Absolute Outrage

Speaking of Jay Leno... (were we?)

2009-11-07T03:44:00.000-08:00

[reposted from jumptheshark-subscribe@yahoogroups.com ]
-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://tinyurl.com/Leno-Bad
--- @ JTS [tm] T------ linkta an Open Salon article by Scott Christian, who wrote blah blah blah and...

"I haven’t actually watched his show and refuse to do so..."

This was buried in a parenthetical aside in the second paragraph; this should have been his lead. You have to admire a critic who comes right out and boldly states he hasn't actually seen whatever it is he's allegedly reviewing, who frankly brags that he has no idea what he's talking about. Wait, admire isn't the right word for it. What's that term I'm looking for... ostracize, condemn, vilify, mock, pity, scorn, urinate upon...

Frankly, it's enough to almost make me regret all those things I used to say about American Idol, a show I still have never seen more than a few minutes of at a time (and then only because the producers lack the intellect to actually time the 60 minute program to fit into it's own time slot.)

Speaking of lack of intelligence, the premise of Scott Christian's thesis seems to be that America's lower classes depend on free broadcast television to stay connected to the national consciousness and a great divide in quality between broadcast and cable/pay/DVD TV will "dumb down" the masses and divide the culture, thus justifying his alarmist "Jay Leno could ruin America" type headline.

Now this is an interesting point - essentially the same one I was making five and a half years ago in discussing the wave of FCC-fearing self-censorship following the 2004 Justin Timberlake Super Bowl "indecency" incident - his infamous wardrobe misgrabment and simulated sexual assault on an older, female minority pop music icon.

However, his three paragraphs in defense of the "economically depressed" poor who can't afford cable and concern over intellectual atrophication following "low grade programming" replacing such intellectual 10:00 PM NBC fare as Journeyman, Er and Law & Order: Sex Crime Patrol has to be viewed in light of his, only half a page earlier, hailing carpeted malls and Foot Locker as pinnacles of classiness and describing the economically depressed poor who shop at 99-cent stores as "dregs".

He does make an interesting observation about M*A*S*H having greater cultural impact than the Reagan presidency. Uh-yup, I remember when the Ayatollah held American's hostage in Iran and refused to release them until M*A*S*H was canceled. Oh thank God for Hawkeye Pierce for standing up to Gorbachev and telling him "Tear down that wall!"

He totally proves his point, though, about how Seinfeld's catch phrases contributed more to the American pop lexicon than anything from modern literature, when he misquotes "Master of your domain" as "king of the castle". Yeah, he sure knows his stuff: what is this guy, some kinda chowder fascist? Smiley face emoticon.

Scott Christian says "And for those who say it’s just TV, I say, look around, look at the last 50 years of our history. We are TV."

Well, to some extent, it's true, as a people we are the sum of our collective awareness of pop culture. Which lends to both the shared gene pool and to subtle differences. We are TV, yes, and film, music, literature, comic books, popular catch phrases, political and advertising slogans - a vast pool of shared ideas and concept. Some of us, I suppose, are a little more comic books or sci-fi or anime geek or pornhound than others. I suppose if someone never did anything but watch TV then, yes, I guess Scott Christian IS Tv.

For the sake of selling a few paragraphs, he pretends to be concerned that the qualitative difference between broadcast and cable TV will create a cultural rift in out society. Look around - culture is split by dozens if not hundreds of such rifts along economic, social, racial, sexual, political and ideological lines. By the time the mainstream familiarizes itself with the newest slang, the terms are two seasons out of date. By the time the latest outer coast fringe trends, fads, fashions and drugs have filtered their way into middle America, the coasts have moved on to the next big thing. By the time the fashion and advertising industries have decided which new trends can be commercially exploited and marketed to the American mainstream, which ever fads they're chosen are a year too late to be considered cutting edge. 24 hour news and the internets can speed up that process, but they can't change it.

I will not pretend to speak on behalf of Christians, but my paternal ancestors were Scots, so this is one dreg of humanity who thinks that Scott Christian brings shame to both of his names.

= Napoleon Park =
Proud spokesman of dregs everywhere.
Also droogs, druggies and the occasional drag queen.

===================================

But, But, But... What If I Don't Like The Jay Leno Show?

"The More Things Change, The More Different They Get."
"The Golden Age was whenever you were thirteen"

According to Bauhaus, Bela Legosi's Dead. According to The Moody Blues, Timothy Leary's Dead - but of course they were ahead of their time. That's not Chris Farley in that commercial, just his filmed image.

Even people who are still alive get old: Bill Shatner didn't play Captain Kirk in the last Star Trek movie and Julie Newmar is a lot less likely to play The Catwoman in the next Batman flick than what's her name, that girl the boys all like... I'll think of it, give me a minute, I'll come back to it.

You know, the Fox who played Megantron in that Transformers movie. Anyway...

It's not coming back. Whatever was better then than it is now. It's not coming back.

The Dumont Network isn't coming back. The days of black and white pictures, monophonic sound, lo-def and pre-digital analog broadcast signals: not coming back.

"Oh help me Flash Gordon, Savior of the Universe, help me Superman - the Jay Leno Show is going to cause the collapse of western civilization as we know it." The feces of a male cattle. Not global warming, not unprovoked wars, not more virulent strains of flu virus, not economic collapse or far fringe politics on both wings of the bird. Leno. F***ing Jay Leno is going to destroy the world.

Because why? He's not funny, he's not hip? Oh boo-flipping-hoo mister I'm so entitled that the whole world and all 600 TV channels have to cater to exactly my tastes and my demographic at all times. Ain't gonna happen. A fantasy world in which your mind-power evolves to the point where whatever affronts your dignity by not pleasing you can be dismissed with a thought? Not gonna happen this year. Or ever.

Okay, I get it, Leno is bad because...

He took up time on NBC's schedule. So? The only 10:00 PM NBC show I was watching was Medium and it's on CBS, Friday nights at 9:00 now - problem solved. Leno didn't get Trial By Jury canceled. Leno didn't cause Hill Street Blues to end.

Because he's old? Groovy, son. Let's all join hands in a prayer circle and invoke the gospel of St. Pete Townsend: "I hope YOU die before you get old."

Because his show is cheaper to make than a standard hour long scripted drama or multi million dollar special effects extravaganza? Screw that economic elitist nonsense, Craig Ferguson's show comes in on probably a tenth of Leno's budget and it's regularly the funniest thing on TV.

Because it's hurting NBC economically. Well, so? Unless your family's entire lfe savings are locked into long term investments with NBC, why should you care?

Oh right, Jay Leno is bad because there's five less hours of shows on the major network prime time schedules.

Let me just stop laughing. Wait, not done. Hold on, just a bit more... ha... okay, done.

There are more books in the Library of Congress than it would be possible to read in ten lifetimes. Heck, there are probably more Star Trek novels or Harlequin Romances in print than any sane person would read in one lifetime. You'd think all the good ideas for novels have been used by now, or that someone would edit all the cook books or all the self help books together, edit out the redundancies, and create a definitive text. But there's an entire industry built around cranking out and selling new books.

We've been hearing about the imminent collapse of the recording industry for the last twenty years or so... and yet, somehow, both established artists and newcomers seem to keep releasing new songs and videos and greatest hits collections and what doesn't sell gets blogged or put on My Space pages. There's way more music coming out all the time than anyone can keep up with.

No one gets to have all the toys.

But we need Leno's five hours of TV time? Really?

At what point in the past before things were changed did you think were so perfect that that's the way you want everything to stay?

Because I know you don't want to go back to the time when there were three broadcast TV networks - A, N and C - that went off the air between 1:00 and 2:00 AM and stayed dark until the morning farm report. Three hours of prime time a night, seven days a week - yes, there used to be TV on Saturdays - that's 21 hours, times three networks. Sixty-three hours of prime time TV per week. I'm sure that way way before most of your times, but think about it. You'd freak out.

Let's say you just have a TV, a junior g-man secret digital decoder box and a really nice coat hanger and you just get broadcast stations. You have NBC, CBS and ABC plus PBS and, in many areas, Fox and The CW. The latter two only provide two hours of entertainment per evening, and I don't think CW is on seven days a week any more. Let's see, 3 x 6 = 18 x 3 = 54. 2x7=14, 2x5=10. Less say that whatever PBS is doing is entertainment, that's 21. We're talking prime time period - the time between 8:00 and 11:00 PM. 54+14+10+21=99. Almost but not quite a hundred hours of prime time broadcast television per week. Oh, I forgot, let's deduct that five hours Leno is wasting: 94.

So there used to be 63 hours of TV (in the early '60s, when everyone knows everything was better), now there's 94. How is that less?

24x7=168. There are 168 hours in a week. If you made watching TV your full time avocation and watched the 94 hours of prime time entertainment the networks offer - which does not include whatever crap they slap on on Saturdays, and does not include the fact that these days several or the major networks are actually broadcasting 24 hours a day - That would leave you 74 hours a week to eat, sleep and clean yourself. Including cooking and travel time.

Ah, but I hear you cry, you don't want to Dance With Top Idols, you don't want to watch Forensic Law: New Jersey or 20 different shows about New York cops, you don't want inane sit-coms to tell you when a jokes is meant to be funny by cranking up a laugh track. You want choice.

Oh man, come on out of the cave, Binky, have I got good news for you.

There's this thing called cable TV. Don't take my word for it, trust Bruce Springsteen; he wrote a song about it. "57 Channels and There's Nothing On" Except that since he wrote that song... well let's say its a lot closer to several hundred channels. Heading towards a thousand.

Oh, and have you heard? Thanx to this thing called DVD you can buy complete sets of entire runs of old TV shows - somewhere between 10% and half of all TV shows ever made. Really. You can buy them, own them, put them on a shelf, play them any time you want to.

Remember that "pay TV" thing they used to talk about in the '50s? They worked out the details; you don't have to pump quarters into your TV like a vending machine after all. You can get HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz, Encore, Spice - full length theatrical films with no commercial interruptions (except for an annoying voice-over during the closing credits) and original programming. Uncensored.

Psst - they have the internets now. Digital streaming radio and video content - original material, old TV shows, music videos. Hulu, Fancast, Funny Or Die, TV network web sites, YouTube, several dozen pornography sites that also have the word Tube in the name. Ultimate Surrender nude lesbian wrestling.

And did you know that they still publish comic books, graphic novels and magazines?

The exact volume of entertainment options someone with a middle class income has available to them is incalculable. Trying to absorb it all would make your head explode. There is no scientific basis for that last statement.

With all that out there, there are still dozens of TV critics wringing their hands over the fact that five hours a week of Jay Leno is going to change everything and bring progress to a standstill and lead to the collapse of the entertainment industry. That's it? Wash off the mime makeup, sell the unicycle, give up juggling and shoot the donkey because Leno sucks? Seriously?

Impending Bill Murray "Meatballs" quote warning.

There is no reason that the fact that NBC has chosen to dedicate five hours of their prime time schedule to a program that does not suit everyone's taste should be worth all this uproar and furor. Hey Seuss Marimba, there really might be something else on, or something else you could be doing worth your hour.

Unless you are locked in an isolated cabin with no books or computer and a television with no off switch that only gets one network, there is no reason to be so freaking upset over the Jay freaking Leno show.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER.

===================

One more time. NBC did not give Leno five hours of network time because they thought he'd revolutionize or revive the prime time comedy-variety show. They did it because they were locked into a contract that promised Conan the Tonight show. If they reneged Conan could have gone to ABC or Fox and started a new 11:35 talk show the way Letterman did with CBS. And if they dropped Leno he could have done the same. They didn't want that to happen, so they prevented it. The Jay Leno show is a lot cheaper to make than five hours of scripted drama, especially in a time slot that hadn't produced any major hits for the network since the early years of the very long running ER. And it is assumed that Leno may attract more viewers during the months when the other major networks 10:00 PM prime time shows are into reruns - though that's probably an overly optimistic assumption.
NBC is not on the verge of bankruptcy. And no matter how many TV critics cry and hold their breath until they turn blue, NBC is not going to cancel Leno unless virtually all of their affiliate stations drop the show and air syndicated content or local news at 10:00.

But the important thing to remember is, if you really can't stand the Jay Leno how. it just doesn't matter. You have to watch it anyway, it's the law. The Making Crybaby Assholes Watch Shows They Hate Act of 2009. You Have To watch Leno - if you don't, they'll come to your house and mess you up bad. Real bad.
So watch it. Punk.

"Gonna send you back to Texas, make you work on your ranch"

2009-01-20T02:13:00.000-08:00

"Country held hostage for four more years"...
is says on the front page of the Absolute Outrage Yahoo! group.

Well, we gazed wistfully at the countdown clocks for lo these many
years. Funny how time slows to a crawl while the nation goes to Hell
in a hand basket both in the eyes of the world and to our own citizenry.

Well, today is January 20th, 2009.
The day we've all been waiting for.

If you've listened to NPR or watched C-Span or, well, you know, seen a
magazine, turned on the TV or a radio or logged into the internet
during the last week, you know about the waves of hope and optimism
clutching the nation in the face of unprecedented challenges. You know
the joy and elation many people are feeling over the incoming President.

Whether he can restore the nation to Clinton levels of economic
recovery in four years or end a war - or two - in eight, whether he can
shut down Guantanamo Bay and convince the world that the torture of
interrogation suspects is now off the table as official US policy,
well, whether he succeeds in half the things we imagine he might be
able to do or whether he stumbles and fails, right now we face a new
future with hope for change and belief in a chance to set things right.

The eye of the media has been on Washington DC and the activities of
the incoming regime.

But here at Absolute Outrage we have impatiently watched the days,
weeks, months and years tick slowly by. Our departing Resident, Shrub
Dubya Junior, is slipping out under the radar with even his multiple
network Farewell Address getting barely a ripple of attention, minimal
talk show monologue mentions and little notice beyond the occasional
single finger salute.

America is so proud to have a new president riding in with a
remarkable approval rating that has been reported by various sources
to range from 60 to 80% - meaning that he has won over supporters from
the camp that voted against him - that we cannot wait to forget the
man whose approval rating hovered for much of the final quarter of his
administration near 25%.

There are those of us among the Baby Boomer generation who place an
almost magical amount of attention on the popular music of our youth,
so much of which, from the Summer of Love in 1967 to the release of
the Beatles White album in 1968 we have been commemorating with 40th
anniversary observations.

We believe in the profundity of rock lyrics and the efficacy of a good
Beatles or Dylan quote.

Certainly many in the media noted and obsessed over the proximity of
President Barack Obama's inauguration with the Martin Luther Kind Day
holiday and drew comparisons to speeches made now and 40 and 45 years
ago.

Well, 40 years ago, as Richard Milhous Nixon was sworn in, President
Lyndon Baines Johnson left office and returned to his home in Texas,
just as the Shrub will now be doing.

I would like to dedicate the following song to Dubya - something for
him to listen to on his flight back to Crawford County.
------------
Superbird
by Country Joe and the Fish

Look, up yonder in the sky, now, what is that I pray ?
It's a bird it's a plane, it's a man insane, it's my President LBJ
He's flying high way up in the sky just like Superman,
But I have got a little piece of kryptonite,
Yes, I'll bring him back to land.
Said come out Lyndon with your hands held high,
Drop your guns, baby, and reach for the sky.
I've got you surrounded and you ain't got a chance,
Gonna send you back to Texas, make you work on your ranch,
Yeah, yeah, oh yeah.

