iraq. We'll ignore for the moment that 13 of the 18 Iraqi provinces are entirely peaceful, are secured by solely Iraqi troops and cops, and are not in anyway involved with this "civil war." - Yes, we'll ignore those facts for sake of argument.
So, where is this civil war the press is talking about? It's certainly not in Al Basrah, Dahuk, Ninawa, Arbil, Kirkuk, AsSulaymaniyah, Al Muthanna, or in any of six other provinces.
Civil War denotes a war in which a country is fighting itself. This "war" we are seeing is essentially 20,000 vs. 35 million, HARDLY a "civil war." The trouble makers are not even one percent of the population, not even one percent of one percent.... in short
Monday, March 13, 2006
The only difference? We now have an ally that may think twice the next time they arrest an Al Queda suspect, an ally that might hesitate to permit our use of their airspace, an ally that might be a bit less vigilant when our ships are docked in Dubai.
Nice job! Well done! Bravo! With idiots like you protecting us, who needs Bin Laden?
Friday, March 10, 2006
God Bless you, Prages!
The Academy Award speech we should have heard
By Dennis Prager
Here's a speech we would like to hear from an Academy Award winner:
I thank you for this wonderful award. Receiving an Academy Award gives the recipient an almost unique opportunity to speak to hundreds of millions people around the world, so I would like take this once-in-a-lifetime moment to say this: First, I want to thank my country, the United States of America. Every one of us here has this country to thank for enabling us to live lives of unprecedented freedom and unimaginable affluence. Too many of us forget that no other country in history has offered such opportunities to people in our profession or in any other profession, for that matter. Second, I want to thank the men and women of the armed forces of the United States. While we bask in freedom and spend a good part of our lives going from party to party and award show to award show, tens of thousands of my fellow Americans are confronting a menace to our world as great as that fought by previous generations fighting Nazism and communism. At the same time, I also want to apologize to these troops for my profession not having made even one motion picture about any of the heroic American fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. This country is fighting a war, Hollywood. You may think this war is unwise, waged under mistaken, or even false, pretenses. And as an actor in Hollywood, you are overwhelmingly likely to hate this commander in chief. But even the men and women of Hollywood must recognize that America is fighting the worst people of our time, people who hurt every group Hollywood claims to care about -- minorities, women, gays -- people who engage in the sins Hollywood most professes to oppose -- intolerance and violence -- far more than anyone else on the planet. In another era, when what many have labeled "the greatest generation" fought the German Nazis and the Japanese fascists, Hollywood made movie after movie depicting that great war and our great warriors. And Hollywood showed freedom's enemies as the cruel and vicious people they were. We have not produced one film yet depicting this war in positive terms or one depicting this generation's enemies of freedom as the cruel and vicious people they are. In fact, the only nominated film about people who slaughter children at discos, blow up weddings, and bomb pizzerias and buses filled with men, women and children is one that attempts to show these murderers in God's name as complex human beings. Just imagine how the Academy would have reacted 60 years ago to a film depicting Nazi murderers as complex human beings. We have descended far. We in Hollywood walk around thinking we are very important. That is why this year's nominated films for best picture are largely pictures with messages, pictures that relatively few people actually see. But although Hollywood was always concerned with politics, we have let ourselves be taken over by those for whom their message is more significant than the primary purposes of film -- to illuminate life and to entertain. Yes, entertain. You know, entertainment is actually a noble pursuit. Life is difficult for almost every human being on earth. And if we can offer people an elevated way to divert their attention for a couple of hours from their troubled child, their marital tensions, their ill parent, their financial woes, we have rendered the world a greater service than by making another message-film against racism in America, the least racist country in the world. My fellow actors, we walk around feeling that we are very important. But we do so only because we confuse fame with significance. We do have more fame than any other human beings in history. Far more people have heard of any actor here tonight than of any of the discoverers of any medication saving billions of lives, of any teacher of the disabled, of any nurse tending the aged, of almost any national leader. But the truth is that, as noble a calling as acting can be, all we do is make-believe: We portray other people, and we speak words written by other people. Everyone knows our names, but almost no one knows us. All they know are the characters we play. Thank you again. I hope I haven't ruined your evening.
