17216
Blog Feed: Kaptain_Krude
2008-09-28 20:09:48
Kaptain_Krude
Your e-mail address
151656
2008-09-16 09:28:16
But once I'm committed to doing the deed, I'm committed. I don't worry about what I am normally doing at that time or anything else. I just go!
In years past, we would travel to Hot Springs, Arkansas and stay the night at a time-share cabin that my parents own, then leave the next morning and stay in a motel at Lucedale, Mississippi, which is just outside of Mobile, Alabama. Then we leave early the next morning and drive all the way to Kissimmee, Florida where my brother lives. It's about 9 or 10 hours driving for each day.
This year, we did something a little different. We went to Hot Springs, then left very early the next morning and went to Miramar Beach, Florida, where we stayed at a little ocean-side cabin before going on the next day to Kissimmee. (By the way, my parents invested in a time-share company (Wyndham) so unless noted, all of the places we stayed at are at a time-share cabin.) From there, we went on the next morning to Kissimmee. Then, when we were ready to leave, we just retraced our route.
Okay, that's not nearly enough detail, but it will have to wait until next time. I'll go into more detail, and then maybe get back to what I've been reading. I took along a whole pile of books in the hope that I could finish up at least one of them, but I was enjoying myself too much to do that. Also, it seems like whenever I sit down to read lately, I fall asleep. I'll get a few pages along and then pow, I'm out like a light. So, I'm hoping that having some time off will have recharged my batteries so that I can catch up on my reading, and maybe even catch up on my writing.
But that's going to have to wait until next time. Right now, we've got something pretty important to get out of the way. Speaking of batteries being recharged, I can tell it is getting near election time. Whenever this time of year rolls around every other year, Lonnie gets more energetic. I'm getting fiskings from him nearly every day now.
This one is not for the weak at heart. Not all of his fiskings are winners, so I just put up the ones I like. That doesn't always make him happy, but that's too bad. This one, I may just have him edit it down to 500 words or less and have him submit it to the Northwest Arkansas Times. It involves one of our local idiots, er I mean, liberals writing in and blathering on about hope and change and other pseudo-intellectual crap like that. I know that Lonnie has challenged Lew on at least three different occasions to back up his assertions. Lew has yet to answer any of them. I think this may be the reason why Lonnie pounds Lew so hard in this fisking.
NWAnews.com :: Northwest Arkansas Northwest Arkansas Times
Letters to the editor
Northwest Arkansas Times
Posted on Monday, September 15, 2008
I still want my country back
The major party political conventions are over and both the Democrats and Republicans have nominated their presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
On one side you have the Democratic candidates, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who are offering a major positive program of actual change from the past eight years,
Oh, really Lew? Name one.
and Republicans John McCain and Sarah Palin, who are offering more of the same and worse.
According to your prior missives, Lew, Bush has taken America from the highest point down to it's lowest point in the span of seven years. How could it get worse?
I know, I know, expecting logic and rational thinking from a liberal. Call me optimistic.
Beginning from the day of the announcement of McBush’s VP choice the "Reich" wingers
Ha ha! The "Reich" wingers! Oh, snap! That's so clever! Oh, stop it, Lew, my ribs hurt from laughing so much!
have started their deifying of that non-vetted person
"That non-vetted person"? Who is that, Lew? "That" isn't really specific, neither is "person". "Non-vetted" could apply to Obama, but Lew just gave a quick fellatio er, I mean accolade to the Democratic team.
by attacking anybody courageous enough to question her competence, judgment or qualification to be one heart beat away from the presidency.
Ah, now it becomes clear.
Wait a minute. Did Lew just call anybody who questioned a politician's attributes "courageous"? Well then, I'm the bravest motherf***** on the face of the planet, because I've been questioning things like that for as long as I can remember. Sheesh, Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is running rampant nowadays.
What they are evidently hiding should be of major concern,
"Evidently hiding"? What evidence is there that they are hiding anything?
As Denny at <a href="http://www.grouchyoldcripple.com/" target="_blank"> Grouchy Old Cripple</a> would put it, PFM. Which stands for Pure F*cking Magic. That's the only way that Lew can come to this conclusion, because there is certainly no logic or rationality involved here.
but instead we are getting total lies, excuses, propaganda or just enough truth
Hey, I thought we were talking about Sarah Palin, not Obama!
to make these palatable to those willing to accept them at their face value, which in this case is nil.
So the Republicans are stealing from the Democratic playbook.
Wait a minute. What is the "nil" part of that idiocy referring to? Face value? Those who are willing to accept them? Just enough truth? To coin a phrase, it takes an idiot to understand an idiot, and I'm not understanding Lew here at all. And I'm not even going to bother.
Now that the true patriots
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
*breath*
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
in this country are standing up and demanding their country back from the fascists who have been in power over the past eight years,
Methinks you do not know the meaning of the word "fascist", there Lew. Try to learn it so you don't look so stupid.
the new keyword from the “talking heads” is “angry,” which I find both humorous and pathetic
I find it both humorous and pathetic that you're allowed near a pencil and paper to write these letters, Lew.
Maybe that should be *crayon* and paper.
from these “ freaks” who have built their entire movement on elitism, anger, hatred and fear. I proudly acknowledge that I am an angry, white male grandfather who
wants all you brash young up-starts off his lawn.
believes in the Constitution, rule of law, justice and that any American who isn’t angry is either in agreement with these problems or virtually “brain dead.”
Of course, Lew's brand of elite, angry hatred and fear is MUCH different than the "freaks'" movement. How it is different, he'll have to get back to you on that.
I do not care one whit over anybody’s race, ethnicity, sex, age or sexual orientation, as these were determined by nature and have no place in a 21st century democracy.
Welcome to the modern-day conservatism movement, Lew! That's the majority of the belief system of modern-day conservatives. Just add something about letting the individual make his own decisions instead of mandating the government to do it for him, and we'll be golden.
What people believe insofar as spirituality or religion only becomes of interest when it is based on extremism, destruction, opposed to true beneficial science or becomes intertwined with politics and no longer simply an inner moral compass for the individual.
Oh, I see. You can believe anything you want, so long as it isn't too extreme or opposed to science or runs counter to the mainstream.
What. A. Moron.
The elections on Nov. 4, 2008 will determine far more than who will occupy the White house [sic] or Congress, but in actuality, what path our nation will traverse over the balance of this century and beyond.
That can and has been said of every modern-day election.
We either continue the destructive fiscal, social, diplomatic and military failures of the Bush regime — the republiCANT party
Ah ha ha ha! RepubliCANT! Oh, that's so clever, Lew! Wow, it must have taken you a whole week to come up with that one! Oh, I'm holding my ribs in with that one!
Seriously, though, I sure wish Lew could list any failures of the Bush "regime" (again, Lew, maybe you should brush up on the meanings of words before you set crayon to paper.) so that we could debate them.
and their “blue dog” democrat allies —
Hey, aren't the Republicans (no wait, that's RepubliCANTs! Hah! Hey, I just got that!) the ones who are "fascist" and building their own "regimes"? Seems to me that "fascists" and "regime-builders" wouldn't bother with making allies.
or we take a chance and join as one as a large Voter coalition of Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, conservative Republicans wanting their party back, Green Party, concerned grandparents and their grand kids
who want those snot-nosed kids to get off of Lew's lawn.
and others
idiots who are proud of their inability to know what certain words mean.
to restore the sense of hope,
What, no change?
honor and true opportunity that our nation was built on, before it’s all gone.
Lew Huddleston / Fayetteville
Lew, Lew, Lew. First of all, those things are not what this country was built on. Since you proclaim that you believe in the Constitution and the rule of law, maybe you should also read a little something called the Bill of Rights, and more importantly, the Declaration of Independence. It'll be a novel experience for you, actually reading something before you form an opinion about it, but trust me, it'll be a rewarding one for you. You'll learn that the people who founded this country believed that all men are created equal, and that freedom was life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (that's a direct quote, by the way).
Notice, Lew, that there are no preconditions in those terms. It doesn't say "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, unless it contradicts science or is too extreme". Hope isn't mentioned in there, nor opportunity, nor honor.
Secondly, those things are not finite resources. You don't use them all up, and when they're gone, that's all that there will ever be. If those things are the strong bedrock of America, they can never be destroyed, no matter how inept of a President we have (cough Jimmy Carter cough).
Finally, Lew, it's MY country, too. And you may find this surprising, you selfish little twat, but I believe in America as it is and not as some unrealistic ideal that can never be reached. My America is not filled with my fellow Americans changing their behavior to fit my notions of what they should be. My America is not caring whether other countries approve of what we do or not. My America doesn't change just to make others happy. My America is the measuring stick, the standard to which others hold themselves to and strive towards. That's my America.
And it is quite obvious that it is not yours.
]]>
147245
2008-09-08 02:10:00
Role of a lifetime: Commander-in-chief
Gene Lyons
Posted on Wednesday, September 3, 2008
With presidential elections increasingly resembling what are inaccurately styled “reality TV” programs, it shouldn’t surprise us to find U.S. foreign policy treated as an action/adventure film scenario.
Well, that would go along with our domestic policy, which is more of a horror film scenario. House Majority Leader Nancy "Botox" Pelosi in the role she was born to play: the unstoppable killer, cleverly disguised as a wax figure, smile permanently etched on her stiff, wooden face.
Okay, I need to stop that. I just frightened myself. Hold me?
We’re not choosing a president so much as casting a cinematic commander-in-chief whose capacity for violent action in an international crisis is deemed his main qualification.
Republicans audition enthusiastically for the role, but Democrats answer casting calls, too. Witness Hillary Clinton’s famous 3 a. m. telephone call commercial.
Or John "Lurch" Kerry's infamous "reporting for duty" at the 2004 Democratic convention. Or how about Dukakis riding around in a tank?
A perceived diffidence about dispatching bombers and launching missiles to pound Third World villages is seen as a disqualifying weakness. The nation’s crack corps of op-ed commandos and talk show bombardiers, many of whom last experienced violence in third grade,
Aw, I think Gene was picked on in school, and he's never forgotten it, nursing it for all these many years.
sell popcorn and lead cheers. It makes them feel important.
As opposed to the pacifists, which makes them feel impotent.
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the pacifists?