He can call Super Woman and his Super Dogs,
But it sure won't do him no good,
Yeah, I found out why from a Russian spy
That he ain't nothing but a comic book.

We'll pull him off the stands and clean up the land,
Yes, we'll have us a brand new day.
What is more I got the Fantastic Four
And Doctor Strange to help him on his way.

Said come out Lyndon with your hands held high,
Drop your guns, baby, and reach for the sky.
We got you surrounded and you ain't got a chance,
Gonna send you back to Texas make you work on your ranch,
Yeah yeah, oh yeah.

--------------------

Farewell, W.
You leave office with a bloody smoldering legacy.
With America's prestige tarnished in the eyes of the world.
With several thousand flag draped coffins standing in the places where
some of America's best and bravest once stood.
With a national debt now counted in the trillions.

Far from the worst of your offenses, but for a long time now we will
continue to wince and cringe whenever we hear a radio or television
stations call letters, be it WYCE-FM or WOOD- TV. We will have a
Pavlovian response, as fearful as a beaten dog at the sound of your
initial letter, W.

That is your legacy, W.; you have ruined a Goddamned letter of the
alphabet.

-----------------

Is it time to move on, forget, look forward?
Maybe, in a few hours, after America's bright new hope is sworn into
office.
But in these late hours, while Shrub sleeps or, perhaps, sits in the
Oval Office and gazes out at what he has wrought one last time, it is
hard to resist one last chance to get the boot in, as they say in England.

I have read that Prince George has told reporters that his biggest
regret is the way so many of his citizens seem to have turned against
him so brutally. The public, the polls, the pundits, the media have
treated him so harshly and with such anger and fury that it has broken
through his shields and hurt his feelings.

Awww... (tiny violin gesture).

It has happened time and again. The nation turned on Johnson in times
of war but sympathized with his regrets and forgave him once he let
his hair grow out a few inches in the back.

Nixon was perhaps the most hated and vilified leader out country has
ever had, and yet at his funeral the list of his accomplishments
seemed both sincere and impressive.

To some of us in his home town Jerry Ford's had a long legacy but the
centerpiece of it had to be "the man who pardoned that son-of-a-b*tch
Nixon," and yet at his funeral we were reminded of how he reunited a
nation torn asunder internally by strife and protest and cultural
revolution.

Jimmy Carter entered office with a wave of post-Nixon/Ford era
optimism and hope and left those who thought he'd accomplish more or
be stronger in the face of foreign bullies disappointed. He's still
with us, but no doubt many have forgiven him for his shortcomigs and
many more will when he is gone.

And it is possible to think that someday the orators and commentators
and revisionist historians speaking over Dubya's grave will paint a
glowing portrait of his accomplishments and place a positive spin on
his legacy.

It is possible, but I don't see it.
Future generations may look back and find out what went right in these
last eight years. Re-examine, reinterpret, and forgive.
But not those of us who had to live though it.

It is human nature to be touched by the image of the crying clown - to
feel the heartbreak of the well intentioned bumbler whose best laid
plans went awry.

But hurt feelings are nothing compared to what he has done to us.

It is human nature to forgive.

But not for W.
Not today.
I can't speak for forever,
but not for a very long time.
Not for W.
No.

= Napoleon Park =

C*ke Shrugs off FDA Warning Over Nutritional Claims.

2008-12-23T21:12:00.000-08:00

http://tinyurl.com/DietCokePlus

The Food And Drug Administration, an agency of the United States government, has issued a warning letter chiding the C*ca C*la B*ttling C*mpany for violating their guidelines for marketing food products with nutrient claims.

In May of 2007 the C*ca C*la company introduced a product called Diet C*ke Plus. Promotional material for the product states it contains vitamins and minerals. Specifically, Vitamin B, zinc and magnesium.

The FDA has very clear guidelines covering certain terminologies. Terms such as bigger or top grade or best have specific definitions which must be met in order for the terms to be used. "Plus," when used in reference to nutritional content, means that the product contains 10% more of a specific ingredient than similar products in the same category.
Since diet cola beverages traditionally do not contain nutrients, it would be hard to define what would constitute "10% more".

In fact, the FDA's position is that it is inappropriate to add or advertise the nutritional content of "snack food" products which traditionally do not have any nutritional value.

The FDA warning letter dated December 10th asks C*ca C*la to revise the products labeling within 15 days.

A spokesman for the C*ca C*la company stated that they believe the current labeling complies with FDA policies and regulations and that the matter does not involve health of safety issues.

FDA warning letters are not legally binding but if ignored can lead to the violating company being taken to court.

The warning letter was posted online on Tuesday and C*ke stock dropped 69 cents.

--------

To editorialize a bit in a way I hope will be informative...

Unlike the spokesman for the beverage company, I would consider the topic of nutrition to be a health issue.

Recent articles about nutrition, diet and diabetes have stated that recent research suggests that low calorie or zero calorie artificial sweeteners can cause weight gain by actually stimulating the body's cravings for sweet foods and drinks.

I do not know what constitutes 10% more than nothing or how that would be defined or determined.

I do think it's interesting that Vitamin B-12 and zinc are allegedly effective as minor sexual stimulants and are ingredients often found in commercially available "aphrodisiac placebo" products. Or as I like to call them, "boner pills".

Is this a product you want your children drinking? Or your teenagers? Even the decaffeinated version?

For the Record II

2008-11-06T17:21:00.000-08:00

For the Record II

A number of online articles have appeared with headlines stating
"McCain takes responsibility for losing"
or asking "Did Palin lose?"

And I was very tempted to just post a pithy quip:

"McCain didn't lose, Obama won."

Truthfully, though, that would be disingenious.
In any competition between two competitors, there is a winner and a loser.
So really, Obama won and McCain lost.
Facts is facts.

Really, in any Presidential election, there are two possible candidates that have any chance of winning, which is why America is referred to as having a two-party system. And since "none of the above" is not on the ballot, often there is a third party candidate - an Anderson, Perot or Nader - to offer an option or protest vote for voters who want it known that they don't like either viable candidate.

Beyond that, there is the "lesser of two evils" strategy. Decide on which candidate you like least and vote against him by selecting the only viable candidate with a chance of beating him. In this case Obama was the anti-McCain.

Saturday Night Live resurged to remarkable relevance this election. and in one memorable sketch Will Ferrell returned to reprise his portrayal of G. W. Bush Jr. and endorsed his parties candidate by saying "[pointing to self] Remember this face when you enter that voting booth. Right here. A vote for John McCain is a vote for George W. Bush."

Even a branch of the Democratic party distributed bumper stickers reading "no third term".

McCain himself acknowledged this perception in one of the debates when he said "I'm not George W. Bush, Senator. If you wanted to run against him you should have done so in 2000 or 2004."

And yet, no doubt a lot of people who voted for Obama were voting against the last eight years of unjustified warfare and economic crisis and mounting national debt and misguided policies.

And I suspect more than a few Obama voters were disappointed Clinton supporters who threw in their support half-heartedly in order to vote against "four more years" of same old same old.

Although I am not a huge fan of politics I did feel obligated to watch the debates and compare the candidates.

What I saw was two candidates reciting their campaign platforms and talking points. but one candidate's talking points sounded like catch phrases, the others like well reasoned and eloquent expressions of well thought out plans and intentions.

And when C-Span showed a split screen so you could watch one candidate while the other spoke, well...

I saw Obama shake his head in disbelief at McCain's misinformation and half-truths and untruths - the same lies that seemed to make up the majority of his campaign ads - and then utter a curt "That's not true."

But when Obama spoke I saw McCain smirk and smugly grin with an undisguised and unsupported overconfidence that suggest he believed what some Americans believed and, I'll admit it, others feared: That he couldn't lose.

Say "African-American". Say Black. And no doubt in your sub-conscious you are aware of a variety of other nicknames, slang terms, epithets, guarded hand signals and outright offensive racial slurs that you might never speak in polite company. But deep down many of us feared that America was still rooted in the Montgomery, Alabama of George Wallace in the early '60s, the racist Amerikka that would never elect a Black President.

The thought that the common voter might believe or fear that is one thing - the thought that a candidate and possible President might believe that was simply unacceptable.

I, like many Americans, am very proud that we have shown the world that this is no longer so.
All over the world there are people who are happy and proud that this is no longer so. Apparently Obama's election day has been declared a national holiday in Kenya.

I turned 18 the year American lowered the voting age to 18. Lucky me. Although America provides the assurance of a private ballot, I am not afraid to go public with my voting record.

In 1972 I voted against re-electing Nixon. America voted for him, but see where that got you?

I very much voter for Carter. Both times, though he only won once.

Yes, I voted against Reagan's Contra-gate tinged reelection. And I voted against the real Bush both times.

With Clinton under siege, I wanted to vote for his reelection. But there was a larger issue: The remote but very possible issue that a deeply religious President might actually believe that the year 2000 or the start of the new millennium in 2001 would actually be the start of the End Times and trigger the Apocalypse on Earth. So I entered the 1996 race on a "Just Say No to Armageddon" platform and ran against Bob Dole. I withdrew from the race in the final weeks before the election and threw my endorsement and vote to the non-Dole candidate - though as criticism of Clinton continued I did reserve the right to claim "Don't blame me, I ran against him".

During the 2000 election a Democratic fund raising mailing sent me a very nice 8X10 portrait of Al Gore. After the narrow-squeak election in which the Supreme Court improperly assumed the right to appoint the man with fewer popular votes the winner I framed and hung up my picture of my President Gore in the stairway gallery where it remains and will remain until the end of the W. era.

With Kerry, I must admit, my vote was cast against Bush.

But as I said, I watch the debates and observed both candidates. What I saw supported my choice of candidate.

As many people pointed out, with either candidate, the Bush era was at an end. As McCain himself said, it was too late to again vote against W.

And as I have written, I did not vote against the white guy or against the female VP candidate or against the old guy. I voted for the smart guy.

And more to the point, I did not vote against John McCain.

I voted FOR President Barack Obama.

= Randall Hugh Crawford =

So much for a private ballot...

For the Record

2008-11-05T23:26:00.000-08:00

We didn't elect the black guy to annoy the white racist redneck guys.

We didn't pick the Guy guy to piss off the gals.

We didn't vote for the young guy to bug the old guy or his old supporters.

We voted for the SMART guy because of what the dumb guy's been doing for the last eight years.

Just wanted to make that clear.

Is There A Line?

2008-10-17T06:15:00.000-07:00

Commercials.

Us old folks remember that macho icon the Marlboro Man and his majestic theme music. Or, funnier, those sexist Silva Thins ads. and conversely the women's lib inspired "You've come a long way, baby" campaign for Virginia slims.

But cancer ate half of my family. And I've always loved Mad magazine's anti-smoking ads. Even that disgusting comparison of a healthy pink lung and a charred black smokers lung that ran on the back of Hustler, a magazine I never cared mush for, got my approval.

So I certainly approved when the AMA and the FCC and whoever else contributed to outlaw cigarette commercials on television.

To be honest, I've had enough alcoholism in my family that if's they'd gone ahead and done away with those beer commercials, I would have applauded.

You all know I oppose 'censorship' but selling things that are bad for people seems like a reasonable place to draw a line. And yes, beer and red wine have specific health benefits, let's not get into that argument. Some people unwind with a couple beers and are fine with it, some people get plowed on a 12 pack and turn ugly and abusive. Love ya, dad.

And on the subject of "bad for ya", how about ads for Lottery tickets, gambling casinos and trips to Vegas? Isn't gambling a deadly life destroying addiction? Does adding a "wager sensibly" tag line make it all right?

During the first years of the Aids epidemic it seemed like a positive thing to sell condoms with commercials. Some parents who didn't want to explain those funny balloons to their children probably objected, but I was pro to their con.

But the cigaret ads of the early '60s and the period in the '80s when prophylactic ads were still a surprising novelty are history now.

There was never one specific point where tasteless TV ads got out of control.
Well, maybe the early '70s when the deodorant companies tried to launch lines of "feminine hygiene deodorants". How do I put this... I have never in my entire life met a woman, sniffed and thought "Wow, she smells like c*nt". Of course in those days I was more concerned with the flavor than the odor.

Then there's the old "a woman walking on the beach with her mom talking about not feeling fresh" jokes. Okay, its a common product category that half the population needs to buy and use every month. I still felt sorry for Brenda Vacarro and the ads she did as a product spokemodel. "Hi, I'm an Oscar winning actress and I'd like to tell you about these cotton plugs I shove up my coochie." Those ads made Jane Russell discussing her support bra seem like a real class act.

Let's change the subject.
Well, we all love Pepto Bismol's cute jingle. We all love songs with the word diarrhea in them, don't we?
Or those charming cartoon bears selling toilet paper, because we all know what bears do in the woods, right?

The other day I read something - I forget what - that said that 1992 was the year they began advertising prescription drugs on television. We all love that great disclaimer moment that SNL loves to parody where some speed-talker rattles off the information that this medication can cause itching, bendy knees and your head exploding. My old pal The Pro From Dover had the best line about this. He mentioned an add for an anti-depressant with side effects that included erectile dysfunction. "What do you think I'm depressed about?" he asked.
(Don't worry about him, one much needed divorce and a teenage girlfriend later and he's all right in that regard.)

At some point it was decided that cable TV can advertise liquor and not just beer and wine. A few of those ads have even been funny, but personally I would have gone the other way and banned the beer and wine ads. Especially the ones that imply a couple beers will turn your backyard barbeque into a neighborhood bikini party.

Speaking of ED, how about those ads for Viagra and Cialis? Remember the SNL line "If you experience an erection lasting over four hours, call your friends and brag".
Some political pundits may not respect all politicians equally, but did we really want to see Bob Dole go from a presidential candidate to a spokes-model for little blue willy pills? Where's our national dignity?

Say, did you ever see Evangeline Lilly's commercial for a telephone chat line service? I'm not familiar with either product category based on personal experience, so could someone explain the difference between those chat lines advertised on late night TV and phone sex?

What, you might ask, set off this rant? Well, last night I was watching "Guadalcanal Diary" on AMC at about five in the morning and in rapid succession say commercials for a "discrete fingertip vibrator" for women, a vacuum pump solution for erectile dysfunction and, you know, that pill that supposedly makes men bigger.

As stated, I oppose censorship and restraint of trade and all that and I wouldn't say this is the place to draw the line.

But seriously, when did TV ads turn into the back pages of sleazy porno mags?

Truth In Advertising

2008-09-20T12:33:00.000-07:00

A chunk about Truth In Advertising

In the Addams Family movie series, one of Christina Ricci's most memorable lines as Wednesday Addams was when she inquired if Girl Scout cookies contained real girl scouts. They don't, of course; in western cultures cannibalism is a major taboo.

In America the German sausage known as Bratwurst is often shorthanded as "brats". Possibly because we're taught not to want things that are the "worst" unless they're incredibly bad movies. Wednesday Addams would no doubt be disappointed to know that Brats are not actually made from disobedient children.
on the other hand, squeamish men who are aware of what the name Johnson refers to as a slang term for a male bodily appendage are relieved to know that the entire line of Johnsonville sausage products, including their famously advertised Brats, contain not one speck of johnson. One hopes.