Thanks again to you, Mr. Prager!
The longer this situation played out and the more people learned about it, the more secure people were feeling about it. People were learning just HOW much the UAE has helped us in the war on terror, just HOW little first-hand control the Emerites would have on port seurity (namely - NONE), and they were learning that even Clinton gave ownership of California ports to the Chinese Communists. So the longer this played out, the better it looked for GW Bush.
NOW... JUST FOR POLITICAL GAIN, the Democrats want to short circuit the entire process.
What was the 45 day review process for, that they DEMANDED?
Did they finally realize that 45 days of review would make them look like the opportunistic, self-important, ignorant fools that they truly are? Of course they did. And so, in order to save their political butts (and I include the disenting Republicans here), they insult one of the FEW Arab friends we have in the region just to save their own political face.
Integrity, honor, and loyalty are now officially unwlecome in Washington DC, all that remains is the vitriolic hatred and CYOA attitude of demegogues who care NOTHING for ANYTHING except getting re-elected.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Now, if it was a private company from Yeman I'd probably be right there with ya' on condemning it. But this is the UAE ferchrissake!
Most Bush-haters attack the President for being TOO vigorous in the War on Terror... now they think he doesn't give a damn about security????? Get real! 12 Government agencies approved the arrangement before it was even brought to the President's attention. Add to that the extended provisions, regulations, and restrictions written into THIS agreement that MOST countries don't have to abide-by, and you have a very secure arrangements (particularly the arrangement that all dock workers and employees have to be American citizens).
Now for a few things you may not have thought of......
- The UAE has 10% of the world's oil reserves and is NOT a member of OPEC. Hmmmmmm.
- When the US wanted to start putting customs agents, and inspectors in FOREIGN ports to inspect ships before they leave to come to America, the UAE was the FIRST to agree to the arrangement. Can you imagine Iran allowing us to inspect freight coming to America before it left Shaid Rajai? I seriously doubt it!
- We have painfully few Arab Allies in the Middle East right now... Kuwait and the UAE being the closest to us. Saudi and Jordan are suspect but allies nevertheless - and Iraq and Afghanistan are still finding their footing as atonomous states. So those who want to kill this deal have no specific reason to refuse the deal except bigotry against "towelheads" in general. And they are risking one of the FEW alliances we have in the region in doing so.
- Dubai Ports World is a multi-BILLION dollar company, and if ANYTHING should happen in a United States port under their control, the entire company would collapse. Now, I can understand that some lost individuals might give up what little life they have in a suicide attack, but noone is gunna' sacrifice a multibillion industry by allowing some radical to use their connections to further terrorism. In short, DPW has probably MORE incentive to make sure nothing goes wrong at their ports than anyone! They don't want their industry to go down the drain because of some stupid mistake or by something slipping into America through their berths!
DailyKos has an interesting take on this whole matter as well. ( I HONESTLY never thought I'd be linking to HIS blog...lol)
Saturday, February 18, 2006
What was it that made the Rat Pack such a must-see show and something that can never TRULY be replicated?
Here is my humble theory. As a performer of 30+ years since I first started in musical comedy, I've met countless singers, dancers, and entertainers. Theatre, bands, movie sets (Die Hard II and Ford Fairlane), television shows (Fr. Dowling and Diagnosis Murder), Vegas Casinos, headliners, overseas and national tours... I've really spent some extensive time in all the various fields of entertainment short of animation.
So I've met a vast range of eclectic entertainers and come to this conclusion:
There are three reasons individuals get into the entertainment business
- 1) Self Gratification
- 2) Selfless Gratification
- 3) Love for the art
You can delve into the individual psychosis and circumstances of each individual, but they will ALL boil down to one of these three roots.
The self gratification class is by far the most common!
"Look at me I'm wonderful! Shoobe doobe wahhh I'm not a bit like you-Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band
or you, I'm a super showbiz star. You will buy my records so I can say in
my own humble way...."