Artistically, the prototype may have been “Air Force One,” an enjoyably preposterous 1997 picture featuring Harrison Ford as an action-hero president who foils a mid-air hijacking by Kazakh terrorists. It’s a role the younger Ronald Reagan would have loved. The film also features Glenn Close as the shaken but loyal vice president and Gary Oldman as the sneering, egomaniacal terrorist ringleader --one-dimensional evil personified.
To quote Huckleberry Finn, “It would make a cow laugh” to watch Ford flinging the last hijacker out the plane’s cargo bay into the ocean with a Reaganesque “Get off my airplane.”
Cows watch movies?
A cow perhaps, but not one overheated Netflix reviewer, who reported watching the movie several times, awarding it four stars: “Who wouldn’t like a president like Harrison Ford’s character, he kicks butt!”
Who, indeed?
It was a marked contrast to the then-current resident of the White House. Hint: 1997. Another hint: Most scandal-plagued administration in history. Yet another hint: Not Bush.
Not for nothing were 14-inch action figures of President Bush in fighter pilot regalia for sale soon after he announced, “Mission accomplished,” in Iraq.
Can you see a 14-inch action figure of President Clinton? Maybe with cigar inserting action, or maybe coming with Buddy the White House dog, complete with wagging tail.
I wonder if I could market that?
Today it’s Sen. John McCain who most obviously seeks the role with his cocky, wise-cracking fighter jock persona and penchant for blustering tough talk.
Yeah, McCain was joking when he sang. “Bomb, bomb Iran.” But in the most serious sense, he wasn’t.
Huh? He was joking, but yet he wasn't? Things are a mite confused down Lyons way.
There’s no doubt that McCain actually thinks hitting Tehran would accomplish something apart from killing thousands of Persians and convincing much of the world that the United States has become a dangerous, irrational bully.
Citation, please?
Does Iran have an anti-democratic, authoritarian government? It does. You definitely wouldn’t want to live there. But is Iran a threat to you and me? In rational terms, it’s hard to see how.
Besides being located on the opposite side of the planet, Iran’s total military budget, estimated at $4.5 billion, is roughly equal to mighty Finland’s. During the ’90s, its army fought Saddam Hussein’s invasion to a bloody standoff.
So, it fought and held it's own against one of the largest (at the time) armies in the world, hasn't been reduced in size since then, and it's not a threat? Things ARE a mite confused!
Up is down! Black is white! Rap is good!
Right, got it, please continue on.
Iran scarcely has an air force. Its navy can’t project force outside the Persian Gulf, where U. S. aircraft carrier groups patrol constantly.
The Iranians haven’t attacked anybody since the 18th century.
Well, past performance <b>is</b> a guarantee of future performance.
There’s no sign they’re planning to.
Because you want to signal your intentions when attacking somebody more powerful than you. *facepalm*
So here’s how the voice-over narrator of the latest McCain TV ad frames it:
“Iran. Radical Islamic government. Known sponsors of terrorism. Developing nuclear capabilities to ‘generate power’ but threatening to eliminate Israel.
“Obama says Iran is a ‘tiny’ country, ‘doesn’t pose a serious threat.’ Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren’t ‘serious threats’ ?
“Obama—dangerously unprepared to be president.”
Courtesy of Steve Benen’s Washington Monthly blog, here’s what Barack Obama actually said:
“Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That’s what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That’s what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That’s what Nixon did with Mao. I mean, think about it: Iran, Cuba, Venezuela—these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, ‘We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’
Reagan walked out of Reykajavik, and liberals everywhere thought it was the end of the world.
And ultimately, that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall.”
So, Obama wants us to follow the lead of 2 Republicans, and a Democrat who would be considered a conservative in today's political climate? And you remember how little Gene thinks of Obama?
Let’s ignore the flagrant dishonesty of the McCain ad.
It's easy to ignore something that isn't there. Obama said that "strong countries" and "strong presidents" talk to their "adversaries". Usually, "adversaries" are considered "serious threats". So, where is the "dishonesty"?
Read it aloud. What does it sound like?
Like the truth, and that's what's got Gene so wound up.
It’s basically a promo for “Air Force One: Part II,” featuring kebab-eating Persians instead of Kazakhs. Never mind that Iranians hate and fear al-Qa’ida as much as Americans do. That’s too complicated for audiences waddling into Wal-Mart
Those low-information voters.
to buy the DVD. Ever since 9/11 the script has called for equal measures of boasting and hysteria. We’re No. 1! (And we’re scared of our own shadow.)
Don't forget that we are bitterly clinging to our guns and religion. Let a liberal prattle on, and you'll find out just what they think of their fellow Americans and their country.
Poor little nuclear-armed Israel, perennially agitated by its own Chicken Little faction, plays the damsel in distress.
A female Chicken Little?
Is it possible that a nation like Iran, constantly threatened by U. S. and Israeli bombing attacks, might seek a deterrent? Perish the thought.
And don't you dare question his patriotism!
Perish thinking.
This is your column, Gene. We knew what we were getting into when we started reading it.
The given of the action/adventure genre is that evil has no point of view.
I'm no English major, but I really don't remember Beowulf giving the monster's point of view. Nor the Odyssey or the Iliad. Nor any other myths or legends.
But, hey, I'm not a member of the liberal elite, so what do I know?
It exists as a purely one-dimensional phenomenon. Only melodramatic, purifying violence can vanquish it. Until the next cartoon villain comes along.
—–––––•–––––—Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.
So ends another episode of "Wasting Time with Gene Lyons".
Join us next time, if your brain cells can stand it.
]]>
147240
2008-09-07 02:01:00
********************************
Democrats may be learning to fight dirty
Gene Lyons
Posted on Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Something unusual happened during the run-up to the Democratic convention: A presidential candidate was subjected to a highly prejudicial, not particularly honest personal attack, and for once the victim was a Republican.
Right, this is the one of the first times this has ever happened. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge I wanna sell you.
Interestingly, the political press jumped on it,
Gosh, we're just setting all kinds of records tonight, aren't we?
happily trashing John McCain
Another first!
for two clueless remarks he never actually made.
Oh, I may faint.
Are Democrats finally learning to fight dirty?
Well, if they need a primer, they could always read their own playbook.
Should the rest of us feel good about it?
Beats me. Everybody decries "dirty" political attacks, but they also seem to be the most popular. And, I really have to ask, what constitutes "fighting dirty"?
Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is running TV commercials mocking Barack Obama for not asking Hillary Clinton to be his running mate—a job she surely didn’t want. Because Republicans, of course, admire Hillary so.
Because Republicans, of course, love to see "dirty" politics. Oops, excuse me, my eyes just rolled under the table. I'll catch up to you.
They’ve even found a Clinton delegate from Wisconsin to make a pro-McCain commercial, because.... Well, because why?
Because there's been some "dirty" attacks against Clinton?
Nah, that couldn't be it.
Anybody calling themselves a Democrat who doesn’t understand how important it is for both parties, not to mention the nation, that Republicans pay the price for the catastrophic presidency of George W. Bush needs to turn in his party ID and magic decoder ring
and poison crayon
and find another hobby, something solitary and quiet, such as gardening or compiling a variorum edition of the “Pride and Prejudice” columns of Maureen Dowd.
Or being chairman of the Gene Lyons Fan Club.
See, it’s not simply his trademark arrogance and incompetence that have earned Bush the lowest approval ratings of any president since political polling began. It’s not merely the interminable morass in Iraq,
Which is creating a flowering true democracy.
worsening conditions in Afghanistan,
ditto,
manufactured “intelligence,”
This little fiction has already been addressed right on this very blog.
a legacy of torture,
*facepalm*
of epic corruption and cronyism,
Yeah, all those Bush administration officials who were convicted for that like...
uh,
um,
hm,
well, I'm sure I'll think of one eventually.
of one massive financial scandal after another,
Financial scandals? Like giving cushy loans at below-market rates? Or perhaps selling property for below-market rates? Like a first-time speculator turning $1,000 into $10,000 by buying cattle futures?
of runaway budget deficits and economic stagnation.
Civics 101: The President does <b>not</b> control how a budget is spent. Guess what branch does that?
Yes, it was foolish and self-deluded of Republicans to imagine somebody of Bush’s limited abilities capable of handling the presidency. But the failure’s more than personal. So-called conservative ideology has lost contact with reality.
Lost contact? With reality? You mean this reality, Gene? Or the one that you are from?
The GOP has become the party of illusion, incapable of seeing the world as it is, infuriated by anybody who does.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Contemporary Republicanism isn’t a governing philosophy so much as a rationalized series of talking points useful in winning elections since the Reagan presidency.
Well, here's progress: Gene's just admitted that Bush won the presidency in 2000. It's been nearly eight years and your side lost, Gene. We're making progress. A few more decades of therapy at this rate will get you into this reality.
Always of limited usefulness with respect to the visible world—as Ronald Reagan himself, who knew a script when he saw one, sometimes realized—GOP dogma has grown downright dangerous.
Gosh, Gene's working on those personal attacks pretty well, isn't he?
But back to Democratic dirty tricks.
Oh? I didn't know we left them.
Everywhere you looked, from The Washington Post to Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC News program,
Keith Olbermann is to news what Gene Autry is to news.
you saw McCain pilloried for two classic “gaffes.” As the Post put it, the GOP candidate’s “inability to recall” how many houses he and his wife own jeopardized his strategy of framing Obama as an “elitist.” Campaigning in Wisconsin, the Democratic nominee lampooned McCain’s forgetfulness, also mocking him for defining as “rich” only somebody with an income exceeding $5 million a year.
The point was clear: The famous “straight-talking maverick” is basically a gigolo
♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫
I'm just a gigolo
And everywhere I go
People know the part I'm playing
Paid for every dance
Selling each romance
Ooh, what they're saying.
But there will come a day
When youth will pass away...
♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫ ♪♫
(to use a word Republicans used to describe John Kerry in 2004)
Citation, please? And "out of my ass" is <b>not</b> a citation.
whose much younger second wife inherited more money than the Bush family and Scrooge McDuck combined.
Psst. Hey, Gene? One of the above is a cartoon character. That's all of the hint I'm going to give you. Thanks for staying in this reality, by the way.