Along the same lines, the specialty dessert cake known as Lady Fingers are not made from fingers of either gender.
And the famous Twilight Zone "How to serve man - it's a cookbook" episode notwithstanding, the well known ground meat sandwich/sloppy joe sauce Manwich is not made from, or intended for use with, man. Though one does worry about how the Sloppy Joe sandwich originally got it's name...

Not all mislabeled products are cannibalism related. All mammals and many fish have teeth, and yet Tooth Powder is not made from powdered teeth. It is a dentifrice used for the cleaning of teeth. Likewise, a home handy-person attempting simple household repairs should be aware that toothpaste not only contains no tooth, but it is not actually a glue type paste, simply a dentifrice with a pasty consistency.

The reason this seems odd is that similarly named products are honestly labeled: corn starch is starch from corn, corn meal is also from corn, bone meal is made from ground bones. Garlis Powder and Onion powder and chili powder all deliver on their promises (yes, chili powder is made from chilies, not just an ingredient to use in making chili.) And really, is you buy a product called shark cartilage, what else would you expect?

The most egregious form of false advertising is mislabeling - claiming a product is something which it is not. If you order the Prairie Oysters you really should be aware that you will be given bull testicles. These are in no way related to the oyster. However,
a plate of oyster testicles would probably not be very filling.

That's not to say that someone somewhere won't try to sell you some.
We grow up being told that the very wealthy are gourmets and epicureans and have cultivated tastes for exquisite culinary specialties and "fancy foods".
This reputation is largely based on their having fancy names for the crap they eat.
James Bond likes to travel with a few tins of fine Beluga Caviar. It's Sturgeon eggs. Black fish eggs.
In "The Jerk" Steve Martin complains that Bernadette Peters has ordered a serving of Escargot and received a "plate with snails on it."
And animal rights groups have actively tried to ban or at least discourage the consumption of Pate Fois Gras, the mashed liver of a goose that has been fattened to the point of torture.
Of course the animal lover groups have also tried to guilt people about eating Veal, which is another code word, this time for Calf.
I don't get it. Lamb, baby sheep, we call lamb but we codify adult sheep meat as Mutton. but we eat Beef but need a secret password for baby beef? It just seems inconsistent.

It's not just the very rich that uses code words and foreign phrases to disguise their gastronomic outrages. Traditionally it is the very lower economic classes who developed ways to cook and serve Chitterlings or "Chitlin's". They rarely come out and say "fry me up a batch of pig intestines," but there you go.

Intestines are sometimes also alluded to as "natural sausage casings" because presumably describing sausages as "ground meet stuffed into guts" would be a hard sell. Just ask the Scottish, who have never achieved any degree of market penetration with Haggis since everyone knows it's mutton and oatmeal stuffed in a stomach and boiled.

At least with Haggis most people know what they're getting. American's have a habit of adopting foreign words and then misusing them. And the lexicon is flexible and words are, eventually, defined by usage.
Anyone familiar with authentic Japanese cuisine can tell you that not all Sushi is made with fish, and not all fish Sushi is made from raw fish. And yet over the years the word Sushi has begun to drift into being the American term for "raw fish".

Raw fish is also known as Chum, the chopped fish used as bait to attract sharks. Chum, however, is not made from buddies or pals. Wednesday Addams would no doubt be disappointed.

False or deceptive advertising is a very troublesome business practice, and yet sometimes perhaps we should be grateful that not all foodstuffs are accurately labeled.

Thing about that the next time you rustle up some Grub.

= Napoleon Park =

Two Minor Bat-Rants (Brants?)

2008-07-22T22:39:00.000-07:00

1.) You've got Leno and Conan going "hey, did you hear about this new Batman movie?" and Letterman doing "Top Ten things overheard in line for the new Batman movie."

Look, I said this was a minor deal.

It IS a Batman movie the same was "Quantum of Solace" is a James Bond movie. And it sold some tickets, so it doesn't really need any free publicity anyway, I suppose.

Still, when these talk show hosts and comics and other people keep saying "I went to see Batman" my steamed reaction is "you just went to see a movie and you already can't remember the ****ing title?"

It's Dark Knight. Like in Frank Miller's well known graphic novel "The Dark Knight Returns". Or, more to the point, like in the fairly well known phrase "it was a dark and stormy night."

Dark Knight. Unless you really hate words with silent letters or something... Look, it's TWO syllables. You're not saving a split second by saying Batman instead of Dark Knight, it's two ****ing syllables.

Are TV writers that peeved over the screwing they got on the strike settlement that they'll use a six letter word instead of two words adding up to eleven letters? Are they that lazy?

By the way, you know that there were already two movies called "Batman", right?

2. Oh, you've seen these articles popping up on the internet in the last day or two. Oh, it's violent, oh it's scary, did it have to be so graphic, I thought it was a comic book, I took my children blah blah blah.

I'm sorry, is this one of the country's best known fictional characters or not?

It's Batman. You know, little boy saw his PARENTS MURDERED right in front of him in a hold up attempt gone bad. Fighting a homicidal maniac whose skin was bleached when he fell into a vat of chemicals? And a former district attorney who went insane when half his face was disfigured with acid? You know, THAT Batman, Joker and Two-Face?

You know, the guy that, although he works with the police commissioner, is technically a criminal himself - an unlicensed vigilante crime-fighter. Allegedly the world's greatest detective, though his interrogation techniques largely involve beating up informants? Y'know, the crazy orphan who dresses up like a giant bat to scare people?

Violent, scary, grim, gritty, serious, downbeat? Holy illiteracy, what part about having the word DARK in the title didn't you get?

With all due respect to Adam West who did a fine job of portraying the goofy grinning friendly Batman from the comics of the '50s and '60s, but that is NOT Batman. Not the Batman of Denny O'Neil, Steve Englehart, Frank Miller and Alan Moore in the '70s and '80s. And NOT the Batman of Bob Kane, Bill Finger and Jerry Robinson in the '30s and '40s.

The Joker is not some giggling "clown prince of crime" who pulls pranks go get Batman's attention. He beat Jason "Robin" Todd unconscious with a crowbar and left him in a locked room with a ticking bomb. He shot Barbara "Batgirl" Gordon in the spine and put her in a wheelchair just to annoy her father. Yes, IN the comic books. Heck, even Nicholson's Joker used toxic Smilex gas and an acid filled squirt flower.

The Dark Knight is a dark grim movie and this surprises people? Who? The same people who get shocked every time some big budget Jesus movie comes out and they find out the hero dies in the end?

The Titanic sinks and King Kong dies, okay? And more to the point, those cartoons on [adult swim]? There's a reason the network has the ****ing word "adult" in the name.

Dark Knight has the word "Dark" in the title for a reason. It's called truth in advertising.

Cheese, some people's parents...

Oh, to continue on just a bit more on point #2...

Yes, Mom and Dad, I get that your child had the action figures and wants to see the movie. I get that the Adam West series was campy fun and Super-Friends was kids friendly and even the two Schumacher movies "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" were pretty goofy.

I get that it's Batman, it's "a superhero movie" and that it's "based on a funnybook character."

Now do you get that it's rated PG-13 for a reason? That means it's questionably unsuitable for your children if they are younger than 14 years of age. If you want to take them to the movie, well, that's what "parental guidance" is all about. You go with them, sit by them, hold their hands, comfort them if they get scared, explain he parts they
don't understand to them (after the movie please, not during) and taklk to them about it afterwards - or pay for their therapy when the nightmares about boogiemen with acid scarred faces start.

"Oh, but it's a funnybook movie, it should be for kiddies."

Bull shit.

Batman first appeared in Detective comics #27 in 1939. That's 69 years ago. So if you were six years old when it came out, you're seventy-five now. I think that's old enough to see a PG-13 rated movie, okay?

Gen X and the Boomers and even part of the WWII "greatest generation" grew up with comics, so why act surprised that some of the comics grew up with us?

"Comic books aren't just for kids any more." That alarmist headline had been appearing in newspapers and magazines on a fairly regular basis since the underground comix of the late '60s and early '70s. In the late '80s there were so many explicitly sexual comics out they called it the "smut glut". Thee is even a comic book legal defense fund that raised money to pay for lawyers to defend comic book shops that get prosecuted for selling comics to adults and writers and artists who exercise their constitutional rights to free expression. Heck, in the late '80s Batman's publishers even printed "DC Comics aren't just for kids any more" on pins and gave them away free by the thousands. How'd you miss that memo?

So, parents, I'm sorry if you'll have a tough time explaining to your whining six year old why they can't have the Dark Knight DVD when it comes out. You think maybe there's a reason they didn't put "Batman" in the title?

Batman is a psychologically disturbed individual who dresses up in a frightening costume and violently attacks criminals in the dark. He belongs to the generations that grew up with him in the last seventy years. Your baby can't have him.

Go see Kung Fu Panda or Wall-E or something.

2008-07-19T23:32:00.001-07:00

Six Months To Go

2008-05-16T22:50:00.000-07:00

It's May, 2008. six months until the next time we elect a new president of the United States of America and thanks to the system we have in place, most people are already sick of hearing about it, reading about it or thinking about it.
I thought I'd try to put that into perspective.
===
Hitler was the worst guy ever. Forget alexander, Khan, Napoleon or any Caesar or king that Shakespeare wrote about, Hitler raised the bar on being the worst guy.
He institutionalized anti-semitism and homophobia to an insane degree. Oh, and prejudice against gypsies, which doesn't get as much publicity because we don't have a catchy word for it, and because gypsies don't run the news media and the entertainment industry.
Over the years folks like Nikita Kruschev, Milhous Nixon, Idi Amin and Kim Jong have tried out for the part, but "worse than Hitler" remains hyperbole, an unobtainable goal.
Hitler conquered most of Europe. "Most of" because Switzerland doesn't count. They just opened the doors and said "Come in, loot, plunder, whatever."
Not that it's an upside, but the Nazi military had the best costume designs, even if they did march like chorus girls. And they were way ahead of the curve at inventing intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Still, Hitler was so much the worst guy ever that even now doing comedy chunks on Hitler being the worst guy ever is in questionable taste. I apologize to any gay Jewish gypsies I've offended.
===
There was this guy called Sadaam Hussein. He went for it. Invading neighboring countries, slaughtering his own citizens, ethnic cleansing, wacky uniform.
So the real President Bush went all Operation Desert Storm on his ass. That went well. The Iraqi army was so freaked they went around surrendering to American journalists.
So Bush, having proven he wasn't a wuss, urged the Iraqi people to overthrow their dictator and then we got the hell out of Dodge. And when some Iraqis tried to overthrow Hussein we left them hanging out to dry. So Hussein took a hit out on our prez, but that went nowhere.
===
The next President, Clinton, is best known for sticking cigars up a Jewish girls quim and getting blown and cumming on her dress. Well, that got a lot of publicity because normally talk show hosts don't get to make jokes about cooze and BJs and cum.
The rabid neocon pundits recall Clinton for the insider profiteering, selling secrets to China and a murder or two, but those didn't make good monolog jokes.
At one point Clinton was impeached. The thought was that if you impeach a president or even threaten to, he resigns in disgrace, like Nixon did. Apparently there's no law that says he has to, though, so Clinton responded with a thumbs up and a wink to the cool kids and just went on presiding over an unprecented economic surplus.
===
In 2000 the question came down to who would you rather have as class president, the egghead bore or the stoner class clown.
Weirdly enough, it ended in a tie. And there were some poll-counting problems in, guess what, the state where one of the candidate's brother was governor. And who knew the Supreme Court was allowed to step in and declare a winner?
So Monkey Boy Dubya Shrub Junior was appointed the new President. What could go worng?
===
About a year in, on September 11th, 2001, terrorists hijacked four jets. Two plowed into the world Trade Center Towers in the worst attack on the World Trade Center since, well, terrorists tried to blow up the World Trade Center. Worse, actually, since this time they did it.
One plowed into the Pentagram building and vanished, leaving no debris large enough to have done what it did. Fortunately all surveliance footage of the attack was confiscated and classified.
And one was aimed at the White House, the worst attack on that establishment since some folks burned it down that one time. But the passengers on that flight manned up and fought their hijackers and died to save the White House. Hooray.
===
Patriotic fervor gripped the land. Americans sprang into action, adorning their SUV's with enough flag decals and stickers to make Nazi staff cars look subtle. Sales of Chinese made US flags skyrocketed.
===
So once Junior finished the book he was reading and had time to think about it, we decided it was Osama Bin Laden, head of the al Quaeda, and so we bombed the shit out of Afghanistan.
Every few months we catch the number two al Quaeda guy. Some wisecrackers think this if funny. But that's how career advancement works. Get rid of a number two guy and someone gets promoted. When they caught Spiro Agnew, Gerry Ford got to be the number two guy. That's how the system works.
We never found the number one guy, Osama. Because, you know, billionaires are so subtle and discreet.
===
Then it occured to The Shrub that this was a good chance to go get that guy his dad should have gotten rid of, and who tried to have his dad killed.
So we invaded Iraq, overthrew their government, drove Hussein into hiding, had his statues torn down, bombed the shit out of the place, killed his sons, declared "Mission Accomplished" and got the hell out of Dodge. Well, except for that last part. But eventually we found Sadaam and were done and got out. but no, we waited for their elections and a new government, and then when that happened we left.
But no, we waited for Sadaam's trial and he was hung and the video was on YouTube and it was all over at last and we came home and... well, no.
They warned us that going to Iraq would be a Viet Nam like quagmire, and boy did they get the last laugh.
===
Speaking of "they" - the political pundits and comics...
Liberals thought Dennis Miller was 'one of us' because he was smart. But after 9/11 he turned into a right-wing nutjob. Which is okay, because Janeane Garofalo used to be a funny comic and a charming actress and she turned into a left-wing nutjob.
After 9/11 Bill Maher, who had a Comedy Central show that ABC bought and wrecked, said that being a suicide bomber is braver than pushing a button to fire a missile, so he got fired and had to wait a little while before he got the same show with a different name on HBO.
When we went to Iraq the Dixie Chicks criticized The Shrub and were vilified, which means they made millions of dollars on their next tour but theoretically might have made more.
===
Some people say The War made the world hate us.
First, to define our terms, by "the War" we don't mean the fighting and bombing in Afghanistan, or Shrub's vague hypothetical War on the noun "terror". "The War" is the ongoing morass in Iraq, okay?
Second, the world doesn't hate us. Well, okay, some of the world hates us. And part of the world is mildly irked or perturbed with us. Some of the world rolls their eyes when our name comes up in conversation. And bits of the world let our calls go to voice mail and then never call us back.
We like to blame France. We said "Hey, gang, lets go overthrow a foreign country" and France was all like "Uh, you go ahead, we'll sit this one out... and don't fly in our air space, okay?"
Next thing you know the cafeteria at Congress is selling Freedom Fries and sales of California Wine, Wisconson cheese and domestic celebrity perfumes are up. And we're all mad like "We bailed you out in The Big One" and calling them "cheese eating surrender monkeys".
Actually, you'll recall Hitler took most of Europe. Italy and Spain totally went fascist. At least France didn't put out welcome mats like the Swiss did.
===
So the world doesn't hate us, we're just not as popular as we used to be.
There was this thing called the Cold War that divided the world up into super-powers. Basically it was capitalism vs. communism. We won, though China and Cuba didn't get the memo. And the Soviet Bloc's switch to capitalism was devastating. And our economy is not at all well.
But in those days we were The Policeman of the world. Now we're the LA Cop of the world, sodomizing foreign leaders with our nightstick and Rodney Kinging their countries into submission.
===
So the country is screwed. In seven years we went from the Clinton economy to being three trillion dollars in national debt.
Three trillion. That like, if you made a hundred thousand dollars a year, it would take you three million years to pay it off, at the end of which time you'd be broke. And that's if we shut down the government and never spent another penny, which isn't going to happen.
===
The country's in debt, the world's upset with us. Iraq's a broken doll house we can't get to stand up on its own. We're committed to fighting "terror" which is sort of like battling "bad". Except not everyone agrees on what's good or bad, but some of them think that bad's us.
So, in six months we elect a new president and turn to him - or her - and like a sad child on Christmas morning we hand them the broken toy our fine nation has become and ask "fix it".
Jesus Christ. That's who we need, a miracle worker. Unfortunately he's not on the ballot.
===
Two party system. Democrats and Republicans. And one of them will be handed the prize turkey, the ultimate white elephant. The task of fixing this mess in four years, maybe eight. in other words, the job of doing the impossible.
And both parties know it can't be done but they'll get the blame if they don't do it.
So neither party really wants to win.
===
The Republicans started with what's called a lame duck. They've got a president who can't run again. So they looked around anf found a war hero and the oldest guy to ever run for president.
Well, it's war time, and electing a General usually works. The last few times, they all wound up getting thier faces on the money. Thing is, Washington, Grant and Eisenhower never got caught and tossed in a bamboo cage. That's not really an ideal military strategy. Still, it qualifies him as a War Hero.
And having the party run thing from behind the scenes with a puppet figurehead in the oval office worked fine back when they hired that actor, Reagan, to play the part.
Sure it's odd that the party line is largely opposed to McCain's personal views. Just watch his pattern. When he's outrageous, that's him. when he corrects himself and explains what he meant to say, that's the party line.
Still no sign of an official running mate, even though McCain's so old that it's assumed that who-ever gets vice president will be in the White House eventually. Hey, the Dems can't decide between the black guy and the bitch. If the GOP runs with Condaleeza Rice we get a two-fer.
===
Now, about the Democrats. It started out there were a ludicrous number of candidates willing to run. And somehow that well just dried up and suddenly we were down to the two candidates least likely to possibly be elected.
We have the legacy candidate, the former first lady. The Dems ran a woman for VP once and got trounced, so why not run one of the least popular women in the public limelight since Yoko Ono and Rosie O'Donnell for President? Hey, remembe the last time she was in the White House, the economy was working and we weren't stuck in this war? Good times...
And we have the skinny brown guy who promises change. Well, that's the point of the election. Anybody but Shrub will be a change, right? And not counting "24" and a few other fictional properties, having a black US president for the first time in history would be a change. Yes it would. And electing anyone but a Bush or a Clinton would be a change. Sure.
Hey, have you noticed that the media always calls Candidate Clinton "Hillary"? I guess it's because we already had a real President Clinton. Sort of the way the Desert Storm guy was the real President Bush and I can't bring myself to pass the name on to Shrub Junior.
===
Ralph Nader is not a third party candidate. As bad as the Corvair was, consumer advocacy is not a party. Some people claim he was a spoiler in 2000. That assumes that the protest votes and nutjob votes that went to Nader would have gone to the lesser of two evils if he wasn't there. Instead of some other protest vote, fifth party nutjob candidate. And that's not a given.
===
I just saw an editorial cartoon that said the GOP had decided on McCain and the Dems had decided on... McCain.
Well, if they decide to run someone that enough people believe can't win, that's kinda right.
And with half a year until the election we've got two Democrats running against each other and a Republican running petty much unopposed.
Seriously, could Clinton and Obama please just decide which of them is going to be Vice President so we can get this presidentical race going for real?
===
Gee, wouldn't it be nice to hurry the process along and get the tickets lined up and start the actual presidential campaign and actually discuss some issues?
Well, sorry, but we're not getting industrial grade hemp legalized this year. Universal health care, unlikely. Gay marriage, maybe mot. Gays in the army may have a chance since at this point we're running out of anyone who wants to be an army man.
Look, there's only one real issue, okay? The War.
The War's approval rating is down to something like two-thirds opposed, and yet you're not hearing a lot of end the war breast beating on the campaign trail.
The Republican's just let G.I. Joe out of his tiger pit and he seems to be all for just doing what we're doing as long as whoever's actually turning a profit from it keeps on making money.
And the opposition is showing an uncharacteristic reluctance to actually come out and oppose. What's up with that?
===
It seems like a lot of Democrats are discouraged. They think they've already lost. They've got two candidates that not only can't win, but are so sure they can't win that they keep on running against each other so they don't have to run against the elderly white war hero.
People mock "Change" as an issue because it stinks of diapers.
And a half year is probably way to early to be warning people not to give up and sleep in on election day.
But come November we'll have a choice. Another four or eight years of pretty much this same shit we've had for the last seven and a half years.
Or, as Monty Python used to say, "Something Completely Different".
And as vague and uncertain as the change they're offering is, and as completely different as either of them would be, I'll tell you this much: either of them would be better than Hitler.