All Divas (Streisand, Placido Dimingo...) - The self-centered egomaniacal "$#&@ don't stink" superstars fit into this group. They are concerned about their appearance, that they are treated according to their lofty position, and are usually TERRIBLE tippers to waitstaff. They live for the applause and adulation - finding ratification for their own existence in the worship of sycophants and groupies. The world owes them something because of their incredible gifts and you should act accordingly in their presence. Personal experience - Leslie Gore, and the current form of The Platters fit into this mold. From my brief meeting with Jerry Lee Lewis, I am compelled to include him as well as MANY members of the "Memphis Mafia."
The selfless gratification group includes those who would stand on their head and burp the national anthem if it would please the audience. Okay, most have too much class for that. But the point is; they are on stage to bring a few moments of joy, laughter, happiness and good feelings to the audience. To them, it's about giving (to the audience) - not getting (applause). Few entertainers fit this mold, but they usually give everything at a show, walk off exhausted physically and emotionally, and are somewhat embarrassed by applause and adulation. Elvis certainly fit this mold, and I would imagine (though I have not met the gentleman) Pavarotti does as well. Personal experience - Chubby Checker, Peter Noone, Freddy Cannon, The Temptation and 4 Tops, and Bruce Willis.
The third is the true "artist." He/she lives, breathes, and works for the art. They want to hit that note PERFECTLY because the song is worthy of their best effort. They want to make the perfect turn or snap because the dance is the communication, and anything less would cheapen the message. They strive for perfection... period. They probably don't hear the applause because they are caught in a trance-like state of trying to become one with the music, the dance, or the art. They would be as intense in their effort with an audience of 10, or 10,000 because it's not about who's watching any more than it's about the artist... it's about the art. They are an instrument... nothing more than a guitar, a cello, or a paintbrush.... it is their duty to be the best tool they can possibly be. I have met only one such individual and that would be Prince.
As far as any other celebrities, you can ponder for yourself and make your own assumptions which category into which they best fit.
Now... how does this deal with the Rat Pack? In the trio of Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, and Sammy Davis Jr. you have one from each category.
Frank is the divo - the narcissistic center of attention and the one who demands the respect and position. He is a showoff... a talented, playful, and warm hearted showoff... but undeniably the showoff. When you hear a Sinatra song do you even KNOW what the story is that he's telling? Of course not! You're not listening to the song... you are listening to Sinatra. I would guess that most Britney era pop stars are the same way, for the sole reason that their songs leave me with the same empty feeing (but that's my personal preference showing)
Dean (who never drank alcohol on stage - preferring apple juice) played the boozing drunk - why? - because it made the audience laugh. His singing (like Elvis') goes straight to the heart of the listener. He sang FOR us... not TO us. Every note and every action on stage was made for the listener/viewer NOT to garner applause. When you hear him sing a love song you feel the adoration or the longing in the words. This is his gift to you. Although I don't listen to much rap music, if I did I would probably find this same honesty in most of their presentations as well. I know I hear it in Eminem's "Mockingbird." And lastly....
Sammy... hands down the most talented and able of the three... he could dance like a whirling mix of Gene Kelly and Michael Jackson... he could sing like a bird or a howling coyote (depending on what the song called for), and could play any number of instruments fluently. Watch him when he's conversing with the audience... it's a real task for him. But when he's performing, he's somewhere else completely! He's lost in the rhythm and the composition and the moves... it takes an effort for him to come back to Earth. He is the artist.
So just as some women prefer brute Neandertal men and some prefer geeks... audiences have a preference in these three categories as well. In opera there are those that like the pompous confidence that is exuded by Placido Domingo. Some prefer the honesty in Luciano Pavarotti's voice... to each their own.
In the Rat Pack ... you have one for each, and when they mix it up between songs, not unlike having a "little Jewish black kid" on stage with two terribly white gumbahs in an era of segregation... having one each of the three types of entertainers on stage together shows the ultimate in integration... and that the whole is truly greater than the sum of its parts!