For Obama, it was a twofer, also hinting that the 71-year-old McCain’s memory might be fading.
Alas, neither of these things ever happened. Asked how many homes he owned, McCain advised the reporter to check with his staff. He didn’t sound unable to recall, merely unwilling.
It’s much the same with the $5 million thing. Asked to define “rich” by Pastor Rick Warren, McCain jokingly ducked the question.
“If you’re just talking about income,” he said, “how about $5 million?”
He laughed, Warren laughed, the audience laughed.
“But seriously... and I’m sure that comment will be distorted,” McCain continued.
By Democrats? Heavens no! That would never happen! Pure as the driven snow, that's what they are!
“But the point is that we want to keep people’s taxes low and increase revenues.”
Indeed, the comment was distorted, even in supposedly straightforward newspaper stories and TV broadcasts. As Bob Somerby, who’s long documented this kind of skulduggery against Democrats,
Must be a part-time job.
Wait! Wait just a minute here! Did Gene just give a citation for a source?
writes, “If you want to know who the press corps is hunting, just see which candidate’s jokes they transform into straight assertions.”
He did! He did! Gene actually sourced a citation! It's a red-letter day!
Well, so what? Wasn’t McCain himself, with that gibberish about increasing revenues by lowering taxes, shamelessly citing delusional GOP propaganda? He was.
Gosh, who knew that JFK was delusional, much less in the GOP?
Indeed, McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, explaining that they’d do exactly as they’ve done: blow a huge hole in the federal budget, endangering the nation’s financial security.
Apparently, the Bush tax cuts are able to bypass Congress, who have always before been responsible for the budget. Maybe we should find out how they are doing that and model more legislation on them.
But now McCain wants to be president, so he’s joined the Republican War on Arithmetic.
Ever since Bush launched the Global War On Terror, I've heard liberals dismiss it, saying that you can't "war" against a concept or method. So, let's just turn the tables around and say that you can't "war" against a mathematical principle.
And given that millions of low-information, undecided voters
I sense a talking point or a meme, don't you?
don’t get it, shouldn’t Democrats act on what GOP strategists have long known, that a presidential election is basically a TV game show, “Battle of the Celebrity Politicians”? Replace the “straight-talking maverick” with the “blustering old hypocrite” and you’ve won? Something like that, yes. Not that I have to like it.
That said, if I were Obama,
you'd have learned how to cite your sources? I've heard that they teach how to do that at Harvard.
I’d put that famous photo of McCain giving Bush a big, warm hug on TV so often people would start thinking of him as George W. McCain.
—–––––•–––––—Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.
And Democrats are "just learning" to fight dirty, eh Gene?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
]]>
147239
2008-09-06 01:59:45
I've been so busy the past few weeks that I just haven't had any time to write anything at all. Luckily, this year I brought my computer and a car adapter, so I was able to do a lot of editing. I've got three weeks of Gene Lyons fiskings to post, but I don't want to post them all at the same time. So, I'll post one now, then set the other two to be posted a day apart from each other.
As usual, everything is in blue, Gene's original column is in blue italics, and Lonnie's comments are in regular blue. I think the time off has let Lonnie really rest up for the coming election season, because a lot of these really got me laughing. So, with no further ado, I'll let you feast on these fiskings.
*******************************************************************
Primary tactics won’t work with McCain
Gene Lyons
Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2008
With Labor Day nearing, a wary nation awaits the premiere of “Dumb and Dumber III: The 2008 Presidential Campaign.”
Gee, I didn't know Gene was running.
Could it possibly be sillier than 2000, pitting a make-believe Texas rancher against an “elitist” Washington know-it-all who boasted that he’d invented the Internet? Of course, Al Gore never said that,
Actually, yes, he did. Unless you can tell me that "creating" means something different from "inventing".
any more than George W. Bush could saddle a horse without professional help.
Why do liberals get hung up on Bush's ranch? It's like some sort of obsession. Do they make as much of a fuss about Gore's house? You know, the one that uses at least 5 times as much energy as what the average household uses? Yeah, not holding my breath about that.
But hey, it made for a diverting story line: the Stuffed-Shirt vs. the Cowboy.
If the stuffed shirt fits...
TV networks ate it up, as, alas, did millions of low-information voters
Low-information voters? That's the liberal way of saying "stupid". You didn't vote for Gore, therefore you are a "low-information voter". Nice, isn't it?
ill-served by the news media’s preference for storytelling over substance. Thus when microphones picked up Gore’s exasperated sighs during his first debate with Bush, pundits made the Stuffed Shirt’s bad manners a “character” issue
What other kind of issue should it have been, Gene?
instead of analyzing what made him sigh: The cowboy’s wildly inaccurate descriptions of his own tax, Social Security and prescription drug plans.
Sorry, Gene, but you are "low-informed" on, well, everything in that last sentence.
Exactly how does one politely debate somebody who either doesn’t understand or misrepresents his own policy proposals?
It can be done, I've been doing it for almost a year now.
Even somebody like The New York Times’ Bob Herbert, who treats Sen. Barack Obama as the Second Coming, opined that “[m]ost of America understands that the competence bar is set so low for Gov. George W. Bush of Texas that it’s practically lying on the ground.”
There's that famous liberal tolerance and understanding of others.
Gore, however, was smug, supercilious and “doesn’t seem to realize that in the real world, people hate Eddie Haskell.”
"Was"? That sentence should be rewritten as "was, is, and always will be smug, supercilious, and...", so that it could be totally accurate.
Actually, Haskell was a TV sitcom character, not real at all.
That Gene, you just can't slip anything by him, can you?
Nor did most Americans grasp that when the Cowboy charmingly mocked the Stuffed Shirt’s “fuzzy math,” virtually every word was a falsehood.
Those low-informed voters, them.
Among name-brand pundits, Princeton economist Paul Krugman
Speaking of low-informed...
was almost alone in saying so. The rest concentrated on Gore’s condescending sighs, his pedantic airs, etc.
Given the stakes in November, you’d like to think Americans had collectively sobered up and would prefer a presidential campaign on something approaching an adult level; a job interview, say, instead of TV talent show. Alas, a shallow, personality-driven race appears to be what both Sen. John McCain and Obama’s campaigns want: the Straight-Talking Maverick vs. the Technicolor Pied Piper.
Yes, as opposed to that man of substance that Gene<strike> fellates</strike> worships, Bill Clinton. And didn't Gene just fill out <a href="" target="_blank">his own definition of classic con man behavior ("intellectually insecure, but inwardly contemptuous of how gullible and easily manipulated people are.")?</a>
On the Republican side, dumbing things down works to McCain’s advantage. Stuck with a presidential candidate who voted against Bush’s ruinous tax cuts but now says he’d make them permanent?
Ruinous? You mean the tax cuts that raised revenues during a projected deficit?
A bellicose former flyboy who makes a joke of singing “Bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of “Barbara Ann”
He did what? Made a joke? He's a witch, burn him, burn him!!!
—a reckless, futile act that would make invading Iraq look relatively sensible? (The flyboys always want to hit Third World countries. Ask the ground soldiers what they think.)
Who cares what they think, they vote overwhelmingly Republican, surely a hallmark of "low-informed voters" if I ever heard of one.
A man of the people who, together with his multimillionaire heiress wife, reportedly owns nine houses in three states?
That's surely a sign of evil, owning 9 homes. Burn him, burn him!!!
Simple: Attack your handsome, telegenic young opponent as a vapid celebrity like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.
How dare he?
Fly into a phony snit about his allegedly “playing the race card,” as if racial politics were even mildly offensive to the Republican base.
Those low-informed voters!
Contrive a brilliantly inane formula for solving the nation’s energy woes through the miracle of offshore drilling.
Yeah, because raising the supply of something has absolutely no bearing on the law of supply and demand. None.
Because as H. L. Mencken long ago observed, “For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.”
Mencken encapsulates Gene pretty well, doesn't he? Well, substitute "simple-minded" for "simple", and "dumb" for "neat"
Never mind that oil companies currently earning staggering profits aren’t doing much drilling on the domestic leases they already hold.
So, if they weren't earning (glad to see that Gene admits that they are "earning" those profits, which is a change of pace for a liberal) those staggering profits and weren't drilling on the leased land, would that be okay? How about if they were making miniscule profits and not drilling? How about if they were drilling and not finding anything, but still making large profits? Would that be better?
Nor that oil from such wells wouldn’t make the U. S. energy-independent, but be auctioned on the same international market as oil from Russia, Venezuela and Iran.
See, for years, simpletons out in Limbaugh Land
Those <a href="http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1068" target="_blank">"LOW-INFORMED VOTERS"</a> sure do get around, don't they, Gene?
have been sold the pleasing fiction that “environmentalist wackos” are the source of all energy problems. As Krugman correctly observes, the GOP’s “de facto slogan has become ‘Real men don’t think things through.’”
As for the Pied Piper, his internationally televised tour of world capitals definitely made him look presidential. Except he ain’t president yet.
Shhhh, Gene, don't spoil the ending.
Giving speeches before huge, adoring European audiences was certain to get him called presumptuous or worse. For supporters like the Times’ Herbert to treat that criticism as an overt racial slur plays directly into Republican hands.
Those devious Republicans!
As Herbert observed elsewhere in the same column, “Every day that the campaign is about race is a good day for John McCain.” Bob Somerby trenchantly observed on his Daily Howler blog that race makes everybody stupid.
Hence, Democrats alliance with the NAACP and other organizations.
Presumptuous, arrogant, elitist: GOP tacticians have applied these words to all Democratic candidates for a generation.
If the stuffed shirt fits...
So if the presumptive Democratic nominee doesn’t want the campaign to be racial, why did he give speeches citing McCain by name as somebody sure to say “he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills”?
Why indeed?
It may have worked against Hillary Clinton in a Democratic primary. But it won’t play against a Republican.
Because of those low-informed voters. Burn them, burn them!!!!
Somebody needs to remind Obama that he’s running for president of the United States, not the University of Chicago.
—–––––•–––––—Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.
Amazing. Purely amazing.
You get the impression that ol' Gene doesn't like the Obamessiah?
I'm sure the Obamessiah stays up late at night worrying about that, too.