See the Tagline Up There?

2008-01-09T18:06:00.000-08:00

America held hostage for four more years. Now it is more like one more year...a portion of that lame ducky.
Don't let the most absolute outrage happen again. Vote in your state's primary and more importantly, let your voice be heard in November!

The Strike Before Christmas

2007-11-12T01:36:00.000-08:00

THE STRIKE BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
In the month before Christmas,
the WGA Strike
put
8 drivers
7 wardrobe people,
6 construction workers and production office personnel,
5 set dressers,
4 assistant directors, caterers, grips, electricians, writers assistants, makeup artists, hair stylists and props handlers,
3 casting people, post production personnel, art department employees, sound men, stand-ins and accountants,
2 cameramen, camera assistants, location managers, set PAs, editors, editors assistants and craft service people,
1 script supervisor, unit manager, facilities manager, DGA trainee and medic
and a producer who's not a writer.
all out of work.
==================================
Let's say it's a bad time for a strike because of all the workers who aren't writers or studio heads who will be affected.
Let's say it's a bad time for a strike because it will disrupt the fall television schedule so that the only show to get a full season run will be the nine episodes of Jericho already in the can.
Let's say it's a bad time for a strike because if it runs into the Spring it will impact Pilot Season and without new pilots there may not be any new shows ready for Fall of 2008 and the next TV season may not start until January of 2009.
Let's say it's a bad time for a strike because the East Coast writers will have to march in the snow.
Let's say it's a bad time for a strike because without talk shows the major studios can't promote their new Holiday movies.
Let's say it's a bad time for a strike because Winter is the peak viewing season for housebound TV audiences.
Let's say it's a bad time for a strike because of all the people out of work at Christmastime.

That leaves one question.
When would be a GOOD time for this strike?

Because if they wait until the studios decide "Remember that 30% cut in royalties we talked them into in '88? We should give that back."
Because if they wait until the studios decide "We really are making money from commercials and web site paid ads with this internet streaming video, we realy ought to pay the writers of the content."
Because if they wait until the studios decide "Considering how much the price of living has gone up in the last 20 years, we should pay a better residual rate for DVDs than we did for Betamax tapes and laser discs back in 1988."
Because if they wait until none of those people would be put out of work, no viewers would miss their favorite shows, the studios wouldn't be losing millions of dollars every day their out and no one would be inconvenienced...
Well, there'd never be a strike.
And everyone else would be happy.
But the writers wouldn't get a raise for DVDs and downloads or any pay at all for internet streaming video.
And then they'd be sad.

= Napoleon Park =

"Now, if you haven't got an answer, you'd never have a question
And if you never had a question, then you'd never have a problem
But if you never had a problem, well everyone would be happy
But if everyone was happy, there'd never be a love song"
- Harry Nilsson, "Joy" -

Happy Friggatriskaidekaphobia Day!

2007-07-13T16:52:00.000-07:00

The Stress Management Center and Phobia Institute estimates that
more than 17 million people are affected by friggatriskaidekaphobia
----------------------
When I was a kid...
we had two TV channels until the early '60s when WZZM, Channel 13, the local ABC Network affiliate came to town. To overcome the negative image of their assigned number, they adoped the slogan "I'm a triakaidekaphile" (I like thirteen).
{since the local CBS and NBC affiliates were channels 3 and 8, they later appealed to the logical and math minded with the slogan "13 is greater than 3 and 8 put together.".]

Once when my mom was busy she dropped me off with my half sister who went to visit a friend, so I spent an afternoon with a stranger, her friend's son. It was an oddly memorable afternoon - we discussed the Werner Roth X-Men art vs. the original Jack Kirby issues, listened to both sides of the Paperback Writer/Rain single by The Beatles, and I remember he had one of those old "I'm a Triakaidekaphile" buttons.
----------------
Obviously Triakaidekaphobia is the fear of the number 13 (I don't think I've ever written - or heard - that sentence before.) although Triskaidekadaphobe is more commonly used fior someone afraid of the number.
-----------------
Fear of Friday the Thirteenth:
paraskavedekatriaphobia or
friggatriskaidekaphobia

Supposedly we can credit/thank/blame the Christians for the fear of Friday the 13th. It is claimed (without biblical reference) that Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden on a Friday the 13th and that Cain slew his brother Abel on a Friday the 13th. It is also noted that there were 13 in attendence on that Good Friday of the Last Supper. at least until Judas ducked out on the check early to go run an important errand.
It is also claimed that The Christians spread these spurious slanders against Friday the 13th because it was a Holy Day of observance for worshipers of the Norse goddess Freya.
[As a sort of compromise, the Norse entities Wotan, Thor and Freya get days of the week named after them while The Christians only get one Christmas, but there is no legal observation of the ancient Norse holidays and their gods and goddesses get the lower case treatment.]
Also in Norse belief, Loki was the thirteenth god, the 13th guest at a dinner in honor of Baldr, whom he slew, and was the 13th guest at his funeral.
While 666 is The Number of the Beast, "13" is the number of aluminum.
Jews believe God has 13 attributes of mercy and 13 is the age of adulthood.
Wiccans feel 13 is the maximum number of members of a manageable coven.
In Tarot Decks, the 13th card of the Major Arcana is Death.

Friday the Thirteenth falls on a Tuesday for Greek and Spanish speaking nations and on a Monday in Russia.

Fear of the number 13 itself is believed to stem from the simplicity of counting in base twelve: ten fingers plus two feet. Most languages have distinct names for the first twelve numbers, after with the names become combinations of numbers and prefixes. (thirteen = three+ten).

Thirteen items cannot be shared evenly (unless you give one each to thirteen people).

Most tall buildings do not have a thirteenth floor. Most commercial airplanes do not have an aisle 13. Formula One racecars are never assigned the number 13. And Microsoft, which currently offers a program called Office 12, is currently working on beta tests of Office 14.
In February Brussells Airlines was temporarily grounded while the entire fleet had their logo changed from a lower case "b" made up of thirteen dots..

Even one of the positive associations with the number 13, the lagniappe or one extra given in a "Baker's Dozen" is added to prevent complaints, to prevent a short miscount or in case one goes bad.

The most positive association with the number thirteen, at least for Americans, is that our country originally had thirteen colonies and our original flag has a circle of 13 stars, plus thirteen stripes. Aren't you glad they decided to add more stars, so we don't have a seersucker flag with fifty stripes?

= Napoleon Park =
(13 letters in the name "Randy Crawford")

Fear of the number 13:
Triakaidekaphobia
Triskaidekaphobia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triskaidekaphobia

Wikipedia page on Friday the 13th:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friggatriskaidekaphobia

"Friday the 13th" with Betsy Palmer and Kevin Bacon
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/

"Friday" with Ice Cube and Chris Tucker
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0113118/

"Freaky Friday" with Jodie Foster and Barbara Harris
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076054/

"His Girl Friday" with Rosalind Russell and Cary Grant
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080761/

"Thank God It's Friday" with Jeff Goldblum and Donna Summer
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078382/

"Thirteen" with Holly Hunter and Jeremy Sisto
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0328538/

"13 Going On 30" with Jennifer Garner
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337563/

"Apollo 13" with Tom Hanks and Ed Harris
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/

"Golgo 13" with Ken Takakura
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0174699/

Defending Initial-Based Code-Terminologies

2007-07-13T16:37:00.000-07:00

Defending initial-based code-terminologies

A week of two ago Isaiah Washington continued not shutting up about his firing from Grey's Anatomy and revealed his version of the original confrontation that began the situation.

Co-worker Patrick Dempsey did not want to film a scene until Ellen Pompeo was on the set, even though she was not in the scene. Washington cast an aspersion on Dempsey's acting ability. Some physical contact ensued.
And Washington states he never used the "f-word" in reference to gay co-worker T.R.Knight. What he said, as he recalls it, was that he was addressing Dempsey and told him "You can't treat me like some (f-word), you can't treat me like a (c-word), you can't treat me like some (p-word)."

Which proves that sometimes it's hard to explain what you said and what you meant when the media insists on reporting what you said in code.

I don't regularly watch "Family Guy" but I catch it occasionally if I'm bored. Recently I saw an episode in which Stewie suffered a severe sunburn. Later, after he healed and peeled, Brian the dog pointed out a large dark mole Stewie hadn't had before.
"Maybe it's... the C-word," Brian suggested.
Stewie got a disgusted look on his face and asked
"What does (bleep) have to do with anythiing?"
"No, no" replied a shocked Brian, "I meant cancer."

The problem is, there are only 26 letters in the alphabet and several of the more offensive vulgar terms start with the same letter.

For the most part, everyone knows what the "F-word" is, and many know the urban legend that states it was derived from the acronym "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge," which was an actual crime long before it was a Van Halen album title.
And yet everyone knows that Isaiah Washington did not tell Patrick Dempsey "You can't treat me like some f***."

When he referred to a "P-word" he was referring to a five letter slang term for genitalia, starting with P. Oddly, that is not enough information, since there is a five letter word starting with P which means a kitty cat which refers to the female privates and a five letter word starting with P which means to poke with a pin or needle which refers to the male pro-creative apparatus. The technical or medical term for which is also a five letter word starting with P.
However, Washington explained that he was not using the words F-- and P---- literally, but to refer to a weak or submissive person who could be easily be pushed around or bullied.

There are parts of the culture that has overcome religious based prejudices over sexual lifestyle. They have adopted the Seinfeldism NTTAWWT (not that here's anything wrong with that).
Without wanting to resort to racial stereotypes, it is rumored that there are some ethnic groups who place a much higher value on asserting ones masculinity and defending it even from mild aspersions. One such group contributed the word "Macho" to the lexicon, and Washington is a member of the other. So it is possible that he would not regard being referred to or treated as a f**k or a p***k as an insult at all. So we can deduce that the P-word he would have objected to being treated like would be the missing prefix from the song lyric "What's new, _____cat?"

While everyone knows what the F-word is, in this context he was clearly referring to what's often called "the other f-word". There are two, actually. F*****, a six letter word meaning bundle of sticks and the shortened version, F**, which is British slang for cigarette. Both have the same slang connotation, a slur directed at homosexuals. Washington, a tall handsome black male who is, reportedly, married to a woman, is concerned over being treated like a homosexual.