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
"Why don't you just report the news instead of reporting possible news?"
BINGO! Even though I'm not the greatest fan of the Old Guard Rockefeller Republicans, this is the kinda' reaction that illustrates Sec. Rumsfeld is now firmly in the fold of the Reagan/GW Renaissance Republican wing.
I'll hafta' write a whole blog entry on the different definitions of "Old Guard", "NeoCons", and "Reagan Republicans" - or in my words a "Renaissance Republican."... .later
But I think it boils down to this... for those who think there is some great black cloak shadow government with this current administration, I present to you this fact:
***** The members of this administration (Particularly Sec. Rumsfeld) are often chastised for speaking their mind, as Rummy did today. An underhanded, nefarious government would be more smooth than that. If you are trying to "sneak something by" the American people, you would have to be very slick in order to "sucker" the people. This Administration is anything but slick. The mental gymnastics required to speak so passionately about freedom, patriotism, and altruistic motives while actually being an evil power-grabbing, dictatorial group of thugs is not in the realm of possibility with these folks. They are just not that crafty! It goes beyond just having two faces. In order to be successfully duplicitious, one needs to be in charge of their faculties to the extent of a professional actor. Heck! Even professional actors like George Cloony who spend 24 hours a day immersed in the craft of acting can't master it! And the Bush haters expect us to believe that Bush has all the acting ability of Laurence Oliver, Cheney is as adept as James Dean, Rumsfeld is the next Humphrey Bogart... Sorry, guys .... they are just not that talented in the field of legerdemain.
In this sense, Bushisms actually reassure me! They reassure me that GW and his administration aren't pulling the wool over my eyes. Perhaps it's because I, too, am from the west where a plain spoken gent is valued INFINATELY over some slick east coast salesman who has got all the patter down and the perfect words at their fingertips.
Ladies, if you are out on a first date and the guy your with is just sooooooooooo perfect.... perfect car, perfect hair, says just the right thing at the right time, wears the most stylish clothes.... and is just flawless. You may get temporarily caught up in the "perfectness" of it all .... but don't you start wondering ... and worrying.... when the other shoe is gunna' fall? Don't those questions about skeletons in the closet start rising? "Why is he trying so hard to be perfect?" "What he compensating for... and hiding.. beneath this perfect facade?"
Well, I think I can safely say that a "perfect facade" is not exactly an arrow in GW Bush's quiver.
Friday, January 20, 2006
Someone is actually talking about how there are "racial overtones" in King Kong! Actually, it's not just "somebody"... it's Newsday and USAToday columnist Sheryl McCarthy.
The premise is this ... enormous big black ape falls for young, pale, blonde woman.
PRESTO! It's a commentary on black men seducing white women.
HUH? What?? Where did ya' get that? Run that by me again?!?!?!? Are you KIDDING me ??? Then what is The Phantom of the Opera about? Disabled or deformed white guys get their kicks playing "father figure" to young girls?? Good luck finding something in Creature from the Black Lagoon. Now, I have no idea if Ms. McCarthy is black, white, polka-dotted, European or Venusian.... and I really don't care. What I do know is that she's an idiot... regardless of race, creed, or color.
GIVE IT A REST, People! The race card is NOT applicable in all cases, and looking to interject "racial overtones" where there are none only makes YOU (the "enlightened observer") look like an idiot.
King Kong is a classic retelling of the fable "Beauty and the Beast"... hmmmm maybe she thinks that Beauty and the Beast has racial overtones... I'm sure we could ruminate on plenty of insane "parallels" and innuendos THERE! Good grief! We, as a society will never get to an altruistic "color blindness" if people are finding "bigotry" where there is none!
-Someone might want to pass this note onto Senator Teddy Kennedy while you're at it.-
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'd bet money the heretofore unknown (to me) Ms McCarthy is a well established liberal. Heaven knows, if a conservative drew a parallel between an ape and a black man he/she would be lynched, tarred and feathered... drawn and quartered, and featured for 2 weeks straight on Hardball.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Granted, some are comparing it to Nixon, however the spying on terrorists wanting to do harm to you and me - and the spying on political opponents is VASTLY different!