**********************************************************
Well, wasn't that special? If I take any really good pictures that I think people will like, I'll post them. I've got pretty high standards as to what I think is a "really good picture", so don't be too disappointed if there isn't any.
]]>
141340
2008-08-22 16:32:22
Well, "overlooked" is a bit of a strong word. I'm not quite sure what the right word would be, but overlook gives the impression that there is a tacit approval. I sure don't approve of people arriving late to their jobs, but I can't think of a better word for it.
I understood her circumstances, though, so that's why I really didn't press the issue too hard. Arkansas is a very poor state compared to the rest of America. Here in the northwestern part of the state, though, things are a little better off. But there are still some people in desperately poor straits.
I jokingly refer to Lowell as "the thriving metropolis of Lowell", but truthfully, it (and the surrounding area) has expanded and become more prosperous. When I first started my current job, I would pass many stretches of empty land on my drive into work. "Empty" land meaning that there was no human habitation on it, of course. Now, there's a lot more buildings and houses on what used to be empty land, and what used to take me twenty minutes to drive now takes nearly half an hour. Except on the day after Christmas and New Year's Day, of course. I can make the same drive in about fifteen minutes flat (provided there are no cops around, of course). But I've digressed.
The point I was leading to was that there is still a lot of people who are right there on the poverty line, and this clerk is in that certain place. I've tried to be as understanding as possible about the circumstances, but I can't run a store on good intentions, nor can I run it by myself. And when somebody isn't pulling their weight, then I have to make a tough decision and let them go. I don't enjoy doing stuff like that, but I also don't enjoy working nine hours by myself, especially when I have my own work to do and I can't get it done because I'm too busy doing somebody else's work for them.
Do I sound like I'm trying to explain myself? I guess I am. This is one of the downsides of leadership: letting people go, no matter how justified it may be.
Speaking of letting people go, whoever is the editor of Gene Lyons needs to be let go. The following column was printed on August 6th, and Lonnie took a long time giving it a fisking. I'm not going to use it, though, because Gene has actually written a fairly touching story. I just don't think it would be cool to allow somebody to mock it.
Except for one little thing. You'll find Gene's column in blue italics, and I want you to see if you can notice anything that —well, let's say anything that seems like it just doesn't belong in a column with the following subject matter.
One less T-bone in the food chain
Gene Lyons
Posted on Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Maybe it’s fitting that I became a cattleman of sorts about the same time that President Bush dropped the cowboy act. As predicted here, Bush confirmed that he and Laura will move to a posh Dallas neighborhood after a relieved nation watches them leave the White House next January. How long before the Crawford ranch, acquired in 1999 for transparently political purposes, goes on the market? The correct answer: Who cares?
Besides, this column is about Layla, the Charolais wonder calf. I was recently out for an afternoon ride on Rusty, my quarter horse, when we came upon my neighbor, who rents my pasture for his cattle. One of his cows had given birth to twin calves. Not good. They’re often premature, undersized and weak. The mother’s likely to choose the stronger calf and leave the other to die—bovine Darwinism. Paul was trying to coax the little white heifer, all spindly legs and big brown eyes, to stand and nurse from her mother’s teats. Without fresh mother’s milk, colostrum, she wouldn’t get antibodies needed to survive. He wasn’t having much luck. The heifer’s mother was already showing signs of ignoring her for the stronger bull calf.
When I rode back later, the herd had moved on. The little heifer lay alone under some trees. After sundown, she’d basically be coyote bait. Rusty and I tried herding the mother back to her. Anxious to protect her other calf, however, the mother cow—all 1500 pounds of her—was spoiling for a fight.
Rusty’s no cutting horse and I’m no cowboy, so I put him up, drove out in my truck, picked the heifer up and tried setting her on her feet among the herd. Her mother actually ran. Tottering along bawling, the little heifer tried to nurse other cows, which kicked her.
I volunteered to bottle-feed her if Paul would teach me. He allowed as how she’d be mine if I could keep her alive, which he doubted. He and his wife came by to show me the ropes.
By morning, she was substantially weaker, unable to stand, barely able to nurse a bottle. Paul showed me how to tube-feed, inserting a plastic tube down her throat and pouring milk into a hotwater bottle hung from a nail.
Like every cattleman I talked to, he was fatalistic.
“I don’t know if I’d fool with it,” he’d say. “It’s 90 percent she’ll be dead by morning.”
Indeed, when I carried her into the stall we prepared for her, the little heifer hung limp in my arms. She couldn’t stand. Yet when I’d force the feeding tube into her esophagus, she’d struggle against the insult. I felt she was a fighter. I felt she wanted to live.
On the third day, I drove off to fetch frozen colostrum on what I feared was a fool’s errand. I half expected to find her dead when I returned. Instead, she was standing, sniffing noses with Fred the basset hound.
“Ah like to cried,” country folks say, meaning they almost did. There was no almost about it. The little white heifer with the knobby knees, huge brown eyes, spoonlike ears and amazing vitality had entered my heart. It was also a minor revelation seeing laconic cattlemen driving all over three counties to fetch what I needed to keep her alive: colostrum, antibiotics, vitamin B-12, steroids.
I named her Layla, after the Eric Clapton song. The extended melodic piano and guitar ride at the end has often brought tears to my wife’s eyes. Besides, Layla definitely had me on my knees, feeding her a bottle.
Next she went blind. It was probably congenital, possibly an auto-immune reaction to foreign colostrum, veterinarians thought. Treating it was probably hopeless. However, if I had a safe pasture where she wouldn’t drown or walk off a cliff—I do—she and a companion calf might live 20 years.
They tried steroids anyway. Over three days, the white cloud over her eyes vanished. She began playing chase with the dogs, who somehow knew not to nip her. The two Great Pyrenees are over the moon happy that there’s finally something on this place that needs guarding—unlike the horses, which mildly resent their efforts. They let Layla nurse at their ears.
At six weeks, Layla appears to think she’s a basset hound, although she knows I’m her mother. She definitely knows where the milk’s kept—inside the house—so she spends lots of time on the front porch, snoozing with the dogs and mooing for supper.
I’d been told that cows had strongly marked personalities, but I had no clue. My own feelings about this little calf, one among thousands in a county inhabited by far more cows than people, have surprised me. Have I given up T-bones? Not yet. Layla, however, will never enter the food chain.
—–––––•–––––—Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.
Okay, did you see it? Here's a little hint if you still aren't seeing it: there are sixteen paragraphs to Gene's column above, and fifteen are about the little calf that Gene found. The sixteenth is about President Bush and his Crawford ranch that he will be selling once he leaves office.
What does the fifteen paragraphs have to do with that sixteenth one?
*cue Jeopardy final round music*
Okay, contestants, let's see your answers. Contestant number one, what is your answer? Your answer is — uh, you didn't write anything down. Okay, no points for you. Contestant number two, your answer is —"nothing". No, I'm sorry, your answer was not in the form of a question. No points for you. Contestant number three, it's all up to you. What is your answer? "What is nothing?".
Ding, ding, ding! Correct answer is —nothing! Absolutely nothing! Why was it included?
Okay, I do know why. And the answer can be summed up in three words: gratuitous. Bush. bashing.
Here's the irony: Ten years ago, Gene would have raged for a long time against somebody who wrote a similar column with a paragraph of gratuitous Clinton bashing. How long of a time? Let's just say, we would still be seeing references to it today.
And now I've got "Weird" Al Yankovich's song, "I Lost On Jeopardy" going through my head. Thanks, Gene.
]]>
138812
2008-08-16 14:33:58
Why were my hours cut? I have no way of knowing definitely at this point, but I think it's because of the minimum wage increase. My sales are pretty strong, and there aren't any new expenses that I know of. So, process of elimination tells me that that is the answer.
Hooray for government.
See, the thing is that this hits the people lowest on the totem pole the hardest. My hours aren't going to change, much as I would like them to. Gee, going to 43 hours a week would be pretty darn nice. But, my hours must remain at 50 hours a week. I could cut my assistant's hours, but that seems wrong. She's not overly bright, but she is loyal and hard-working, and I've always thought that hard work should be rewarded.
So, the cuts get passed on to my clerks. Right now, I've got 4 clerks. But as soon as I find a good replacement, I'll have three. Last Sunday, my clerk didn't show up or call in. This is not the first time she couldn't make it in to work. I think I've been more than patient and understanding, but this was the last straw. There was a nice girl who came in Sunday and asked for an application, but she hasn't come back in to drop it off yet. If she comes back in sometime soon, I'll look her over and maybe give her a job.
But back to my point. They bear the brunt of this, and at what cost? They get a wage increase, but an hour decrease. And it's not just at my store, or in my store's district, or even just in the chain itself. All over the country, businesses are going to be cutting back hours and/or letting people go because they can't afford to pay for this minimum wage increase. All those people whining and moaning that government needs to oversee business (the very people who pay them, no less) in order to make sure that everybody is treated the same, and now that everybody's wages have gone up, business is paying for that increase by eliminating positions. Seems that somebody hasn't thought their cunning plan all the way through, doesn't it?
And how come our congress-critters worry about how we are going to pay for any tax cuts that we may be allowed to have, but they don't worry about how businesses are going to pay for any federally mandated wage increases?
Okay, that was a rhetorical question.
I almost always work all day on Sundays so I can come in in the evenings on Monday. This week is different, however, because my assistant is out of town. She's gone to visit her son in prison, and to go gambling. So, I'm going to work all day Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Then, Thursday, I'll come in for a few hours, and then I'll be off all day on Friday and Saturday.
What to do, what to do????
]]>
132538
2008-08-03 12:24:38
As a consequence, I haven't been posting Lonnie's fiskings of Gene Lyons. And to tell you the truth, they just haven't been that funny. Well, maybe I just haven't found them funny. Maybe some of you would think they were a laugh-riot. I guess we'll never know.
If you don't know, Lonnie will usually drop these off by the house, get a drink from the "water fountain" (that being the garden hose), and climb back into his '78 primer gray Camaro and peel out onto the highway. Usually he's blasting out some Lynyrd Skynyrd or Molly Hatchet or Blackfoot or some such, or will toodle his custom-made horn that plays La Cucaracha as he heads back out of town. That wasn't the case this time.