And he does not want to be treated like a c-word.
We assume he does not want really to be treated like cancer and subjected to surgical removal and chemotherapy (although his character was more or less excised with surgical precision from the cast of his program), but that's not what he actually meant.
So we assume he meant the vulgar sexual connotation of the word.
A c***, of course, is a p****. And yet, oddly enough, a c*** is a p****.
Of course a c*** is a male chicken... but wait, that is also an insulting term a man would not want to be treated like. (It's slang usage means coward, which is also similar to C-word.)
But we assume he meant c***, a word with no other meaning than the female sexual orifice, pronounced like the first syllable of the word country.

So Washington does not want to be abused or taken advantage of the way, traditionally, men have treated women or male homosexuals. He does not want to be treated like a woman or her sexual apparatus, or like a gay male. In short, he does not want to be f***ed.

Being a long term knee jerk anti-censorship type, I'm tempted to think that things would be simpler if the media could just go ahead and report when someone says f***, f** or f*****, p**** or p**** or c***, c*** or cancer.

But being a left leaning moderate with a penchant for political correctness, I'm persuaded that at times the use of code words and signifying letters are preferable to bluntness. Although I am not African-American myself, I don't care about the race of the user or the context of the usage, I simply don't care to hear the "N-word". And I think we all know what that means. Rhymes with Bigger (which is another racial stereotype) and is presumably derived from a corruption of the word Negro. It is not entirely precise since there are other N-words: rap and hip-hop culture also often use variants such as N***a (same word with the "r" sound dropped, evoking stereotypical Negro dialect) and n***az (same as above made plural by the addition of a "z".)

When people see or hear a word being used in the media it inures them to its shock value and allows them to consider the word as acceptable and in common usage.

It is ridiculous to try to suppress the F-word because it is, in fact, in extremely common usage in music, literature, the arts, much print media, pretty much everywhere but the public radio waves and broadcast television, where it is still treated as the most taboo of words.

Or perhaps the second most taboo, or tied for first. The N-word is also ubiquitous in some genres of music, in literature, film, adult news media, and is also strongly discouraged from being used casually on broadcast TV or the radio.

But there is a significant difference. The f-word had perhaps a hundred different meanings and usages as a noun, verb, adverb, adjective, modifier and exclamation. Even taking it in its most traditional and literal meaning, the comedian/philosopher Lenny Bruce said that it was the nicest think two people can do, "so if you're mad at someone you shouldn't say 'f*** you' to them, you should say 'don't f*** you'."

Spokespersons for the hip-hop community claim the N-word also has multiple uses and meanings, depending on the context and the user. "Yo, (stranger)". "He's my (friend)". "(Brother), please!"

Originally the N-word was a derogatory term for Black person. The Black community has tried to reclaim the word as their own. This is a tactic that has worked for gay groups to diffuse the term "queer" and to a lesser extent for feminist groups who see strength and value in bitchiness.
Unfortunately Blacks still have minority status and the "it's okay when we say it" approach ultimately fails to diffuse it, it just guarantees that when a white person says it... well, they mean it.
Still, if the Black community wants to try to reclaim and diffuse the term, I suppose it's racist and oppressive for a white person to try to tell them not to.

It still rings to these ears as a bitter, hateful word - the worst in the English language. If you think you can change that, I can only reply "Brother, please!"

So as foolish and pointless and sometimes confusing as it is to obfuscate speech with nonsensical initial derived code-terms like F-word and c-word and "other f-word", I think it's worth the bother if it keeps children from growing up thinking it's okay to use the N-word.

Because some words are dirty, and other words are just plain nasty.

= Napoleon Park =

Iraqi Freedom for fun and profit

2006-09-26T18:16:00.000-07:00

On 9/26/06, D. L. (A friend of mine that believes this kind of sheet, God Love 'im) wrote: (Fwd)

   David Limbaugh: New Column: Who Makes the Terrorists Hate Us?

  What other nation in history has obsessively investigated itself during
  time of war? When are we going to quit beating ourselves up and move
  down the road?
  Just a few weeks ago, we were treated to Phase 2 of the Senate
  Intelligence Committee's report analyzing our failures of prewar
  intelligence for the millionth time. The Committee -- with a nominal
  majority of Republicans and a working majority of antiwar members --
  reported that the administration had been wrong in alleging a
  relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
  As Republican Chairman Pat Roberts made clear, the working majority
  cherry picked the evidence to conclude there was no relationship when
  the weight of the evidence indicated there was -- going back 10 years,
  no less. Condoleezza Rice confirmed that there were always dissenting
  opinions, but that the prevailing view among our intelligence agencies
  was that there was indeed a relationship.
  The committee demonstrated its absurdity elsewhere, too, when it
  concluded, preposterously, that Saddam didn't consider the United States
  an enemy because he said so during his debriefing. The committee chose
  to believe that obvious lie from a lying, murderous tyrant over his
  consistently contradictory statements and behavior over the previous
  decade.
  So we're paying federal dollars to be told we must ignore our lying eyes
  and ears: that we must conveniently forget Saddam's myriad verbal jihads
  against the United States because he later made the self-serving
  statement that he hadn't considered us an enemy? This is too much. You
  might also recall that we fought a war against this maniac in 1991. I
  suppose he didn't consider us the enemy then either, or when he shot at
  our planes in the no-fly zones.
  The same kind of counterintuitive, nonsensical analysis has surfaced
  again this week through yet another leak from the treasonous New York
  Times, which selectively reported that an April 2006 National
  Intelligence Estimate concluded the Iraq war has exacerbated worldwide
  terrorism.
  Of course, this little leak wasn't designed to feed into the Democrats'
  November election propaganda message, now was it? Surely you've heard
  the line many times before: President Bush diverted resources from
  capturing Osama bin Laden -- the only terrorist chieftain in the
  non-global war on terror -- to pursue his recklessly quixotic vendetta
  against Iraq. This unprovoked, preemptive strike on the non-threatening
  Saddam has caused Muslims the world over to hate us and swelled the
  ranks of terrorism.
  When will these tone-deaf people get it through their heads that Islamic
  extremists have hated us since before the flood (figuratively, of
  course)? When will they comprehend that Osama attacked us before we
  attacked Iraq?
  Besides, who would expect that our attack on Iraq would endear us to the
  enemy? It's not like we sent them a love letter. But if Iraq were not a
  terrorist-supporting state, why would the terrorists care? Why have they
  invested so much of their resources to disrupt the Iraqi freedom
  experiment? Why are they trying to foment a civil war there if Iraq has
  nothing to do with the global jihad?
  More importantly, why does the left keep dredging this stuff up? The
  answer is they have no alternative plan for Iraq and they figure the
  only way they can make headway on the national security issue is to
  continue to paint Bush as a liar, which brings me to the main point.
  Democrats have been telling us nonstop that President Bush's policies --
  his alleged unilateralism in general, and his attack on Iraq
  specifically -- have caused an otherwise loving enemy to hate and wage
  war against us. If that's true -- which it isn't -- how much more true
  is it that the feelings of the Muslim world (and the European left)
  toward the United States have deteriorated as a direct result of the
  Democrats' constant lies about President Bush?
  If they truly believe our policies have intensified the hatred of
  Islamic extremists toward the United States, then why don't they quit
  telling the world -- when they know better -- that President Bush lied
  about Iraqi WMD and about Saddam's relationship with Al Qaeda? Why don't
  they quit falsely charging that it is the covert policy of this
  administration to torture enemy combatant detainees at Gitmo? Why don't
  they quit saying that President Bush attacked Iraq for its oil?
  Easy. They either don't believe negative world opinion of the United
  States spawns terrorism as they claim, or they don't care whether it
  does or not -- at least they don't care as much about that as they do
  regaining political power.

  Posted by David Limbaugh on September 25, 2006 07:05 PM to David
  Limbaugh


Part-time Thinker weighs in:

None of this is news, I forget, what is that word for arguing against something nobody ever said just to get your own rhetoric out? Anyway, the fact remains that the invasion of Iraq ////whether there were WMD or not\\\\ was a war of convenience far removed from the WAR ON TERROR. Given a list of threats in the region at that time and even now; Saddam's Iraq *might* have made the top five. It looked like a simple task that would paint a glorious War President and his so-called conservative base as liberators, defenders of Freedom, heroes among men. It hasn't worked out quite like that, of course.

  I personally haven't heard too much from the Democrats, they appear to be as rudderless as ever. The best they can do concerning the coming elections is to stay quiet and watch the so-called conservative Republicans up for election/re-election continue to disintegrate. I keep saying "so-called" conservatives because no person truly holding conservative ideals has ever had anything but contempt for this pretender nor his toadies in the congress. Not in October of 02, and not at any time since. The saddest part of the last four years is how many of them, and their Democratic counterparts, signed on for this waste of human lives, military resources, not to mention the goodwill of many nations around the globe. Signing on for this supposedly simple romp through the desert and easy victory was done soley out of fear of doing otherwise, for the sake of votes.

I'm perplexed about the flood remark, it is fairly common knowledge that Mohammad lived in the 6th and 7th centuries A.D., so I'm supposing that it is a remark towards Arabs. Which, truth be told, that small Earthly percentage of Muslims (about 22%) is the most vocal and active America-haters, most devotees of Islam would relish the annihilation of the Western World. So this guy is an anti-Semite as well? Or maybe he only researches the facts about Islam that back up his rhetoric.

"Osama attacked us before we attacked Iraq." That only begs the question of why abandon the search for bin Laden and Al-Qaeda to attack Iraq? Simpleton.

Changing the reasoning for a war after it's begun has been done before, older folks than myself will back me up, but the bitterest pill is the inane response that "Well, Saddam was a bad guy whaddn't he?" Was he the only nutjob dictator that needed to be removed or just the most ---- convenient.

Bad press for the Administration is what makes terrorists hate us, is that the nugget of wisdom from this rant? Sure, whatever you say dude, you should bottle that and get kids addicted to it for fun and profit. --- Richard

"Who Has Left This Hole In The Ground?"

2006-09-12T19:30:00.000-07:00

Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space. And for 40 days
after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what
happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.

All the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the
remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in
the planes and -- as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared
still into my soul -- two more in the Towers.

And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York
policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or
more, as our ancestors.

I belabor this to emphasize that, for me this was, and is, and always
shall be, personal.

And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft,"or have
"forgotten" the lessons of what happened here is at best a grasping,
opportunistic, dilettante and at worst, an idiot whether he is a
commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.

However, of all the things those of us who were here five years ago
could have forecast -- of all the nightmares that unfolded before our
eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds -- none of us
could have predicted this.

Five years later this space is still empty.

Five years later there is no memorial to the dead.

Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud
defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards
and criminals.

Five years later this country's wound is still open.

Five years later this country's mass grave is still unmarked.

Five years later this is still just a background for a photo-op.

It is beyond shameful.

At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial -- barely four months
after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field --
Mr. Lincoln said, "we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot
hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled
here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."

Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.

Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their
reprehensible inaction. "We cannot dedicate, we can not consecrate, we
can not hallow this ground." So we won't.

Instead they bicker and buck pass. They thwart private efforts, and
jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the
money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and
buying off columnists to write how good a job they're doing instead of
doing any job at all.

Five years later, Mr. Bush, we are still fighting the terrorists on
these streets. And look carefully, sir, on these 16 empty acres. The
terrorists are clearly, still winning.

And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic
sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.

And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this
city, and in the fabric of our nation. There is its symbolism of the
promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.

The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and
painfully followed it was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout
the country. The government, the President in particular, was given
every possible measure of support.

Those who did not belong to his party -- tabled that.

Those who doubted the mechanics of his election -- ignored that.

Those who wondered of his qualifications -- forgot that.

History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government
cannot be taken away from that government by its critics. It can only
be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation's wounds, but
to take political advantage.

Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being
American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor
did the media. Nor did the people.

The President -- and those around him -- did that.

They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them,
"bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would
have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as
morally or intellectually confused, as appeasers, as those who, in the
Vice President's words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the
terrorists."

They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection"
meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken, a
despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee,
hated al-Qaida as much as we did.

The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a
war, on the false premise that it had 'something to do' with 9/11 is
"lying by implication."

The impolite phrase is "impeachable offense."

Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume
responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space, and to
this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.

Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect
and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he
alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.

Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated,
that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible for
anything in his own administration.

Yet what is happening this very night?

A mini-series, created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most
radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be
televised into our homes.

The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by
bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted;
the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of
office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem
like the only option.

How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the
unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and
needless death, after monstrously transforming it into fear and
suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three
elections? How dare you -- or those around you -- ever "spin" 9/11?

Just as the terrorists have succeeded -- are still succeeding -- as
long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero.

So, too, have they succeeded, and are still succeeding as long as this
government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.

This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from
March of 1960. But as Disney's continuing sell-out of the truth (and
this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.

And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting
episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."

In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials
disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for
calm. Suddenly his car -- and only his car -- starts. Someone suggests
he must be the alien. Then another man's lights go on. As charges and
suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced.
An "alien" is shot -- but he turns out to be just another neighbor,
returning from going for help. The camera pulls back to a near-by
hill, where two extra-terrestrials are seen manipulating a small
device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that
there's no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of
the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they
can find, and it's themselves."

And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it
up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves
tonight: "The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and
explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts,
attitudes, prejudices, to be found only in the minds of men.

"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a
thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its
own -- for the children, and the children yet unborn."

When those who dissent are told time and time again -- as we will be,
if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public
chorus -- that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of
it, we are somehow un-American...When we are scolded, that if we
merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"... look into
this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this
administration also did not build, and tell me:

Who has left this hole in the ground?

We have not forgotten, Mr. President.

You have.

May this country forgive you.

Keith Olbermann - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/

Never be too askeared, Veto-man is somewhere nearby

2006-07-22T17:12:00.000-07:00

My kingdom for photoshopping skills and free time to make a photo of Big Dub in a cape and tights with a big V on the chest. In his first veto of 5.5 years in office, Big Dub has saved the world from the scourge of medical research. Never met a spending plan or tax cut he didn't like, but at least those little possible humans will be destroyed and shit-canned rather than used for ... ANYTHING.

Now, Part-time Thinker is actually a religious person, in fact Big Dub and I both claim Jesus Christ as our G0d of choice, publicly at least. I am as baffled as anyone else when he does the things he does in the name of his "Faith & Values™". Not to step in where others have put it more succinctly, but we are speaking of embryos that are scientifically created off-site of any womb, and that are kept viable through artificial means, until such time that they might be medically inserted into a woman for gestation. Created by just such in vitro fertilization, the vast majority of these 'li'l people' will die an un-newsworthy death, destroyed once the owner's whim has been satisfied and their shelf life has been reached. Thousands of tiny possible future Bushies, allowed to perish for no reason, ... wait. Is that what this is all about? Tens of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of American soldiers have already died for nothing more than the appeasement of this man's massive ego/Messiah complex (depending on how you look at it), is that what he's aiming for with this veto? Is that the central theme of Big Dub's sociopathy that the only good death is one that is completely meaningless other than as an offering at his cloven feet?