If GW was spying on Michael Moore-on or George Soros, I would be as up in arms as anyone... but spying on known Al Queda members or associates?? C'MON!
In fact, the only ones seemingly bent out of shape over all this are the media, the Democrats, and the ACLU.... hmmmmmmm... perhaps they've been calling Afghanistan lately.... do THEY have something to hide??????
Friday, January 13, 2006
Maybe you don't know what I mean by a "professional politico", so let me paint a picture first.... chances are they claim to be from a particular state... but the truth is they are more at home within the District of Columbia than Pope Benedict is at St. Peter's. If you attempt to be so presumptuous as to discuss politics with them, a pall drops over their face, they get this smirk and non-verbally say "Oh! How cute! This simpleton from a fly-over state is trying to talk about politics... isn't that just precious? I best nod and appear concerned, after all... it's a potential vote."
Of course, since they come from DC, they don't have the integrity to say it out loud, so they do their best to cover an overflowing sense of contempt and condescending arrogance. But only the true masters like Bill Clinton can accomplish this successfully without giving away the loathing within. For the record, Ken Salazar has a GREAT DEAL of learning to do in this arena. They will respond to you in answers learned by rote and entirely vented and politically correct. I've found one of the easiest ways to identify a "ProPol" is to measure just how glib and spontaneous these responses sound. In short, however, you will be talked down to for a period of 2.5 seconds through brilliant white teeth and an all-too-Cheshire like smile. For the most part, you walk away feeling embarrassed, very humbled, and a growing sense that maybe the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Carlyle Group, the Rockefellers or some other shadow government really DOES control Washington D.C. After all... why would someone like you - a fairly well read, informed, and passionate individual with a true love of American civics and history be so summarily dismissed as a "know-nothing."
Another dead giveaway of a ProPol is the impassionate, cold, and unflappable "businesslike" demeanor. Like David Gergan they don't seem to have a passion for one party or another, one ideology or another... they are a corporate cog whoring themselves out to their particular party out of convenience or career-path-of-greatest-potential. (see: Alec Newbery in "St. Elmo's Fire") To them, government is nothing more a chess game involving competing poll numbers, sound bites, and pawns called "voters." IT'S ALL calculations and mathematics... x-number of votes here, subtract y and multiply by pi divided by the number of likely voters.... gives you the outcome. Don't refer to Jefferson, Monroe, or Henry Clay unless it directly effects the equation. They're nothing more than old dead guys and only useful if repeating their quotes can attract a demographic voter bloc and gain you more pawns in your game.
I am left with the distinct impression that to their way of thinking:
A citizen is NOT important in any shape or form except that they can give you a vote, in which case they are called a "voter." "Voter" is actually Washingtonese for "ignorant pawn that is used to obtain victory."
"A citizen is not the basis of this country as Thomas Jefferson so naively dreamed. A citizen is an ignorant, malleable, foolish variable. If you believe that this is a country based upon the ingenuity, the passion, the imagination and hard work of free individuals, of citizens, then you best wake up, son! 'Cause you're deluded into thinking your opinion matters and your hard work is significant."
"Leave the governing to us, you're not qualified."
And this is from the REPUBLICAN ProPol's I've met!
So give me a moment in my frustration to point out the greatest flaws in the Republican Party of 2006 as I see them.
1. A party run by ProPols, not unlike those described above. Our leaders need to pay heed to Newt Gingrinch's passion for the individual American citizen. The value he (like Jefferson) placed in the "American" rather than one voter bloc or another.
2. Didn't ANYONE teach these supposedly learned men how to identify a fallacy in an argument, call it for what it is, and address the TURE issue at hand?