This time, I opened the front door up and found that he had left his typed manuscript in a old mailbox (God only knows where he got it). When I opened it, I found a hand-scrawled note telling me that he was tired of slaving away to fisk Gene's columns and then me not using them. It continued by warning me that I better post this one or things "would get ugly". In typical Lonnie fashion, it threatened that he "knew where I lived".
So, I'll bow to the inevitable and post this. As usual, what I write is in black, Gene's (unedited) column is in blue italics, and Lonnie's comments are in regular blue.
Kidding ourselves about high price of debt
Gene Lyons
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Credit cards, as most people theoretically understand, can turn into the 21st century equivalent of sharecropping.
Oh, this oughtta be good.
First, you borrow from The Man
Isn't that supposed to be "The Man"? "Oops", "there" "I" "go" "again".
to get your cotton planted (or maybe to buy that new flat-screen HDTV).
Because the two are pretty much the same. Now, if you'll excuse me, my eyes just rolled out of my head and onto the floor, and I need to go pick them up.
Comes picking time (or the warranty runs out) and you’re likely to discover, in the words of an old country song, that you “owe your soul to the company store.”
Great. Now Gene is quoting old country songs, and not identifying who did it. Well, you can't teach an old yellow dog new tricks. (Wasn't that an old country song?)
Not to mention late fees and a big jump in the interest rate.
If only there was a big jump in the interest rate of Gene's columns. It's only the stupidity of them that keeps me coming back.
Meanwhile, you’re getting letters daily
I am? Better go check my mailbox!
offering you a new card at temptingly low rates for the first six months. Why not double down?
Why not indeed? Oh, wait, that's not a porno term. It means something else. Sorry, continue on.
Hey, your 15-year-old’s being offered a platinum card with the logo of his high school’s mascot. Shoot, I’ve got a Charolais calf named Layla
Oh, brother. He's named an animal after a song. Not just any song; a song that was used to seduce a woman from another (fellow) musician. Is there an irony here?
who’s probably eligible for EZ-Credit today. Basically, anybody who can walk and chew cud at the same time can end up owing a half-dozen company stores.
That explains why Gene isn't in debt.
But why worry?
Who, me?
Money?
What in the world is up with Gene's use of the question mark? Is he just now finding out that computers have them on the keyboard? I guess he must have gotten tired of using the quotation marks "key". Wait, stop that!
They’re practically giving it away.
Because money grows on trees, and the credit card companies have whole orchards of them. Oops, there go my eyes again. Just continue on, and I'll catch up to you.
And if the payments get too steep, what with $4-a-gallon gasoline and $5 milk, all you’ve needed to do over the past dozen years or so, in the immortal words of George W. Bush, is borrow more to “make the pie higher.”
Oh, that's droll, Gene. And timely. It just wouldn't be a Gene Lyons column without the Bush-bashing. It's sort of like his signature. Well, that, and the stupidity.
Refinance with an adjustable rate mortgage, pull some cash equity out of your house, pay off a couple of credit cards and then repay the home loan with tax-deductible cash. Sweet. See, you’re going to trade the dump in on a fancier house to borrow against before the interest rate resets anyway, pushing your monthly payment into the stratosphere. Because as everybody used to know, real estate can’t go anywhere but up.
I don't have anything snarky to say here, I just want to give a break here so that you can see this next sentence all by itself.
Until recently, spending money you didn’t have was your patriotic duty.
Okay, you can wrap the year up now, the year's dumbest sentence has just been written. No, sorry, no further contestants, please. Could somebody please give Gene his statue so we can continue?
Wasn’t it the same George W. Bush who advised Americans to respond to the 9/11 terrorist massacres by heading to the mall?
No. That's not what he said. His advice was to continue living our lives to show the terrorists that it was going to take a whole lot more than that to beat us.
And did you notice that Gene called 9/11 a "terrorist massacre"? Five years ago, it wouldn't have been identified as "terrorist" driven. I'm not dumb enough to figure out what Gene would have said. Perhaps how it was some kind of illegal act, but not terrorism. Whaddaya know? Is reality finally setting in among the liberals? Well, it's been seven years, so that sounds about right.
When the going gets tough, everybody laughed, the tough go shopping.
Which explains why Gene has never gone shopping.
Never mind that it was also Bush who inherited a $128 billion budget surplus
No. If Bush inherited a surplus, why didn't Al Gore run on how well the administration that he was a part of did economy-wise? He didn't, did he? Anybody remember the debate on the "lockbox"?
No, what Bush inherited was a PROJECTED surplus. There was a whole lot of assumptions built into that projection. Part of that was that tax rates would remain the same over the next few years, tax revenues would remain the same, and government growth would remain at a constant rate. Whenever Bush cut taxes and gave a tax refund, that -drumroll please- changed the basic assumptions that were inherent in the government's projections. Suddenly, overnight, a projected surplus (that was a surplus only on paper) had some new math put into it.
And could somebody please explain to me why a surplus (projected or real) is a GOOD thing? Seems to me that whenever there is a surplus, that means that either we are being overtaxed or the government is not doing something right. Either way, the government has our -yours and mine- money and is not using it.
The "logic" that is at the heart of this attitude is not consistent. If Gene goes out and buys something at Wal-Mart for $2,000, and six months later he finds out he overpaid for it by $500, do you think he (or those others who protest tax rebates) will just shrug his shoulders and accept it? Or do you think he'll go to the customer service desk and try to find out why he was overcharged? Maybe even ask for a... oops, rebate?
So why is it okay for you to overpay the government, but overpaying the local business is different?
and turned it into a $482 billion deficit—an estimate, incidentally, that leaves out the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re off the books, a bit like Enron’s money-losing “partnerships.” In retrospect, the Enron collapse clearly predicted the fiscal consequences of Bushism.
Three guesses as to who donated a lot of money to the Democrats generally and the Clintons specifically during the 90's? Let's just say there was a lot of Lay-ing going on, in a whole lot of different senses of the word.
Psychiatrists call it magical thinking.
I'd think it would be magical if Gene did any thinking.
Today it defines American culture. For decades GOP propagandists have endlessly pushed the fantasy that cutting taxes invariably brings more revenue into the treasury.
Yeah, like that famous GOP propagandist John F. "A rising tide lifts all boats" Kennedy.
Because it’s so counterintuitive, it makes people who think Rush Limbaugh is an intellectual feel smart. So they get their big $247.32 tax cut;
It's $247.32 they didn't have before, and that the government doesn't have. Sounds like a good plan all around.
Scrooge McDuck gets a few millions more to paddle around in;
Psst, Gene? Scrooge McDuck is a cartoon figure. Keep that under your hat.
the pie theoretically gets higher and higher.
I'm starting to think that it isn't Gene's pie that getting HIGHer and HIGHer. I'll try not to be so BLUNT in my assessments, though. We'll have to TOKE about it, though.
It’s the Republican equivalent of Marxist cant about the “withering away of the state” under communism: An objectively false belief that’s repeated with ever more fervor as its bad consequences become harder to deny.
Good grief, did a liberal just admit that there is a Marxist belief that is false? That's absolutely stunning.
The effect of such self-delusion on individual lives was recently illustrated in a fascinating article by New York Times financial editor Gretchen Morgenson.
Stop the presses, Gene just identified a source. I'm so stunned, I may have to lie down on this couch for a little while.
She profiled a 47-year-old divorced Philadelphia woman, Diane McLeod, driven into bankruptcy by spiraling credit card debt, by mortgage rates that adjusted her right out of her home, by unforeseen medical expenses and by rapacious lenders equally indifferent to reality.
That, of course, is all Bush's fault. And the Republicans.
McLeod admitted being her own worst enemy.
That means she's a Republican!
She even put $19,000 on her credit cards buying expensive handbags and other useless gew-gaws on the Home Shopping Network while lying in bed recovering from surgery.
“In 2007,” Morgenson reports, “when she earned $48,000 before taxes, she was charged more than $20,000 in interest on her various loans.”
Those damned Republicans. And conservatives. It's all their fault.
To keep up, McLeod repeatedly re-financed her modest house to the point where, after the real estate bubble burst, she owed far more than it was now worth. Then she lost her job and couldn’t make payments.
The mortgage company is foreclosing and will itself lose maybe $100,000 on the deal;
Bush. Republicans. Conservatives.
hence, the need for a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the two giant public/private mortgage banks
How can a bank be both public AND private?
that find themselves holding untold amounts of worthless paper.
They're holding Gene's columns?
Also for decades, Republicans
See?
and many Democrats
But mostly Republicans. And conservatives. And Bush.
have pushed the equally fallacious notion that the financial industry needs no regulation because free markets correct themselves and because wise investors invariably exercise due diligence in advancing loans. In reality, Morgenson shows, many lenders no longer care about repayment.
So, is Morgenson saying that the investors were wise? Follow the "logic"; No market regulation -> wise investors exercise diligence in giving out loans -> lenders no longer care about repayment. I don't think Gene thought his clever story all the way through.
They make their money on “fees and charges generated when loans are made.” Their relationship to the world’s Diane McLeods is that of a coyote to a chicken.
Next, the loans get repackaged as securities and sold to investors just now waking up to the fact that they’re worthless. The upshot of it is that whether or not you and I and Layla have run up huge credit card debts, we’re paying for them anyway.
I've got this theory. I think the only reason Gene mentions these animals he's got is so that he can justify using his columns as cage liners. He puts multiple copies of his column out in the barn where the animals are, he reads it to them (or maybe vice versa), the animals poop on them, Gene writes it off as a business expense.
I challenge you to come up with a better explanation.
Okay, so that's all for today. I'll post something again, whenever I darn well feel like it. I'll try to let Lonnie have more fisking times. I've seen a number of letters to the editor and opinion columnists that I think would be pretty ripe fruit for him. Maybe I should sic him on them. That might mollify him somewhat.
]]>
123292
2008-07-14 20:24:50
(As well as some new words being added to the computer's dictionary.)
I finally realized that I could type all of the conclusions that were on the Phase 2 "damaging" report faster and more accurately than the speech recognition could. As you read this, realize that I tried to catch as many mistakes as I could, but I think a few slipped by me. If something doesn't read right, your best bet is to compare it to the original. Be aware, as I've said many times, that this report is in PDF format, which means that if you have a slow connection and open it up online, it may take awhile to download and/or open. If you want to read all of the statements that each conclusion is talking about, find a copy on line. I have, as I mentioned above, copied all of the conclusions here, however, so that you don't necessarily need to read those statements. All of those conclusions are here, conveniently at your fingertips.