If not, then why no bill proposal to insure the preservation and facilitate the implantation, gestation, and adoption of all these courageous little wads of DNA? Won't someone please think about the children? How is it not equally morally outrageous to allow them to become wormfood in a landfill rather than to be used for research that "hain't cured nuthin' yet"? Isn't research by definition a search for something that may not be there? If I had a little gob of baby batter frozed up that I didn't want for makin' babies with, I would surely rather there be a tiny chance that they were used for something worthwhile. The chance of a worm digesting discarded embryos and eventually curing disease are 1 in 0. The odds against embryonic stem-cell research ever leading to any medical advancement don't matter to me because I know the odds are at least better than none.

Oh, it would certainly be a shame if one of these little 'potential person' clumps was destined to grow up and cure everything ever but got turned into research goo that did not cure everything ever. But Big Dub hasn't written (nor sponsored, endorsed, mentioned, considered, been made aware of) any legislation to save these cryogenic cutie-pies from anything but the laboratory. It seems he isn't concerned with their dying, he is only concerned with making sure they die a pointless death in the face of the very real danger that their existence just might amount to something other than worm trails. It would certainly be a shame if that future everything ever curer became a teeny tiny pile of worm droppings.

Again, why no flag-waving, Adopt-a-Wad™ campaign? According to Arlen Specter, 128 of the estimated 400,000 currently stored 'kid-sicles" have been adopted, as in; impregnated and already born or on their way towards being lung-breathing Americans. Thanks to Leisure Guy for doing the math and pointing out that's just over .03%. The rest, that is 99.96%, will likely become wormfood, hopefully the worms will be eaten by landfill seagulls, and hopefully, they will defecate only on SUVs with big Ws on the rear window. And hopefully also on the ones that have had the W scraped off over the last 5 years, they still deserve it.

The question is, is he really dead?

2006-07-06T14:53:00.000-07:00

In a world where one company, with an admitted bias, is set to control most of the paperless voting machines in the next and all future elections, a world where O. J. Simpson and Michael Jackson roam free, a world where the Most Unpopular President in History* hasn't been impeached for his numerous constitution stompings/treasonous acts, should we even believe that Ken Lay is dead? What would it take to sequester his Bush-donating felonious ass to keep his mouth from running (or just to keep a pal out of the pokey)? It's certainly possible that he was taken to a private deposition of some sort and the rest of what happened is all imaginary, the real Lay being transported to Cheney's Undisclosed Location to subsist on catered meals and Cuban cigars for his remaining days. Air America radio pundit Randi Rhodes tastelessly suggested Big Dub may have 'arranged' the death, for the silence and such, but I think his not actually being dead is more plausible. Hey, in a world where 86% of Americans believe there was government collusion on 9/11, I among them, just about anything is possible.

*Nixon played the Al Gore role in 1960, although he did not contest the murky results, but he was by all accounts legitimately elected by a wide margin and went on to win 49 states (!) in his re-election. Bush the Younger has never been popular, not even at summer camp, with those supple yet firm pursing lips of his.

Putting "Low" In Perspective.

2006-06-09T01:55:00.000-07:00

I just don't get it.

The media continues to claim that pResident Evil Shrub Dubya Junior's approval rating and the support for Junior's War is low and down.

Then they turn around and report that fully one third of American's think running off to overthrow foreign dictatorships with no strategic withdrawal plan and sacrificing thousands of American lives after the goal is accomplished is a peachy keen idea. Just nifty.

One in three approves, supports and is for it.

Say you're in a room with two other people. One of you is like "Yeah! Let's Do War!!!" Bring it on!"

That's not "low". That's fucking insanely horrifying.

Out of every three people you meet, every third person you notice at the store, maybe a third of your own family, is a war-loving kill-crazy maniac. One In three! How is this "low"?

You, your mom and dad, and one of you has a gun.

You, me and someone else, and one of us is crazy.

Sweet Jesus.

= Napoleon Park =

Absolute Outrage

2006-06-05T01:16:00.000-07:00

Absolute Outrage
Absolute OutrageThis is not about p*l*t*cs or B*sh. but it is about Outrage. Outrage over the lack of respect the commercial news media has for the comic book art form and the people who work for it. A lack of respect that translates into a disregard for the truth.
---------------
Alex Toth (rhymes with 'both') was a comic book artist who also worked in animation. he produced work in nearly 600 comic books dating back to 1943. In the '60s and '70s he created and designed Space Angel, Space Ghost, Birdman, the Galaxy Trio, Shazzan and Clue Club. He also produced design work for animated series such as Fantastic Four (which was created by Jack Kirby), Josie and the Pussycats (created by Dan de Carlo) and the Super-Friends (featuring the Justice league characters designed by Siegel & Shuster, Kane, Finger & Robinson, Moulton, Nodell, Fox & Lampert, and others). He also worked on "Battle of the Planets" aka G-force and designed the character 7-Zark-7 for that series. While many comic book inkers favor a modeled approach using varied line widths, shading and feathering to indicate form, Toth favored a simplified, stripped down approach, giving figures a clean, unwavering and 'coloring bookish' outline and a precise clean form. This simple approach is easier to animate, but that doesn;t mean it's easier to draw. It is actually harder to indicate a three dimensional form with just an outline; the less lines used, the more exact they must be. Alex Toth passed away on May 27th at the age of 77. It is reported that he died at the drawing board with a pen in his hand.
-------------
Over the years DC has had many characters named Batwoman or Batgirl. Because batman has been in print continuously since 1939 it is not always easy to determine a clear dividing line between the Golden and silver Age (or Earth one and Earth-two) versions of the Batman mythos. In the fifties Kathy Kane was Batwoman and her niece Betty occasionally aided her as Bat-girl. In the mid-sixties "new look" era Barbara Gordon, the police commisioners niece, became Batgirl. This character also appeared on the Batman televsion series, on the internet flash animation "Gotham Girls" series and on the animated "The Batman" show. In the comic book continuity she was shot and crippled by the Joker in the graphic novel "The Killing Joke" and, wheelchair bound, became Oracle, organizer of the group known as "Birds of Prey" (this version also appeared on the TV series of the same name). Helena Bertinelli, the Huntress, briefly adopted the role, and most recently Cassandra Cain, a mute Asian martial artist, used the identity but has since abandoned it. Alicia Silverstone played Barbara Wilson, Alfred Pennyworth's neice, and Batgirl, in the film "Batman and Robin". In the late '80s a comic book mini-series called "Crisis On Infinite Earths' simplified the DC multiverse and removed most parallel versions of Earth, deleting much past contuinity and allowing for a fresh start.This summer a comic book series called "52" will introduce a new, different version of Kathy Kane who will, like her '50s namesake, adopt the mantle of Batwoman. There is some media publicity surrounding her sexual orientation for some reason.
-------------
I have mentioned these two unrelated items, the passing of comics and animation legend Alex Toth and the history of Batman's female counterparts, for a reason. There are people in the news media incapable of getting the facts straight, even on simple matters.
I have seen online obituaries for Toth accompanied by a clip from "Space Ghost, Coast to Coast", a Cartoon network series from the '90s which Alex Toth did not work on and had no connection to, other than the fact that it featured characters which he had designed some thirty years earlier. The artwork shown was NOT drawn by Toth.
And I have seen several articles on line concerning the introduction of the new Batwoman, and her sexual orientation. One was accompanied by a picture of the Batgirl from the Saturday Morning cartoon series "The Batman". Another was illustrated with a photo of actress Yvonne Craig in her garb and cowl as Batgirl from the '60s TV show. The information concerning the new Batwoman in said articles does NOT pertain to the Saturday Morning cartoon character Batgirl or, to the best of my knowledge, to actress Yvonne Craig, who has reportedly been married since 1988.
It is unfortunate and disrespectful that a supurb artist should have his obituary illustrated with artwork he did not create. And it is unfortunate that some parents might become concerned about a Saturday morning cartoon character who has nothing to do with the article her picture is used to illustrate. And it most sad that the professional news media clearly has so little regard for the truth.

= Napoleon Park =

Cheney doesn't like the MSM, millions shocked

2006-03-28T12:05:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Jon Stewart and the Daily Show for pointing me towards the latest info at thesmokinggun.com. They procured the advance letter sent to hotels that lists Cheney's demands for his room. Apparently any news other than Rupert Murdock's revisionist/apologist Big Dub asslick channel can not be displayed in the presence of Mr. Vice President. I guess it isn't too much to ask that you not accidentally be confronted by a non-airbrushed view of the world when you're trying to get your relax on. The Veep could also be afraid of the dark, note; "All the lights turned on", as well as a hand written late addition at the bottom; "extra lamps".

Main Stream Media, not Mary Stuart Masterson, although I doubt he's a fan.

I'll get it done when the time is right and I have sufficiently prepared for the task at hand

2006-03-23T15:31:00.000-08:00

Apparently Daniel Whitney, gratingly better known as 'Larry the
Cable Guy' to those unfortunate enough to hear his cackling
celebrations of the unwashed; has given permission to the United
States Air Force to use his "Git R Done" slogan. This came as news to
me, by way of someone who had never heard of Richard Pryor, so go
figure which one of us is caught in a culture warp. I won't do the
'which sign of the Apocalypse is this' joke, but only because I am
still reeling from the ridiculousity of it all. Truly, it is probably
a pretty good move, what better to appeal to someone still willing to
join the service under the current administration than this
slack-jawed yokel catchphrase? I do think it would serve better as a
slogan for Army, as Buster would say, because I don't think a person
with the cognitive skills required to operate sophisticated aircraft
and weaponry should be the same type of person that would say "git r
done". Ever. This reads like I think you have to be a moron to enjoy
Larry tCG, I don't think it's necessary, but it certainly doesn't
hurt. It also reads like I think anyone joining the service under Big
Dub is somehow damaged or less intelligent than the average person,
and that is certainly not true. Some people spend their whole lives
wanting to join the service, turn 18, and join. I admire the
dedication of people that are more interested in their own ambitions
than to turn their back on their dreams just because the sociopath
dreamweaver has written them a nightmare. Then again, there are other
things in life to become rather than a statistic.

Buzzcut Alabamians spewing colored smoke in their whiz jets to the
strains of 'Rock You Like a Hurricane.'

Could you simply jot down a few nice words?

2006-03-14T16:47:00.000-08:00

Over at Americablog, there is an interesting email sent from a propagandist in the Pentagon, asking for help spreading 'feel good' Iraq stories through the blogging community. It's a bit form-letterish, especially considering what it says and what blog it was sent to; it makes no sense. "I really enjoy reading the news/information from your site. You have a great variety of information that is very useful." !?!
No-one from the Pentagon Propaganda Concern having read Americablog would even have sent this email, it was likely a blanket spamroll. I wonder if anyone that received it took them up on the offer?

.

What do you do with a drunken draft dodger?

2006-02-19T07:50:00.000-08:00

I'm watching Brit Hume right now pretend that he didn't do a "softball" interview with Dick Cheney. Brit Hume is the type of guy who would run over his child's cat in the driveway and blame the child for allowing the creature to walk around. If he plays "hardball" with you, you know it. Of all the Big Dub apologists/revisionists over at Fox News Network he is probably one of the top three most honest, but that isn't saying a whole lot. He is still a brilliant spin artist and the Cheney interview couldn't have been more softball without actually involving the use of a softball. But then nobody is going to voluntarily have Cheney throw anything at them.

The way most of the media had been all over the tremendous 20 hour wait until they got the news, I thought they were understanding the truth of the matter; that there was a deliberate delay and some reason for it, but the way the White House press corp has gone into hysterics because they didn't get the first call, it's all a little disheartening. I find it difficult to understand that with all the unseemly things that Dick "Dick" Cheney has been involved with over the years, and the parts of this case that there is no chance to recover at this time, (such as whether the delay was about sobering Cheney up); the locus of the hysteria is the ego of the press corp being bruised that they didn't hear it first. Never mind that the Veep was likely rather impaired and was sequestered for sobering up is the mostly likely scenario; they're crying crocodile tears because he cheated on them by allowing the story to surface through local media. The missing hours is the story here, but egotism is getting in the way.

Initial reports that there - "was no drinking" - eventually changed to - "there was beer in the cooler, but I don't think anyone had any" - then to Cheney's admission "I had a beer with lunch". I don't know about you, but everyone I know that has ever hunted did one of two things: They were not drinkers and did not drink - or - They were drinkers and it turned from a hunting trip to a drinking party within hours. If I have a beer with lunch it is not the last one I have and I would venture to guess that it wasn't Cheney's either. Ask any policeman how many drinks a driver has had - when they admit to any - one beer is a very popular number. They should give up selling six and twelve packs since everyone drinks 'one beer'.

My problem with this controversy is that it is beginning to look a little too orchestrated even for me. Making a big stink over whom broke the news and to whom instead of the true mystery of why it took so long; it seems as though the mainstream media really has been taken over by the administration's handlers. Controlling both sides of a story is quite a powerful position, a seemingly adversarial press that asks pridefully about why they didn't get personal phone calls from the scene is not good journalism. The question isn't why did the news come from ranch owner Katharine Armstrong, and then by way of her "hometown newspaper"; as telling as that question's answer might be, Cheney has given that answer and it is laughable but not likely to change. The question I want answered is, is there not one person in Cheney's entourage of cohorts and Secret Service that has any idea how to both release news officially and hide the Vice President long enough for him to sober up? Apparently the threat of someone jabbing a needle in him and getting his blood alcohol content if they released the news immediately and sat the Vice President at the hospital with his victim was deemed much too dangerous compared to just obfuscating the facts afterwards in the media. Such is the grip this administration has on both FNN and the MSM.

USATODAY.com - Iraq, not homeland, Bush budget buster

2006-02-11T15:29:00.000-08:00

* Please note, the sender's email address has not been verified.

You have received the following link from rockyhors@gmail.com:

Click the following to access the sent link:

USATODAY.com - Iraq, not homeland, Bush budget buster*


Get your EMAIL THIS Browser Button and use it to email information from any Web site.

*This article can also be accessed if you copy and paste the entire address below into your web browser.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/neuharth/2006-02-09-iraq-budget_x.htm?POE=click-refer

2006-01-08T16:10:00.000-08:00

The Unexpected Return of Hydra

2006-01-08T03:35:00.000-08:00

Tonight the local ABC affiliate aired the 1998 made-for-FOX TV movie based on the Lee and Kirby created Marvel Comics character "Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D."

I saw it when it was first on, and taped it then. It was a bit campy and melodramatic, with little of Steranko's edgy sense of style. As I recall the reviews in the comics fan press were generally favorable, though it was felt that the actress playing Viper went way over the top with hr scenery biting histrionics. Still, she was playing a Marvel bay-guy insane psychopathic daughter of uber-Nazi Baron Von Strucker leader of a freelance terrorist organization, so you had to expect a bit of flambouyance and Sandy Hess certainly brought that to the party.

In 2002 I brought the tape over to watch it with a friend who hadn't seen it before.
And as the film neared it's completion and the evil villainous organization Hydra plotted to nuke Manhatten we had one of those moments that the Internet abbreviaton "OMG!!!" was designed to convey, as the baddies opened the door to their discreet, unmarked van, revealing four missiles aimed directly at the World Trade Center towers.

"Holy f***!" I exclaimed, "they are NEVER going to show this on TV ever again!"

Oh well, wrong again.

But that wasn't the part that stabbed at my heart this time through.

At the end, after the disaster has been averted but Viper and her frozen-solid father have made their unlikely escape and Colonel Fury is making his "I bet we haven't seen the last of them" speech to set up the sequel that was never made, he snarls "If you ask me, this war will never be over. If it's not Hydra it's always someone else. if you ask me, this world is a whole nest of Vipers."