3. Allowing the Democrats to frame the debate. A perfect example is the Valerie Plame "outing." Scooter Libby was a whistle blower - pointing out that Joe Wilson was terribly unqualified for the trip to Niger and only got that paid vacation through familial contacts. THAT is where the debate should have been. Instead, through their silence and "taking the bait" to discuss whether Valerie Plame was "outed" out of vengeance... they completely missed the debate that SHOULD have been discussed... Joe Wilson should never have gone on that trip in the first place. Another example? During the impeachment of Bubba Clinton Republicans allowed the phrase of the moment to be "high crimes and misdemeanors" as pushed by the Democrats. Did anyone ONCE mention "ethical"? What Clinton did was HIGHLY unethical! Prove the lack of ethics and you've proven a "misdemeanor." By not framing the discussion, the GOP was left with splitting hairs on legal definitions.
False Premise: "The Clinton impeachment was all about
sex, sex, sex." No, it was about sexual harassment, lying to a grand jury,
and obstruction of justice.
Ad hominem: "Bush mispronounces 'nuclear' and constantly speaks
malapropisms, so he's an idiot" No, many great men in history have been
brilliant, but poor public speakers
Appeal to Anonymous Authority: "Experts say Bush stole the 2000 election" No, actually the Washington Post concluded that Gore would only have won had one UNASKED FOR recount taken place. The four recount methods used ALL would have awarded the election to GW Bush in varying degrees.
Fallacy Of The Crucial Experiment: "There were no WMD's in Iraq." As I
have pointed out in a previous post, over 20 MIG fighters were found buried in
the Iraqi sand. There is NO proof that 35-gallon drums of VX or Sarin
chemicals are not similarly buried in the sand.
There are so many more examples... but since the GOP can't identify the most obvious, there seems to be little point in going further
4. Hey, guys! It's the DEMOCRAT Party, NOT the DEMOCRATIC party. By letting THIS slip a few hundred times a day, you are allowing an Orwellian rewrite to subtly tell Americans that the Democrats are democratic... which is a laughable concept. Repeat something enough times... and soon people will associate the democratic elections in Iraq with the Democrats. Again, laughable.
5.The biggest difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party? Democrats place loyalty above ethics. Republicans have to look up the word "loyalty" in the dictionary. Don't believe me? The only reason Clinton wasn't convicted during the impeachment was that Democrats were willing to ignore the unethical actions and vote their loyalty over their morals. Loyalty on the side of the GOP? Ask Gingrich, Lott, Nunn, and now Delay. Most Republicans don't "eat their own" any more, they just cut them loose and let the sharks have 'em. McCain, however still eats other Republicans.
6. Doesn't ANYONE in the Republican Party remember the 11th Commandment?
7. Identify Democrat hypocrisy just ONCE! Please! John Kerry was a "war hero" and Bob Dole WASN'T? George Bush Sr. WASN'T? For 8 years the Dems praised a draft dodger as the 2nd coming (no pun intended) and then in 2004 "War Hero" meant something to them? I never ONCE heard this hypocrisy called out for what it was. Nor have I heard ONE Republican mention that those who are saying Judge Alito "should respect precedent" re: Roe v. Wade - are the SAME ones ignoring 200 years of precedent by even threatening a filibuster of a judicial nominee.
8. What's the difference between Zell Miller and John McCain? One is a moderate with integrity, strong convictions, and a backbone who speaks from his heart and the other is running for President in 2008
9. STOP prepping GW Bush before appearances! Just STOP it right now! When GW is speaking extemporaneously and off-the cuff, he mangles words and shows his emotions. This allows his true beliefs, candor, and passion to show forth, and is exactly why many of us voted for him! He is most effective when his words are his own and heartfelt. When he's prepped he looks stilted and uncomfortable. Didn't you guys learn ANYTHING from the first two 2004 debates????
With the Professional Politicos running the party, it's AMAZING we've kept the House, the Senate, The White House and the Governorships that we HAVE!
... a member of......
This singular phrase resonates echoes of Joseph McCarthy and undoubtedly, if you have even a smidgen of historical knowledge, you are waiting for the other shoe to drop... the rest of the sentence.... "... a member of the Communist Party?"
However, our favorite UBoat commander and drunken senior senator of Massachusetts, Teddy Kennedy has revamped the phrase to ".... a member of the Concerned Alumnus of Princeton?"