There are sixteen (16) in all. I've included every word not only with each conclusion, but any relevant paragraphs following that conclusion. There are also a few interesting paragraphs that I threw in there, free of charge.
Keep in mind that the bulk of the report is made up of quotes from President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and a whole host of other Administration officials. You can read the report to find out what these quotes were; I'm not going to reproduce them here. The Committee selected them because they thought they were representative. I'll let you decide for yourself on that score.
I will, however, let you see how I arrived at my conclusion that this report isn't as "damaging" to the Bush Administration as the Democrats and anti-war people would have you believe. So, without further ado, here they are:
(U) Conclusion 1: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community.
Prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, some intelligence agencies assessed that the Iraqi government was reconstituting a nuclear weapons program, while others disagreed or expressed doubts about the evidence. The Estimate itself expressed the majority view that the program was being reconstituted, but included clear dissenting views from the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, which argued that reconstitution was not underway, and the Department of Energy, which argued that aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were probably not intended for a nuclear program.
(U) Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information.
Intelligence assessments from the 1990's through early 2003 consistently stated that Iraq retained biological warfare agent and the capability to produce more. Assessments on the mobile facilities included the production capabilities of those labs, both in terms of type of agent and in amount. Prior to the October 2002 NIE, some intelligence assessments left open the question as to whether Iraq possessed biological weapons or that it was actively producing them, though other assessments did not present such uncertainties. Policymakers did not discuss intelligence gaps in Iraq's biological weapons programs, which were explicit in the October 2002 NIE.
(U) Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information.
Intelligence assessments, including the December 2000 ICA stated that Iraq had retained up to 100 metric tons of its chemical weapons stockpile. The October 2002 NIE provided a range of 100 to 500 metric tons of chemical weapons.
(U) Conclusion 4: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
The intelligence community assessed that Saddam Hussein wanted to have chemical weapons production capability and that Iraq was seeking to hide such capability in its dual use chemical industry. Intelligence assessments, especially prior to the October 2002 NIE, clearly stated that analysts could not confirm that production was ongoing.
Postwar Findings
(U) The Committee reported on postwar findings on Iraq's chemical weapons program in its September 2006 report, Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How They Compare with Prewar Assessments. The Committee found the following:.
(U) Following the war, the Iraq Survey Group conducted its review of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and found that there "were no caches of CW munitions and no single rounds of CW munitions." Additionally, "the ISG has high confidence that there are no CW present in the Iraqi inventory." 81 Some pre-1991 chemical weapons munitions have been found since the end of the combat operations.
(U) The ISG found no credible evidence indicating Iraq resumed its chemical weapons program after 1991, but said that "Saddam never abandoned his intentions to resume a CW effort when sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favorable." 82
(U) The ISG investigated whether Iraq had intended to produce chemical weapons through its civilian chemical industry. It found that Iraq had an inherent capability to use its civilian industry for sulfur mustard CW agents, but did not find any production units that had been configured to produce CW agents or key chemical precursors. The ISG found that Iraq did not have a capability to produce nerve agents. 83
81 Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, Chemical Section at p. 123.
82 Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, Chemical Section at p. 1 and 97
83 Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq's WMD, Chemical Section at p. 25.
(U) Conclusion 5: Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty that the intelligence judgments themselves.
Many senior policymaker statements in early and mid-2002 claimed that there was no doubt that the Iraqi government possessed or was producing weapons of mass destruction. While the intelligence community assessed at this time that the Iraqi regime possessed some chemical and biological munitions, most reports produced prior to fall 2002 cited intelligence gaps regarding production and expressed some room for doubt about whether production was ongoing. Prior to late 2002, the intelligence community did not collectively assess with any certainty that Iraq was actively producing any weapons of mass destruction.
(U) Conclusion 6: The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
While many intelligence analysts suspected that the Iraqi government might be using underground facilities to conceal WMD activities, no active underground WMD facilities had been positively identified. Furthermore, none of the underground government facilities that had been identified were buried deeply enough to be safe from conventional airstrikes.
_____________________
102 National Intelligence Council, Implications of Iraqi Underground Facilities for US National Security, November 2002.
103 National Intelligence Estimate, Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction, October 2002.
104 CIA assessment, DO Memorandum Intelligence Report, [title redacted], February 12, 2003.
105 CIA DO Memorandum Intelligence Report, [title redacted], February 12, 2003.
106 CIA DO Memorandum Intelligence Report, [title redacted], March 3, 2003.
(U) Conclusion 7: Statements in the major speeches and additional statements analyzed regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally substantiated by available intelligence.
The intelligence community was consistent in its judgments that the Iraqi military possessed a small number of Scud-type missiles left over from the Gulf War era (although the October 2002 NIE noted that these judgments were based on accounting gaps rather than direct evidence), and that Iraq was developing short-range missiles whose range exceeded the range permitted under UN sanctions by as much as 150 km, or 93 miles. The community also judged that Iraq was pursuing the capability to build longer-range missiles, but assessed that this project was still at the early stages of development.
(U) Conclusion 8: Statements by the President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State that Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons were generally substantiated by intelligence information, but did not convey the substantial disagreements or evolving views that existed in the intelligence community.
The majority view of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate judged that Iraq had a UAV program that was intended to deliver biological warfare agents. Air Force intelligence dissented from this view, and argued that the new UAV was probably being developed for reconnaissance. The majority view of the January 2003 NIE said that Iraq "may" be modifying UAV's for chemical or biological weapons, and the Air Force, Army and Defense Intelligence Agency argued that the evidence for this was "not sufficiently compelling to indicate that the Iraqis have done so."
(U) Conclusion 9: The President's suggestion that the Iraqi government was considering using UAVs to attack the United States was substantiated by intelligence judgments available at the time, but these judgments were revised a few months later, in January 2003.
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate noted that an Iraqi procurement network had attempted to purchase commercial mapping software that included data on the United States, and said that this suggested that the Iraqi government was considering using UAVs to target the US. The January 2003 NIE revised this claim, and said only that the software could be used for this purpose. The Air Force, Army and Defense Intelligence Agency dissented from this judgment as well, and argued that the purpose of the Iraqi request was to acquire a generic mapping capability.
(U) Conclusion 10: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, , as well additional statements, regarding iraq's support for terrorist groups other than Al qaida were substantiated by intelligence information.
The intelligence community reported regularly on iraq's safe harbor and financial support for Palestinian rejection is groups, the Abu Nidal organization, and others. The February 2002 NIE fully supported the claim that Iraq had, and will continue, to support terrorist groups.
(U) Conclusion 11: the statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qu'ida -related terrorist members were substantiated by the intelligence assessments.
Intelligence assessments noted Zarqawi's presence in Iraq and his ability to travel and operate within the country. The intelligence community generally believe that Iraqi intelligence must be known about, and therefore least tolerated, Zarqawi's presence in the country.
(U) Conclusion 12: statements and implications by the president and secretary of state suggesting that Iraq and al-Qu'ida a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qu'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by these intelligence.
Intelligence assessments, including multiple CIA reports and in November 2002 NIE, dismissed the claim that Iraq and al-Qu'ida were cooperating partners. According to an undisputed INR footnote in the NIE, there was no intelligence information that supported claim that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to al-Qu'ida. The credibility of the principal intelligence source behind a claim that Iraq provided al-Qu'ida with biological and chemical weapons training was regularly questioned DIA, and later by the CIA. The Committee repeats its conclusion from the prior report that "assessments were inconsistent regarding the likelihood that Saddam Hussein provided chemical and biological weapons (CBW) training to al-Qu'ida".
(U) conclusion 13: statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well additional statements, regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qu'ida were substantiated by intelligence information. However, policymakers'statements did not accurately convey the intelligence assessments of the nature of these contacts, and left the impression that the contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation or support of al-Qu'ida.
(U) Conclusion 14: The intelligence community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met in Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001.
Postwar findings
(U) The Committee issued a number of conclusions in its September 2006 report, Postwar bindings about Iraq's WMD programs and links to terrorism and how they compare with Prewar assessments, relating to the pre-war links between Iraq and terrorism. The committee found the following:
(u) Iraq in al-Qu'ida did not have a cooperative relationship. Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qu'ida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qu'ida to provide material or operational support
(U) most of the contact cited between Iraq and al-Qu'ida before the war by the intelligence community and policymakers have been determined not to have occurred. One of the reported contacts have been confirmed, into other meetings have since been identified.
(U) Postwar information supports pre-war assessments and statements that Abu musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad and al-Qu'ida was present in Northern Iraq.
(U) No postwar information has been found that indicates Iraq provide a chemical and biological weapons training to al-Qu'ida. The detainee who provided the key pre-war reporting of office training recanted his claims are for the war. In 2004, Ibn Shaykh al-Libi recanted his earlier statements about biological and chemical weapons training. Al-Libi told debriefers that he had fabricated information while in U.S. custody to receive better treatment and in response to threats of being transferred to a foreign intelligence which he believed would torture him. He also said it later, while he was being debriefed by a foreign intelligence service, he fabricated more information in response to physical abuse and threats of torture. The committee's pryor report compost were finding cited a CIA officer who explain that while CIA believes that al-Libi barricaded information, the CIA cannot determine whether, or what portion of, the original statements or the later recants are true or false.
(U) intelligence gathered after the war has lead analyst to doubt that Mohammed Atta and meetings with Iraq officially in the Czech Republic. According to the committee's prior report, " most were finding support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judge that 'the most reliable reporting casts doubt' on one of the leads, an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and in Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred".
(U) Conclusion 15: Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
The October 2002 national intelligence estimate assessments about Saddam Hussein did not have nuclear weapons, and was unwilling to conduct terrorist attacks the U.S. using conventional, chemical or biological weapons at that time, in part because he feared that doing so would give us a stronger case for war with Iraq. This judgment was echoed by vote earlier and later intelligence committee assessment. All of these assessments noted that gauging Saddam's intentions was quite difficult, and most suggested that he would be more likely to initiate hostilities if he felt that a U.S. invasion was imminent.