Dammit, don't you just hate it when a bad David Hasselhof movie is smarter than the President of the United States?

= Napoleon Park =

Napoleon Park finds the more sad than funny

2005-12-19T16:36:00.000-08:00

What would it have been like if Dan Quayle had become President? I don't know what it would have been
like, but I know what it would sound like. Big Dub Star Clicker.

Twenty Five Years Ago.

2005-12-11T18:46:00.000-08:00

I didn't write anything here the other day to mark 'that anniversary'. I was off visiting a friend, and I assumed there was enough media over... um, kill, anyway.
I figured why add to all that, when so many people can say it better.

But how can I not?

What was the worst day of your life? Or the biggest tragedy you can remember?

Being a baby boomer the central event of my live, the big before and after, will always be the JFK weekend.
Y'know that "you always remember where you were when you heard" thing? I was at school and they told us to go home. I have a better story, though: my mom's. Checkout at the supermarket. The cashier told her "the President's been shot". Wanting to know how serious the wound was, my mother asked "Where?" and the clerk replied "Dallas".
Thee were only three television networks in those days, and this was the story on all three non-stop all weekend long, with the emotional climax being the opportunity to see the ultimate vigilante revenge fantasy acted out in real time: the man accused of killing the President being gunned down on live TV on a Sunday afternoon. I was ten.

Of course we all have our personal stories. Y'know that expression "You look like you just lost your best friend"? My best pal in 1980 was Scott MacEachron, the writer of the first issue of Nice Day Comix. Gas leak. I went to his funeral and then went to work. Not good.

No matter how the event's been exploited for political reasons, you can't diminish the original impact of 9/11. I slept in late that day and missed the live coverage of the mayhem. Instead I turned the TV on around 7:00 PM. The distraught anchorperson was seated in from of a graphic reading "America Under Attack" and told and retold the tales of planes crashing into both of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and crashing en route to the White House. It was on every major channel I turned to. They were making it sound like World War Three had begun and they were just waiting for the next wave of attacks to occur.
Wake up to that.

But I'm digressing. Postponing that horrible moment we know is coming whenever we hear someone talk about John Lennon.

I was working the morning shift at Heringtons Self Serve Gas. Going in early to load the vending machines and empty the trash cans and get the lights on at 6:00 AM. And I'm not a morning person. It was dark. I don't remember if I was driving up Alpine or getting off the freeway. I don't remember what songs they'd been playing on the radio, but it was either the Beatles or John Lennon, maybe both, and several in a row.
I do know I was a block from work - or less, when the song ended and a somber DJ informed me that

"We've been listening to the music of John Lennon, who was shot and killed last night in New York City in front of the Dakota apartment building where he lived."

I may not have that exactly verbatim past the first fourteen words, but those are the ones seared into my memory.

It was another rough shift. I doodled cartoons on the back of cigarette carton cardboard as a coping mechanism. I listened to the radio.

"I wish I was a baby, I wish I was dead", "Feel so lonely, wanna die", "Happiness is a warm gun", "Baby's in black", "The way things are going, they're gonna crucify me."

Having gone through a failed affair the previous year, having lost my best friend, this was not the first time I ever cried uncontrollably while at work. Just the worst.

I turned to my drug of choice after getting off work. I visited my dealer on the way home and scored and copped a good buzz. He really didn't want to talk about the topic du jour. He wasn't really a Beatles fan, he said.
And he made a valid point. "Somewhere In New York City" and "Walls and Bridges' and "Rock'n'Roll" had not been Lennon at the top of his game, and then he went into five years of heroin and marriage based reclusive retirement and seclusion. "when was the last time anyone even played a John Lennon record, and now everyone's acting like they were his biggest fan." Harsh, but valid.

But it wasn't just the death of a pop star on the comeback trail. It wasn't even the end of the Beatles dream; that had occured a decade earlier.

But for us... the baby boomers, the hippy generation, the flower children, the peace and love crowd, the youth revolution, the counter culture, this was the dividing point by which everything would be sorted into befoe and after. Our JFK.

I'd guess that for anyone too young to remember the end of world War Two, all of history can be divided into four parts: before and after November 22nd, 1963, before and after December 8th, 1980, before and after 9/11.

Those are the big three. Everything else that happened - The Moon Landing, Woodstock, "Roots", The Berlin Wall coming down, the final Seinfeld, Bush's War, Little Bush's War - that's just stuff that happened.

JFK, 9/11, John Lennon's murder. That's stuff that happened to other people, but it's also stuff that happened to us. (fist over heart gesture) Here. Inside.

That's why I couldn't not write something.

= Napoleon Park =

read this

2005-11-29T16:38:00.000-08:00

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002069.htm

Miserable failure or deferred success?

2005-11-18T17:09:00.000-08:00

This might be nonsense but I find it pretty apropos the Big Dub administration.

How much is that radiation detector in the window, I sure hope that radiation detector is for sale

2005-11-12T18:02:00.000-08:00

Mother Jones has done a few conversions for the amount of money spent in the Iraq theater of operations per day, and what it would be worth in the U. S. for things perhaps a bit more necessary than creating a Muslim Democracy (or whatever they are calling it that sounds less contradictory) in Iraq. Found by way of Cotton Pickin' Days. --r-

Vote or...

2005-11-08T14:40:00.000-08:00

...shut up when things don't go your way. I voted today. Did you?

Sacrifices

2005-10-23T15:01:00.000-07:00

Sacrifices sometimes have to be made. I don't have a story to link to
about this, I'm just wondering if anyone else is thinking the same
thing: Will I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby be sacrificed to allow Karl
"Nosferatu" Rove to retain his place in the Bush administration?
Irving Lewis Libby Junior, 55, most often punditized as "Dick Cheney's
Dick Cheney", seems poised to take a fall to quiet the lengthy Valerie
Plame outing scandal and leave Rove unscathed. As I wrote, I don't
have a link as this is coming out of my own understanding of how these
things work in American politics. There are likely many others making
this rather obvious prognostication. The questions are, will he be
enough, and is he even willing to fall on this grenade for Big Dub's
sake?

And yes, it bothers me a great deal that the spacing has become fragged every time I have tried to post this.

Commander-in-Chief Fan Fiction

2005-10-20T05:22:00.000-07:00

"Commander-in-Chief" is a fictional fantasy in which a Republican
President choses a politically independent female Vice Presidential
running mate who ascends to the Presidency upon his death.

Rumors were floated that "Commander-in-Chief" was meant as a form of
public brainwashing to accustom the public to the idea of a female
President, allegedly in order to quote "pave the way" unquote for a
Hillary Clinton candidacy in 2008.

Then more rumors are floated that real life Vice President "Dick"
Cheney may go Agnew side up paving the way for the current
Republican President to appoint his Secretary of State, a Republican
woman who claims she has no interest in running for the country's
highest office.

One factor that might favor her selection would be the rather
cynical 'assassination insurance' policy. The theory is, no one will
try to kill a Nixon if the alternative is an Agnew Presidency. No
one will shoot at Bush Sr. and run the risk of a President Danny
Quayle. Sane people shudder at the thought of a Cheney White House,
and frankly the 2000 election showed that almost half the voters
opposed the idea of an AlGore presidency, rendering Billy Jeff
Clinton safe from attack.
The theory would then be that America is still sexist and racist
enough that no one would harm Geo Dubya Shrub, Junior for fear of a
black, female president.

IF Condaleeza Rice were vice president that is no guarantee that she
would seek - or win - the Republican presidential candidacy in 2008.
Though if she were to prove a popular VP she might be asked to
reconsider. Vice Presidents do seem to have an edge in presidential
races. Johnson, Bush, Sr. Well, not Jerry Ford so much...

And evil as this sounds, an even more cynical variant of
the 'assassination insurance' theory is the likelihood that a first
American black female president might not survive a full term,
setting her presumably white male Vice President up to ascend to the
Oval Office.

IF the Republican Party ran VP Condaleeza Rice for President in
2008, it is possible, maybe even likely the Democrats would consider
that their best opportunity to run Mrs. Clinton.

"Commander-in-Chief" is about an independent candidate with no party
affiliations who becomes president and happens to be female.

And IF the 2008 election came down to a race between Rice and
Clinton, one of two things would occur.

Either a woman would become President of The United States.

Or, if America still hangs on to its mid-20th century patriarchal
male chauvinist sexist ideals, both candidates could be rejected and
an independent third party candidate could be elected.

EITHER WAY, with either a female President or an Independent
President, "Commander-in-Chief" would be credited with "paving the
way".

Wow. Far out.

********-------------
****** ------------
********-------------
****** ------------
********-------------
----------------------
----------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051020/en_nm/commander_dc;_ylt=ArpnFnoPl
TJUOi8SGaYBR9kXCGYD;_ylu=X3oDMTA3YXYwNDRrBHNlYwM3NjI-

LA - American has elected a full season of "Commander-in-Chief,"
ordering nine more episodes.
"Commander" is the most-watched new series of the fall season,
averaging 16.5 million total viewers to lead its 9 p.m. Tuesday
slot. While second in the hour (behind House, MD) in the desirable 18-49
demographic, "Commander" is still up 10 percent with that group from
last year's 9-10 p.m. crapathon, "According to Jim and Rodney."
"Chief" has managed to weather a regime change behind the scenes
this month, with Steven Bochco replacing series' showrunner Rod
Lurie, who remains executive producer.

Huh. Groovy.

= Poppaspank =

Of course no one believes television really has that sort of
influence on the public. The odds are very good that the two major
American p*l*t*c*l parties will run middle aged white men for
President in 2008 and almost certain that one of them will win.
This has nothing to do with an idealistic "how it should be" and
everything to do with a cynical but realistic "how it is."
---
The optimist sees the glass as half full, the pessimist sees the
glass as half empty.

The realist carefully weighs all the factors including the
nutritional and/or hazardous qualities of the contents of the glass,
the total measurement of the fluid - assuming the contents are even
liquid, which has never been specified - and eventually concludes
that the problem is, the glass is too big.

Wil Wheaton Blasts the Governator

2005-10-13T09:35:00.000-07:00

Here is what Wil Wheaton has to say about the Governor of my home state. Rat on, Wil. Here is his blog: http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/

yet another insult from the governator
This is crossposted to blogging.la.

In addition to countless lies, denying basic civil rights to gays and lesbians, and calling an unnecessary special election with powergrabs that masquerade as "reform," I present yet another reason Arnold Schwarzenegger makes me want to puke. Last week, while firefighters were battling the Topanga fire, the Governor flew in for a George Bush-esque photo-op, and several firemen say they were ordered to stand with him for the cameras. It's an outrageous insult to firefighters to force them to pose for a photo-op with this idiot, who is doing everything he can to silence their union with prop 75.

A few firefighters were bold enough to complain they were ordered to stand behind the governor against their will on the day of the news conference, KCAL 9’s Linda Breakstone reported. Seven more came forward Wednesday. “We did not want to do it,” Los Angeles County firefighter Greg Alldredge said. “Then it came down as an order directly from above.” Firefighters were "ordered and forced" to participate, Alldredge said. Rank-and-file firefighters were very displeased with "having to shake hands with somebody who really doesn't support us.” Schwarzenegger's press secretary says "No one from the governor's office ordered anyone to do anything.

Could it have come from his campaign office, and not his Sacramento office? I guess it could depend on what your definition of "office" is.

Updated: via comments, I see the Governor's incredibly compassionate, thoughtful, appreciative response to the firefighters' criticism:

Schwarzenegger later brushed off criticism of the stunt. He says everybody is ordered to do things at one point or another. He also pointed out that "as a matter of fact, in one of my movies, I played a firefighter."

It's almost like the word "asshole" was invented specifically for him. He played a firefighter once in a movie, and we're supposed to believe that fact is somehow relevant to anything. Well, actually, it is. It shows how arrogant, out of touch, and clueless this coddled celebrity who's playing governor actually is.

Rejected by the liberal media?

2005-10-12T19:09:00.000-07:00

Joel H. Hinrichs III blew himself up, in an apparent terrorist attack attempt at Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, which was filled with over 80,000 people. After being turned away for refusing to have his backpack searched, Hinrichs sat on a bench outside the stadium and exploded. (I don't know if he meant to detonate or it was an accident, and I don't think the naybobs saying they are sure of either have any reason to be so sure.) If this is news to you, or you kind of remember it sort of shooting across your attention for a moment, ask yourself why wouldn't this be considered an important story. Because he didn't get in? Well, yeah, if he had gotten inside the stadium it would be much greater news, that's for sure. But why isn't this getting the attention it should, and why aren't the frightening details surfacing in the mainstream media? Or is it that I don't pay enough attention to the MSM to know for sure that they are ignoring the story? No, everyone in the narrowcasts agree on one thing, MSM is ignoring this story.

Mark Davis for RealClearPolitics

Bombing The Smurfs

2005-10-12T00:17:00.000-07:00

What's the deal with all the media coverage over the Unicef ad featuring an appearance of The Smurfs licensed by the Peyo estate.

People are shocked that using a childrens television icon - especially one with Gen-Y nostalgia value, will be upsetting to children and their parents.

Some thing that since some people didn't like the Smurfs and are glad to see war waged against them, it will minimize and trivialize the message.

Virtually no one seems to be addressing the actual point of the ad: to raise funds to aid in rehabilitating former child soldiers in foreign countries.

Some people gripe that ad ad showing baby Smurf crying in a bombed out village sends an anti-war message.

Pish tosh, tish, and piffle.

People, war supporters, American patriots, are not naive innocents or hypocrites. They are not self-deluded or blinded by rousing John Wayne propaganda. They're not idiots.
American war supporters know full well what a war is. Bombs do not drop from the sky and land only on unoccupied factories in Batman's abandoned warehouse district. When we wage a war on the enemies of our nation in any specific geographical region we know full well that in addition to those who have chosen to defy us, we will also make victims of innocents. Those with no political agenda, men and women, children, mothers and grandparents, the clergy or clerics or voodoo priests of whatever belief system is popular in the land we are devastating.

That is what war is. Every single person who sports a flag decal or casts a ballot in support of a war knows exactly what a war is and has absolutely no moral compunction over taking a claw hammer and smashing in the soft unformed skulls of the newborn children of our enemies like so many baby harp seals cluttering up the Canadian tundra. Hammering a child with a mallet or taking a chain saw to their limbs, and casting a vote or raising your voice in support of war: there is no moral difference, the blood on your hands is the same whether it is literal or figurative.
When a soldier pulls a trigger he accepts the moral responsibility for the demise of his or her target. When a vote is cast or a symbolic gesture is made or a verbal argument is offered in support of a war, that person accepts the responsibility and shoulders the burden of every death resulting from that war just as much as the man who declares it. That is why we do not enter into war lightly, that is why we make a war so hard to declare that only a president with the majority support of the congress and senate and, by extension, the voters, can launch us into a war.

A little cartoon about dancing blue gnomes and falling bombs and red-orange bomb-bursts and puffs of smoke and the smouldering remains of a burned out mushroom hut village don't inform us of anything we don't already know.

People who support war know about the blood and death, devastation and sweet roast pork smell of burning babies. They understand it and they accept it and they wave flags from their antennae in celebration of it and vilify pop singers who criticize it.

And they wonder why they scare me.