In over 4000 cases and over 300 opinions, the liberals can't find a SINGLE issue on which to hang a reasonable objection to Supreme Court Samuel Alito's confirmation.
And so, they go after a single sentence on a 25-year-old job application and a cursory membership to an Alumni group at Princeton. This would be acceptable liberal politics of mass distraction if Teddy hadn't tried to turn it into a bigotry based McCarthyesque witch-hunt by suggesting that:
A) One opinion piece in a C.A.P. newsletter reflected the opinions of the ENTIRE membership
B) Since this one article reflected ALL Concerned Alumnus of Princeton, it must reflect Judge Alito's position as well.
Once you learn your debating fallacies, it's not so difficult to read most Democrat demagoguery. This particular fallacy is two fold. 1) Guilt by association. and 2) False premise.
Guilt By Association: Because an individual is a member of a particular organization, it holds (by the fallacy) that the individual is comfortable or associates himself with ALL aspects of that organization. Teddy Kennedy, for example, is a strong supporter of the ACLU (as was Justice Ginsburg). The ACLU is now defending a group called NAMBLA. This is the "North American Man Boy Love Association" which advocates the legalizing of man-on-boy(down to age 12) sex and the legalization of what is currently considered child pornography. To follow Senator Kennedy's own logic, one must assume that as a supporter of the ACLU, Kennedy must also support man-boy sex.
False Premise: First false premise was that the quoted piece was CAP policy - IT WAS NOT! Actually, the entire article was satire (or "tounge-in-cheek" for those of you that went throught the California public school system). The CAP organization fought against quotas at Princeton. It did not fight against admitting women or minorities, only arguing that standards of entrance regarding grade-point averages, test scores, and class ratings shouldn't be lowered just to allow less qualified (but ethnically and gender-ly diverse) applicants an easier chance at entering Princeton. CAP had no problem with admitting more minorities and more women who qualified under the stringent educational standards... they just didn't want those educational standards lowered. This did NOT mean they were discriminatory against minorities... they just discriminated against those without high educational standards regardless of race, color, creed, or gender. The second false premise was that Judge Alito considered this as "standing policy" of CAP and joined to support those standards... WHICH IS EQUALLY UNTRUE!
Where the insinuations and allusions went over the line and became more McCarthyesque than even Senator Joe McCarthy would have gone was in that in the 25+ years since this ONE mention on ONE job application, Judge Alito has hundreds of opinions and written case law, thousands of co-workers, employees and judicial appointees that testify to his integrity and LACK of bigotry in ANY manner. Senator Kennedy ignored those THOUSANDS of pieces of evidentiary material and went for the smallest of notations as his basis for argument. He then took that imaginary ant hill and built it into a mountain RANGE of delusional and imaginary machinations to support his faulty assumption - Judge Alito is a bigot. Even Joe McCarthy never built so much accusation out of so little!
Once again, Senator Kennedy is "all wet" .... ummm .... so to speak
Monday, January 02, 2006
I would like to be even handed and say both the left and right sides of the political aisle are responsible for the current vitriol in the public square.
I'd like to, but damn it, I can't!
I have yet to hear one Republican call Pilosi or any other Democrat a "liar", even though they certainly deserve the label!
And where did it start? If we can get into the pointing of fingers and say "He did it first".. who, exactly would have the last finger pointing at THEM?
"I'm thinking to myself, if we were in other countries, we would all right now
all of us together would go down to Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to
death! We would stone him to death! We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we
would go to their homes and we'd kill their wives and their children. We would
kill their families."
Alec Baldwin (1998) on Conan O'Brian
I remember watching Conan that night. Baldwin was a man nearly foaming at the mouth... not smooth, comedic, nor satirical... he was fuming and Howard Dean-esque!
I'm not sure I've heard anything this vicious before OR since, but I certainly can't point to any Republican with such venom before this statement. Correct me, if you can.
So congratulations, Mr. Baldwin. The situation we are now in can be traced back to your evil, disgusting remarks. Why don't you just leave the country.. after all , George Bush IS the President!