(U) Conclusion 16: Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the post war situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, economic, do not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
There were relatively few intelligence products on the subject prior to January 2003, and senior policymakers did not requested. The committee recognizes that there were many other sources of information available to policymakers that would inform their views about postwar Iraq. The committee did not explore these other sources as it is beyond the scope of this report.
Okay, so there you have it. All 16 conclusions.
"All right, Kaptain," I hear you ask, "but how did you come to the conclusion that this isn't as damaging to the Bush Administration as we have been led to believe?"
Well, that's a darn good question. Let me answer that by listing all of the conclusions that were generally substantiated, those that were generally not substantiated, and others.
Let's start with the ones that were generally substantiated. In order, those were statements that asserted that there was:
--- a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program
--- Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories
---Iraq's possession of chemical weapons
---Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction
---Iraqi ballistic missiles
---Iraq was developing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be used to deliver chemical or biological weapons
---the Iraqi government was considering using UAVs to attack the United States
---iraq's support for terrorist groups other than Al qaida
---that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qu'ida -related terrorist members
---Iraq's contacts with al-Qu'ida were substantiated by intelligence information
All (ALL!) of the above statements were found to be substantiated. Notice, that doesn't necessarily mean that the statements were true. It just means that there was overwhelming evidence at the time to believe that the statements were true.
Let's look at that list. My, there certainly are a lot of claims by those Eeeeeeevil Republicans and right-wingers that are on that list! Most notably, that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction and that Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism, and had links to al-Qu'ida.
So tell me again about how "Bush lied, people died"?
Next, let's look at the one conclusion that is a bit tricky. That conclusion is:
---Conclusion 4: Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
The intelligence community assessed that Saddam Hussein wanted to have chemical weapons production capability and that Iraq was seeking to hide such capability in its dual use chemical industry. Intelligence assessments, especially prior to the October 2002 NIE, clearly stated that analysts could not confirm that production was ongoing.
Kind of a tricky conclusion. It's phrased differently than the other conclusions, so that is one red flag there. Need help translating that? Here, let's put it this way:
The intelligence community could not say for certain whether or not Iraq was producing chemical weapons and hiding said weapons.
Chalk that one up as a tie.
Now, let's look at the statements that were not substantiated by the evidence. These were:
---the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried
---that Iraq and al-Qu'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qu'ida with weapons training
---The intelligence community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met in Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 (There's some debate about this one. I'm including it here just to be fair. Notice the wording does not say that Atta definitely wasn't in Prague. It just says that they can not confirm that he was. The British government, however, continues to stand by the conclusion that Atta was in Prague at the time, and he did meet an Iraqi intelligence officer.)
---Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States
---post war situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, economic, do not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products
Okay, so we look at these five conclusions and we see that the first one and last one are not really very damaging to the Bush Administration's case. I've already discussed the third one and why it really isn't all that damaging. What do we have left? That Iraq and al-Qu'ida didn't have a partnership, and that Saddam wasn't going to give his WMD's to terrorist groups for them to use against us or our allies.
But, from the list above we have already ascertained that:
1) Iraq had WMD's
2) Iraq had intentions to use those WMD's against us and/or our allies if he could
3) Iraq supported terrorist groups
4) Iraq had already given aid and comfort to members of al-Qu'ida
and
5) Iraq had had contact with al-Qu'ida. (which makes sense, given #4 there)
What would your conclusion be, given the above facts?
Well, if you are a sane, rational adult with full cognitive facilities, you believe that it is better to assume that somebody who hates you is going to do anything they can to hurt you, and you need to take steps to protect your self. If, on the other hand, you have Bush Derangement Syndrome, you think that Bush lied.
Try again, losers.
****edit: this is not to imply that you, the person reading this, is a loser. Only those who mindlessly drone that tired old crap that "Bush lied, people died" are the intended targets.
]]>
119371
2008-07-06 18:16:10
Not exactly new, I know. Whenever I'm not talking about my favorite subject, me, I'm usually talking about BSG. Which isn't a fair representation of my interests. But, that's just the way I've been posting lately.
I know I've written this in a post before, but some people don't like to read the archives or read this as the first post and will read later stuff afterwards, so I'll just rehash the situation here. Back in May, I got the third season on DVD. As I was reading the back of each DVD cover, I realized that my recollection of everything that had happened was rather fuzzy. So, before I started Season Three, I decided to watch the movie and Seasons One and Two again.
If you haven't seen any BSG -- shame on you! Hands down, best show on TV. Period. No further discussion. A quick recap for you, nonetheless. There are a TON of spoilers here, but I will change the font to a white font so that it will disappear into the background. Whenever you see a big chunk of white space, just point your mouse at the last visible character and highlight the big white space. Viola! Letters and words will magically appear!
The movie: The Cylons are revealed to look like humans. They send a beautiful blonde woman (named Six) to infiltrate the defenses. She seduces a brilliant but egotistical scientist named Dr. Gaius Baltar. Thanks to his access, she is able to weaken the defenses of the capital planet of Caprica. The Cylons attack and nuke not only the capital planet, but strike all of the other planets, as well.
Meanwhile, the Battlestar Galactica is on it's last run, scheduled to be decommissioned whenever it reaches home. Commander Adama is getting ready to retire, as well, and is putting together a speech when we first meet him. We also meet his tough XO Colonel Tigh, his Deck Chief Tyrol, his best pilot (and former love interest of his dead son Zac) Starbuck, and dependable Raptor pilot Boomer while we see a guide named Doral showing his visitors around. The Galactica welcomes the woman in charge of the Department of Education, Laura Roslayn. The Commander's son Lee, codenamed Apollo, shows up to be part of the honor guard and we see that there is a whole lot of friction between he and the Commander. Apollo is escorting Roslin back toward Caprica
when the Cylons launch their attack. Roslin realizes that she is now the top official of the Adar administration, takes the oath of office as President, and goes about collecting the remnants of humanity to escape from the eyes of the Cylons.
Boomer and her ECO Helo crash-land on Caprica after witnessing the neutralizing and destruction of the Galactica's counterattack fleet made up of Vipers, where they rescue a few Caprican survivors and prepare to take off. Helo spots Dr. Baltar and gives up his seat for him, reasoning that he is just a grunt while humanity will need one of the most brilliant minds alive in order to get through the coming crisis. As Baltar climbs into the Raptor, he spots Caprica Six in the crowd, blinks in surprise, looks again and finds that she has disappeared. This is rather remarkable seeing as how Caprica Six had revealed to him that the Cylons download their consciousness into another body when they are killed and Caprica Six had shielded Baltar with her body when the Cylons had nuked Caprica city. Thus, we see that Baltar is starting to lose his sanity, or perhaps the Cylons have found a way to implant themselves into his brain. Hmm?
Commander Adama decides that he needs to be fighting the Cylons, so he heads to an ammunition dump where he finds an arms merchant named Leoben already busy raiding it. After an accident isolates Adama and Leoben from the rest of the Galactica crew, we discover that Leoben is also a Cylon. Adama fights and kills Leoben, while the remnants of humanity led by President Roslin and Apollo show up at the ammo dump.
Baltar, who is haunted by Caprica Six (heh -- I initially wrote that as "Caprica Sex", which is understandable since Six is mainly a temptress, used to make the men in charge think with their lower heads), discovers that there is a Cylon device on Galactica. Caprica Six reveals to him that there are only 12 models of Cylon infiltrators, and they are virtually indistinguishable from humans. Baltar's afraid that someone will discover his complicity in allowing a Cylon access to humanity's defense mainframe and figures that the only way he could bolster his credentials as someone who is on the side of humanity is to find a scapegoat. He conveniently fingers Doral as a Cylon infiltrator. The forces of humanity leave Doral on the space station and jump away from the Cylons.
***In the film's final sequence, we see a gang of Sixes, Leobens, and Dorals show up to meet the Doral left behind. He complains that he doesn't know where they are going, where we see a new model of Cylon reveal itself. Sharon Valerii (Boomer) shows up and states that the Cylons have got all the time in the world to catch humanity. ***
Next entry (which will be posted whenever I darn well feel like it): Season One.
]]>
114390
2008-06-25 13:23:32
Well, I guess it could be worse. People could be wanting to interrupt me when I don't really want to be interrupted.
But have you ever noticed how many interruptions that you have in a day?
That's not exactly a new complaint from me. When I worked at Wal-Mart (oh so many years ago), I think I heard my name more times than I heard anybody else's. I always threatened to change my name and respond only to it while not telling anybody else what it was.
I almost always work all day on Sundays so I can come in in the evenings on Monday. This week is different, however, because my assistant is out of town. She's gone to visit her son in prison, and to go gambling. So, I've worked all day Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Thursday, I'll come in for a few hours, and then I'll be off all day on Friday and Saturday.
What to do, what to do????
]]>
112920
2008-06-22 18:39:17
What else? Scott McClellan has been testifying in front of Congress. Savor the irony of that statement for a while. I was going to read his tell-all book, but it looks like he may just be pumping up the more sensationalistic charges in order to sell books. I know, shocking.
Instead, I've been reading Doug Feith's book, War And Decision: Inside The Pentagon At The Dawn Of The War On Terrorism. I've just cracked it open, so I'm not too deep into it yet. But it's already got some nice little gems in it. Would you like a review of it? Well, don't bother looking in the New York Times. It doesn't exist there, for some reason.
I've been watching the third season of Battlestar Galactica on DVD. I missed quite a few episodes when they were originally broadcast, so I'm savoring each and every episode. I caught the first four episodes in their entirety, then a large portion of a couple other episodes, and almost all of the last one. I don't remember why I missed so many of the ones in the middle.
When I bought the third season, I realized that I hadn't seen the first two seasons in a while, and was having trouble recalling all the particulars that had happened since the show began. So, I started at the beginning with the movie and went through all episodes of the first and second seasons.
If you love cliff-hangers, then BSG is the show for you. Last 20 seconds of the movie? Heck of a cliff-hanger. Last minute of the last episode of the first season? One HELL of a cliff-hanger! One of the best of what I call the "HOLY SHIT!!!" moments ever seen. Last minute of the episode marking the end of the second season? Very cool.