Some guy rips into Big Dub over Miers

2005-10-06T23:46:00.000-07:00

I've never heard of this guy, I ~~don't~~ can't keep up with every journalism major to buy a computer and start posting, although I think this guy is an actual professional, talk show host or something. Either way, this is a different take than you might hear from the GOP office holders, but this kind of rebellion by those that normally tow the party line may be the tip of the frozen elephant as this administration disintegrates over the next three years.
The following was penned today by talk-show host Michael Graham.

Sorry, George, but you lost me at Harriet. When a reporter asked you Oct. 4 if Harriet Miers was the most qualified possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court and you answered, "Yes I I picked the best person I could find" ‹ and you did it with a straight face ‹ that was it.

I'm done. Check, please! I'm outta here.

I am no longer a George W. Bush supporter. As a conservative, I have been bitch-slapped by this man for the last time. Those suffering from "Battered Conservative's Syndrome" will no doubt make excuses and find some reason to stay with this serial abuser of our principles, but not me. I have had enough.

I've had enough of defending a "conservative" president who has spent money faster and grown government bigger than any president since LBJ. I've had enough of a "conservative" who refuses to do anything to secure our borders, and whose only plan to stop illegal immigration is to hand out temporary worker permits to create even MORE future illegals.

And George, when you look me in the eye and throw me a good old-fashioned Bill Clinton "I did not have sex with that woman" line like Harriet Miers is the most qualified person in America for the Supreme Court þ buddy, you're on your own.

It's bad enough that she's hardly conservative and has no record of achievement. Mr. President, making an affirmative-action appointment of an unqualified crony to one of the highest offices of the land is wrong, no matter what your politics. It's not just a mistake. It is shameful. You should be ashamed of yourself.

The fact that you aren't is the reason you just lost me.

Again and again, watching you throw tax dollars around like a drunken teenager at a New Orleans strip joint, I've told myself, "Stick with George, because he gets the big ones right." And the biggest of the "big ones" has always been rescuing America from an out-of-control, activist Supreme Court. You promised me a Scalia. Instead, you're sticking me with a "sistah," a woman whose qualifications for the Supreme Court begin and end in her brassiere.

She's no Scalia. She's no Thomas. She's not even a Ginsburg or a Souter. She's a joke ‹ FEMA's Michael Brown in a skirt. In fact, that's an insult to Brown, who had at least some experience as a judge, if only at horse shows.

Your nomination of Harriet Miers is an insult to the court, to conservatives and to any American who cares about competence. She's an utterly unqualified crony who has never sat on the bench, never written on constitutional issues, never been involved in a single significant issue or overseen an important case. According to you, Mr. President, she's been your attorney off and on for 10 years, and you've never once discussed the issue of abortion and the Constitution!

Good grief, my mailman and I have had that conversation.

George, you have done more than merely betray your conservative supporters. You have embarrassed us. You have made incompetence and cronyism part of the conservative character. You kept CIA director George Tenet after the worst terrorist attack in American history occurred on his watch. You kept Michael "Best In Show" Brown in a job at FEMA he was never qualified to do. And now you're giving the Dallas Library Lady a seat on the highest court in the land and telling us, "Trust me, I know she's good"?

Sorry, no dice.

Trust you? You just went on TV and told me that Harriet Miers is the most qualified person in America to sit on the Supreme Court! C'mon George, even Harriet's MOM doesn't believe that.

And now we find out that, in addition to giving campaign checks to Al Gore, Miers chaired an American Bar Association panel that recommended legalization of gay adoption and American participation in the International Criminal Court ‹ both liberal positions that you oppose. So mediocre is the Miers pick that your supporters have already fallen back to the "Don't worry, we'll probably get another pick before Bush is gone" defense.

Mr. President, if you honestly believe that Harriet Miers is the most qualified candidate, then you wouldn't be qualified to be president.

But you don't believe it, and you know it. The question is "why?" You've got 55 Republicans in the Senate, you had a dozen well-qualified conservative candidates you could have chosen from, several of them women. Why pick an incompetent crony when you held all the cards?

I fear that, when all the layers are pulled away, we will find that your answer will be "because I wanted to." You knew it would leave conservatives disappointed and despondent; you know she's a second-rate nominee at best; but in your heart you are what I've always feared you were: a Bushie, a spoiled, rich-kid president's son who has spent your life doing what you wanted whenever you wanted and making sure everyone else knows it. The more people complained about cronyism, the more determined you were to shove one down our throats.

Well, Mr. President, you've certainly made that perfectly clear. You've told my fellow conservatives and me that you don't need us. That's fine, George, because we don't need you.

I'm done. I'm off the team. I have gone from a George Bush believer who reluctantly criticized you when necessary to an avowed critic who will support your positions when I can, but not your presidency.

Harriet Miers, "The best possible nominee?" That's like saying "George W. Bush, the best possible Republican president."

What a joke.

Thud thud thud

2005-10-06T16:46:00.000-07:00

It seems Big Dub is in a bit of a quandry over his nomination of close friend, never-been-a-judge-but-I-know-her-character-and-we-all-know-how- good-my-judgement-is Harriet Miers. If you get where you are propped up by your more 'thought intensive' pals, shouldn't you give a wee bit of thought to what they might want you to do? I don't know what I expected, but this isn't what they expected either. Sheesh, he's even being berated by bony neo-con hag Coulter, whom at least has a mind of her own, which I almost respect, if it weren't so twisted. No, I actually do respect the Coulter that wrote that last piece, just not the one she will inevitably contort back into when the whim or the wind of controversy strikes her. The fact that this decision is being denounced by both sides only adds credence to the theory that Big Dub operates purely on a gut level. You're a pal o' mine and I got a job opening, here ya go. To quote Yakov Smirnov, "What a country! In Soviet Union, village idiot has no power!" Of course, there is the theory that Miers nomination is a MacGuffin, to tire out anyone ready for a fight, while Big Dub's overseers prepare their actual nominee.

Has Anybody Seen This Gal?

2005-10-05T18:14:00.000-07:00

Well I was hoping someone else watched this - after all, with "House, MD" on hiatus, what else is there? - but I kinda liked "Commander-In-Chief".
Liked it? Heck, I may have to start setting the VCR when "House" returns for one of those watch one/tape one showdowns.
I only caught a few minutes of the series debut, but I was glued to the set for the following episode.

Now I've never watched "West Wing" or "24" or "Prison Break" so I don't know how this stacks up against those other Presidential shows. And it's been a long time since I watched "Mr. President" (early Fox sit-com) or that show where Delta Burke was the first lady.

So without any precedents to provide easy comparisons, I have to judge "Commander-In-Chief" on its own merits.

I found it to be of exceptional quality. If it hadn't been a TV Series, I think it was riviting enough that it would have made an excellent film. Especially with a cast including Geena Davis, Donald Sutherland, Mary Page Keller (as the out-bound former first lady), Nastasha Henstridge, Peter Coyote and a few others whose faces I recognized but couldn't connect with names. But as good a film as there was to be made here, I expect they have too much area to cover with this premise than a single film or even a TV mini-series could cover. (Though it might have made an interesting HBO or Showtime series.)

It would be disingenious to ignore the novelty of the series core premise: Geena Davis becomes the first female US President.

Of course it's the shows _other_ high concept that really skews it into the realm of fantasy: Her character is a political independent stunt-appointed as a vice presidential candidate to balance a Republican ticket. When her President dies, she steps into the job. With the knowledge that a third party candidate has no chance of re-election, she is totally free to spend two years in the Oval Office with only one priority; do what's best for the nation. (One wonders how they plan to deal with that limitation just in case the series runs more than two or three years.)
One of her first major acts is to appoint a vice-president. Although in office on a Republican ticket, she choses a Democrat and war hero for her second in command, based on what she describes as the "going with the best man for the job plan".

Actually, if a comparison need be made, the political outsider serving her ideals and striving to do what's best without political considerations of obligations might remind one of the Robert Redford classic "The Candidate". (Or maybe "Dave".)

The creators of this series have stated that they are all huge fans of "West Wing" and intend to try very hard not to clone that series. One of their first choices is to place more emphasis on the domestic side of her life, as a wife and mother of three.
One wonders how the feminists attracted to a series about a first woman president will react to her being President first but "Mom" a very close second. Move aside Lynette Scavo, if there's ever been a story about a 'working mother' "trying to have it all", this is it.
Emphasizing the family component is not unique among televison shows. I've noticed, reading the comments on "Medium" at the Jump The Shark web site, that a lot of people seem to hate her husband and their constant irritable squabbling. They clearly don't get that the domestic component of her life is an essential component of the shows formula and without it she'd just be a generic super-hero sans tights, or a cop show with a supernatural gimmick.
I enjoyed the 'lost diary' subplot: it was a clever way of quickly introducing the kids and their interrelationships, and clearly showed the stress placed on the 'first family". If you ever kept a diary, imagine the humiliation of trying to reconstruct, from memory, its contents so the US Secret Service can determine if it contains any information that might prove damaging to your mother - and then discovering the absent volume was in your little sister's possession the whole time. (That's cute and horrifying at the same time.)

One thought among many tugged at my mind. Will a show about an idealistic president who wants to do what's good be seen as criticism of the current real life US President and his fluctuating approval rating? Actually, my conclusion was no.
President Mackenzie Allen has her fiercely dedicated loyal supporters and her vicious detractors and conniving and outspoken political foes. There are those who question her qualifications and subject her to brutal and often ungrounded criticisms. Through it all she does what she believes to be right, allowing her morality to serve as her compass.
Whether there's a political metaphor to be seen there or not may depend on how you feel about the Oval Office's current occupant.

I'd still like to know what anyone else thought about this show, especially any fans of that show it will inevitably be compared to...

= Napoleon =

Bill O'Reilly is still really gross though

2005-09-23T19:27:00.000-07:00

The Smoking Gun has the original complaint by Andrea Mackris v. O'Reilly, FOXNews, etc.

Um, yeah, I didn't want anyone to get the idea that I don't find O'Reilly repugnant, I certainly do, believe that. Do I think it is fair that if you are attractive it is harmless flirting but if you are unattractive it is harrassment -- no. Is it hypocritical of me, a person whom has engaged in pre-marital sex with women some of which I barely knew, to speak ill of O'Reilly's creepy innuendos with an underling? Of course not, he is the self-appointed arbiter of morality, harrassing Pepsi over their endorsement deal with Ludacris, etc., not me. I've made no moral superiority claims, at least not concerning casual sex. Note to Bill: Call Jimmy Swaggart and find out what happens when the morality police get caught with their pants around there ankles.

By the way, Pepsi was the only loser on the deal, people who'd never heard of one man or the other were suddenly aware of him, (they run in slightly different circles), Ludacris was not the breaker of the contract, he only missed per-airing residuals, Pepsi quickly albeit less-publicly reversed their position - to the tune of $millions for Ludacris's (charitable) Foundation, O'Reilly got to play ivory tower crap-flinger yet again, which seems to be something he enjoys. Is it ironic that it was so much like the rap rivalries where one rapper name-checks someone he is against and the other returns the favor and suddenly white suburban 12-year-olds have two records they have to have!? I could only respect O'Reilly more if I believed it was as choreographed as it seemed. --r-

Of all People, Donahue?

2005-09-23T18:56:00.000-07:00

Yes, of all people available, Phil Donahue stepped up and smacked the crap out of Bill O'Reilly. Not literally, but in an allegorical sense of 'dealing out a beatdown', this was it. Funny, the last time I saw Bill O'Reilly he was in one of those moods that he reveals from time to time where he is pretty close to both honest and coherent, and allows himself to be seen as a rational person. Not that he is wearing a pot on his head and banging it with a wooden spoon normally, but you should know how far off this guy's perspective usually is if you recognize his name. Thanks again to Maru. --r-

Stepping Up

2005-09-22T14:47:00.000-07:00

Just wanted to quickly step up and introduce myself. I am not really a terribly political animal by nature. The last couple of elections, though, coupled with the fact that I live in Cauli-forrrr-nyah (as our Governator would say)have led me to at least begin to ask questions and seek answers about our political system and its myriad of mysteries. Wow, that was one wicked run on sentence. Sorry. At any rate, I expect I will mainly be posting links and things that are sent to me by various progressive organizations. If I have an opinion, I will give it. I'll even try to defend it if necessary.

Pimpin'

2005-09-21T20:02:00.000-07:00

I work a full time job, and it is not Internet-friendly, hence the choice of nickname; Part-time thinker. Because of this, a lot of my posts here will simply be directions to someone with more time or talent or both to bring you news on Four More Years. Leisure Guy co-opted a piece and I direct you there: The Fascist Direction of the GOP

A Simple Question

2005-09-20T03:00:00.000-07:00

Hello. My name' s not really Napoleon Park. That's actually my porn star name based on the formula "your first pets name plus the street you lived on as a child."

I'm not that politically astute either. In fact my main function at the Yahoo! group I co-moderate is to discourage people from talking about p*l*t*cs.

Funny that I'd be a moderator, since politically I guess I am a moderate. Yeah, I'm an aging hippy and tend to swing Dem. I stand in the middle but tend to lean to the left.

I know there are people with extremely strong political convictions and it seems the further out on either wing they get, the stronger their convictions.

Let's suppose, hypothetically, that this made sense. Let's say that of the two major parties (blue/red), or the two main extremes of thought (left/right) that one was always correct and the other was always wrong. That one was basically good and the other evil.

Since power tends to fluctuate from one side of the spectrum to the other depending on the whims of the voters and the charisma of the candidates or the nature of the issues, what does that say about the American public that half the time they're willing to elect the 'bad' candidate? If p*l*t*cs came own to simple extremes, black/white, good/evil, right/wrong, wouldn't that make a mockery of the two party system? If, you know, one party is always wrong. And if half the voters choose to elect wrongness, evil, selfishness and the path to destruction, what does that say about democracy?

Of course if the center position is always correct, that makes extremist on both wings and members of both big parties wrong a lot of the time. That may be even worse.

I'm thinking it may be much more complex than simply "Party A if you're rich, party B isf you're oppressed" I don't think one party can claim religion or patriotism for itself and vilify the other side as traitorous heathens. I think we may need to examine our candidates on a position by position and issue by issue basis, and try to have an open mind while we do it.

Hey, that's it for my first blog post ever. I'm hoping some folks a little more knowledgable and opinionated show up. This is really not my area of expertise, hence the naive observation.
The simple question isn;t "In a two party system, how can one side always be wrong"? The question is, "How can anyone seriously believe that"?

[So what do I do, sign my name or does it do that automatically. I told you, I never did this before. Anyway, I'm Napoleon Park and that's what I have to say.]

Veterinarian appointed Acting Director of Women's Health at the FDA

2005-09-19T19:05:00.000-07:00

I've forgotten where this came from, but I kept getting a broken link at Ms.magazine dot com. I found this representation, nonetheless, it actually occurred. I find this very telling of this administration's attitude towards the proletariat in general, and specifically towards our women, apparently.

Here we are, face to face, a couple of silver spoons

2005-09-19T18:33:00.000-07:00

Hoping to find, we're two of a kind _._._._. Together, we're gonna find our way
Okay, here we are in the outre dome, setting up what will likely be somewhere for me to drop stuff I read elsewhere, and other team members to do their thing that they do well; whatever that turns out to be. We'll leave anonymous posting up for now, no sense assuming anyone is ready to hate on us just yet.