The last 5 minutes of the last episode of season two aren't your typical cliff-hanger fare. I guess you could call it (without spoiling any of the surprises) a reversal of fortune. For a long time, I thought that the creators would give us an imaginary storyline. I don't know if I'm relieved or disappointed that what happened at the end of Season Two wasn't a "dream sequence". Relieved, because dream sequences are a cheap explanation for a story (see Moore, Michael and "Fahrenheit 9/11"). Disappointed, because I think it would be interesting to see how much more delusional Baltar could get before hitting rock bottom.
I've got some random thoughts on what I've seen so far of Season Three, and the rest of series, that I should be posting here sometime soon. There will be spoilers in it, but I will try to give plenty of warning before I start talking about them.
Have a nice Sunday, and see you soon.
]]>
111665
2008-06-19 15:10:27
Unfortunately, the results are in a PDF format, and I'm unable to copy and paste everything without having to reformat the copied stuff. So, I'm just transcribing everything instead. I'll post the resulting piece here as soon as I finish. Maybe I'll do it in installments.
]]>
109674
2008-06-15 18:15:22
I've finished putting in my CD's on the regular, full-length albums, but sort of got bogged down doing the various artist collections. I've found that I don't have as much passion for '70s classic rock as I did 20 or even 10 years ago. I still have my radio tuned to one of the two classic rock radio stations in my car, but I've found that I will usually put the iPod in or play a CD before too much time goes by. But we can talk about that some other day.
Right now, it's fisking time! As usual, all links will pop to a new window, my remarks are in black, Lonnie's are in blue, and Gene's - our fiskee - ramblings are in italicized blue.
Man, it's getting to be that I can't even get past the title without fisking it. And if you think I'm not going to swing at a nice, juicy softball like that, you are sadly mistaken.
It’s not tough to be stupid
That explains Gene's success.
As God is my witness, I do not pick these headlines, nor do I tamper with them in any way. Everything that you read here is exactly the way that the newspaper runs them. This is the exact headline that Gene's column ran as printed.
Gene Lyons
Posted on Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Given the wholesale failure of the Bush presidency and the bankruptcy of Republican ideology, Sen. John McCain’s only shot at the White House is to caricature Sen. Barack Obama as an elitist girly-man who can’t keep America safe.
Yeah, there's a difficult target.
Unfortunately, Obama has given GOP propagandists a fair amount to work with. Although the national press ignored it during the great anti-Clinton crusade, his Chicago past is replete with potential embarrassments.
One example: Remember when everybody got huffy at ABC’s George Stephanopoulos for asking Obama about William Ayers, the Weather Underground radical who bombed the Pentagon in 1972? Obama described him as an “English professor” and slight acquaintance who happened to live in his neighborhood. That was disingenuous at best. Ayers is a professor of education and a prominent figure in Chicago school circles, sufficiently well-known that Mayor Richard M. Daley publicly defended him from Stephanopoulos’ insinuations.
Moreover, one of Obama’s earliest Chicago jobs was as the director of a controversial school reform organization in which Ayers was a major player. (Ayers’ father once ran Commonwealth Edison, the city’s electric utility.) Obama’s earliest political fund-raiser in 1995 was held at Ayers’ home. They appeared together in forums at the University of Chicago for whom the school’s public relations contact was, yes, Michelle Obama.
I’m prepared to believe that Ayers has matured. Nor is Obama responsible for acts Ayers committed when Obama was 8. So why does it matter? Partly because a publicity photo for Ayers’ 1993 book, “Fugitive Days: A Memoir,” telling the story of his anti-Vietnam radicalism shows the bespectacled professor wiping his feet on an American flag.
You can see this picture <a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/2008/05/05/obama-s-buddy-bill-ayers-stomping-american-flag" target="_blank"> here at NewsBusters.com </a> If you are offended easily by people wiping their feet on the American flag, you might want to skip this link.
He’s also boasted about never going to prison despite his terrorist acts. Obama favorably reviewed the book in the Chicago Tribune. Puts a new spin on his mockery of Baby Boomer “psychodrama,” no?
Partly, too, because while the Clinton campaign was too dainty to use such inflammatory imagery, Republican operatives won’t be.
Yeah, those dirty Republicans.
As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s bizarre ramblings,
Brought up by those dirty Republicans. Err, uh, no.
it strikes me as evidence of (A) political immaturity, (B) arrogance or (C) both for Obama not to have given Ayers his “Sister Souljah” moment years ago.
A little <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sister_Souljah_moment" target="_blank">explanation here.</a>
Also as with Wright, his first instinct was to dissemble.
"Dissemble" is a fancy word for "lying". So, he's a good Democrat.
Did even Obama’s most enthusiastic supporters ever believe that “God damn America” was news to him?
Republican TV ads depicting Hillary Clinton calling Obama “naïve” are merely the opening gambit. Things are sure to get very rough before it’s over.
Let's hope so.
The national media will join in.
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen. Exactly how many gaffes has the Obamessiah made so far, with the resulting press coverage?
Just yesterday, somebody sent me a cbsnews.com article headlined, “Obama’s Radical-Left Ties Broad and Deep.”
You can find it <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/02/opinion/main4145761.shtml?source=RSSattr=Opinion_4145761" target="_blank"> here. </a>
It’s filled with information that the press neglected during the anti-Hillary bitch hunt.
That's sorta similar to the anti-Bush witch hunt. You just gotta admire Gene. Once he's been bought, he stays bought. Metaphorically speaking.
Maybe I’ve lived too long in the South,
That's not possible.
ground zero in the GOP’s “Southern Strategy.” And maybe Obama can transcend it all with feel-good rhetoric about “change,” possibly not the most original political slogan, but something everybody wants.
I’d also bet a lot that the only way he offers Clinton the vice-presidential nomination is as political theater after she’s privately agreed to turn it down.
Only if he's already hired a professional food tester and has no plans to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Foster" target="_blank">go walking around Fort Marcy Park at night.</a>
Why would she choose VP over Senate majority leader, a more powerful job definitely within her reach? Were I Obama, I’d take a long look at Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel: a strong conservative, an Iraq war skeptic from the get-go, a Vietnam combat veteran and a serious man.
And a grade A numbskull.
Obama’s initial outing at last week’s AIPAC convention—American Israel Public Affairs Committee—didn’t do much to foster confidence. Seeking to win over Jewish voters leery of the Wright / Farrakhan ties, he came off as a bigger Likudnik (Israeli neo-conservative)
A neo-conservative? He's a witch! Burn him! Burn him!
than Clinton, and that’s going some. Obama drew applause by declaring that the city of Jerusalem “must remain undivided” under Israeli rule. After Palestinian leaders objected, he backtracked within 24 hours, retreating to the Bush administration’s more sensible view that Jerusalem’s status be negotiated during peace talks.
So how does Obama get around the “naïve” business?
Uh, by not being naive?
*Note to Obama: taking advice from Gene is best taken in reverse. In other words, do the exact opposite from what Gene advises. Trust me, you can't go wrong with that approach.*
Not by dissembling, but fighting back. Consider Jerusalem, for example. You wouldn’t call the hardline Likudnik position naïve. Words like “delusional,” and “tribal,” however, do come to mind. Sacred to all three monotheistic religions—Christianity, Judaism and Islam—Jerusalem was a divided city from 1948 to 1967, when the Israelis conquered it by force.
That's some mighty nice historical revisionism, there, Gene. The Israelis had <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_war" target="_blank"> absolutely no motivation </a> for "conquering" Jerusalem, eh, Gene? Apparently, Gene fell asleep for six days straight in 1967.
Its hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents, whose ancestors have lived there since biblical times, are not considered Israeli citizens and cannot vote.
Gee, what a concept. Not extending the vote to people who aren't citizens of your country. I wish certain countries would follow the lead on this. *Ahem*
Meanwhile, Israelis keep taking Palestinian land for illegal settlements as the Arab slums fester and decay.
Horse apples!
So long as these things are true,
And they aren't.
there can never be peace or justice. The great majority of Israeli citizens understand that. So do most American Jews. So does Obama. Instead of mimicking McCain’s cartoonish neo-conservatism,
Neo-conservatism? He's a witch! Burn him! Burn him!!!!
he owes it to the American people to explain that ignoring reality isn’t evidence of strength, but stupidity.
And if anybody can speak from experience about ignoring reality, that would be Gene.
Criminy, the worst thing about Gene's columns is that he actually believes this tripe.
Well, thanks for struggling along through this hip-high level of horse apples. As the old joke goes, this much horse manure means that there has got to be a horse in there somewhere. We haven't found one yet, but maybe next time...?
]]>
109649
2008-06-15 16:40:26
My clerk was sitting in my office with me in between waiting on customers last Saturday morning, just sitting and talking. She likes to sit right at my elbow and look over my shoulder while I'm working. Since she's a cute little 18 year-old blonde, I tolerate it.
When I'm here in the mornings, I usually listen to an Internet radio station out of Richmond, Virginia. In between the morning radio team's hilarity, they'll play some pretty cool music. Some of it stuff that I haven't heard in quite a few years.
One of those was a tune by the Beatles. (When was the last time you heard the Beatles on the radio, outside of one of those oldies stations?) Unless you have a really cool classic rock station that you listen to on a regular basis, it's probably been a few years.
This is how I know this generation is in trouble; she didn't know it was the Beatles.
Now, not being able to identify the Beatles is, to me, inexcusable. I don't think you can go anywhere without hearing or seeing some bit of their influence. Their "Best Of" compilations alone dwarf most other artists' total output.
And she wasn't able to identify the Beatles when they came on the radio.
The single most influential musical group of the past century, and arguably one of the most powerful cultural influence in the history of mankind.
And she wasn't able to identify the Beatles when she heard them.
She even asked me if they were more popular than some rapper named "Lil Wayne". It took all of my restraint to not say that "Lil Wayne" would pay all of his money to carry just one of the Beatles' worn jockstraps across the room.
I was nice about it. (I really was - I swear!) But that just stuck in my mind.
I know, it's been over 30 years since they broke up, and over 20 years since John Lennon's murder.
But still...
Just mind-blowing.
Or am I showing my age? Were the Beatles good for the age, but it's time to embrace newer (and therefore, to some people's minds, better - don't get me started on that particular rant) artists in general and music styles in particular?
]]>
10