A few days ago, a gap was filled in that made the Anna Nicole Smith legacy one step closer to the South Park multi-episode saga that promised to tell us who Eric Cartman’s father was.
Cartman’s mother had sex with nearly every man in town, so there was all this doubt about who Cartman’s father was. The possible scenarios were played from each potential father’s point of view and on 2/25/1998 we were left with a cliffhanger at the end of the season. We were promised the answer at the beginning of the new season, scheduled for 4/1/1998.
On 4/1/1998, the creators of South Park gave us an entirely irrelevant episode, and made us wait until 4/22/1998 to give us the conclusion “Cartman’s Mom is Still a Dirty Slut”. Even the time line is working out to be comparable.
At that point we learned that Cartman’s Father was Cartman’s hermaphrodite mother. Although there is no evidence of this particular twist, what happened a few days ago? Among other things, a woman came forward, declaring that SHE had had an affair with Anna Nicole. Mercifully, she has not claimed to be the father. Would anyone have been surprised if she had?
How is Danielynn’s life to-date different from a South Park episode? Sadly, to-date, it is not.
More to the point, let the woman rest in peace already (This means you, Mom.), get the daughter to her real father (This means you Howard, and whatever judge is up for an audition next.) so she can live as normal a life as is possible under the circumstances, and allow us to get on with addressing the problems that threaten to annihilate us?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Libby is less Guilty than Clinton
I could be wrong, but this is what it looks like here at the bottom.
Ever since Bill Clinton was impeached in December, 1998 we have been told so many times that it was all about sex that the Pavlovian among us have been trained to believe it. It wasn’t about sex. It was about rape (Juanita Broaddrick) and sexual harassment (Paula Jones) – crimes that people typically either go to jail for or lose their jobs over.
While it is true that the very narrow scope of Ken Starr’s investigation was the Monica Lewinski affair, there is no doubt that without the preceding and underlying scandals, it would not have reached the constitutional crisis stage. Nobody really wanted to impeach Clinton. He forced it. It was a political loser from the beginning for Republicans. If they had been successful in the impeachment proceedings, Al Gore would have been catapulted into the White House, and would have been reelected in 2000 on the sympathy vote. The analogy is locking up Al Capone for tax evasion instead of the many other more heinous crimes that was his true legacy.
In the Clinton case, there was, at least, an acknowledged crime committed. Even his supporters acknowledged that he lied about sex; they admitted that he lied. What else could he have done, after all? Well, for one thing, he could have told us that it was none of our business and refused to answer questions about it. Perjury is a crime. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that other, more serious crimes were committed – crimes like rape and sexual harassment.
Scooter Libby, on the other hand, may have lied or not. He may have honestly had a memory lapse or not. He may have been attempting to use delaying tactics to soften the blow when it was finally discovered that there was no underlying crime committed or not. Since there was no underlying crime, Libby had no reason to lie. There goes the motive. But apparently, Patrick Fitzgerald, a United States Attorney with a previously stellar reputation in my native Chicago, decided that in the national arena of anti-Bush politics, a motive is a minor annoyance – like lying about “sex.”
So let’s see. Clinton gets off (no pun intended, honestly) because he lied about sex, even though it was not all about sex. It was about rape and sexual harassment. Libby is put on trial because he may or may not have lied about NOTHING.
The Republicans are vilified about spending millions of our dollars to prosecute someone his supporters admitted committed the crime he was accused of. Democrats spend some number of dollars that the Republicans are too afraid to discover and tell us about to prosecute someone who, it appears, is probably not guilty of doing anything.
So, more time and money is wasted for the personal gain of politicians who feel the need to put on a show is a higher priority than doing the peoples work. Nice job, elected officials.
Ever since Bill Clinton was impeached in December, 1998 we have been told so many times that it was all about sex that the Pavlovian among us have been trained to believe it. It wasn’t about sex. It was about rape (Juanita Broaddrick) and sexual harassment (Paula Jones) – crimes that people typically either go to jail for or lose their jobs over.
While it is true that the very narrow scope of Ken Starr’s investigation was the Monica Lewinski affair, there is no doubt that without the preceding and underlying scandals, it would not have reached the constitutional crisis stage. Nobody really wanted to impeach Clinton. He forced it. It was a political loser from the beginning for Republicans. If they had been successful in the impeachment proceedings, Al Gore would have been catapulted into the White House, and would have been reelected in 2000 on the sympathy vote. The analogy is locking up Al Capone for tax evasion instead of the many other more heinous crimes that was his true legacy.
In the Clinton case, there was, at least, an acknowledged crime committed. Even his supporters acknowledged that he lied about sex; they admitted that he lied. What else could he have done, after all? Well, for one thing, he could have told us that it was none of our business and refused to answer questions about it. Perjury is a crime. There was plenty of evidence to suggest that other, more serious crimes were committed – crimes like rape and sexual harassment.
Scooter Libby, on the other hand, may have lied or not. He may have honestly had a memory lapse or not. He may have been attempting to use delaying tactics to soften the blow when it was finally discovered that there was no underlying crime committed or not. Since there was no underlying crime, Libby had no reason to lie. There goes the motive. But apparently, Patrick Fitzgerald, a United States Attorney with a previously stellar reputation in my native Chicago, decided that in the national arena of anti-Bush politics, a motive is a minor annoyance – like lying about “sex.”
So let’s see. Clinton gets off (no pun intended, honestly) because he lied about sex, even though it was not all about sex. It was about rape and sexual harassment. Libby is put on trial because he may or may not have lied about NOTHING.
The Republicans are vilified about spending millions of our dollars to prosecute someone his supporters admitted committed the crime he was accused of. Democrats spend some number of dollars that the Republicans are too afraid to discover and tell us about to prosecute someone who, it appears, is probably not guilty of doing anything.
So, more time and money is wasted for the personal gain of politicians who feel the need to put on a show is a higher priority than doing the peoples work. Nice job, elected officials.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Congress Disgraces Itself Yet Again
Well, Congress has done it again. Congress has disgraced itself and, as one of its three branches of government, the United States of America, in the eyes of the world. This time it was the House of Representatives, with a complacent Senate anxious, but delayed for the moment, to follow suit.
Back when the Senate was under Republican “control” it was the Senate that consistently disgraced itself through its lack of action. One notable example of this was its refusal to confirm John Bolton, thus sending the message to the world that we absolutely love a scandal-ridden, wasteful U.N. that is too arrogant to even pretend to attempt to reform itself.
This time around, the Senate has, so far, partially spared itself through its usual non-action, although it appears determined to not escape the cloud of disgrace. The members of the Senate could have influenced their fellow party members if they were so inclined. They weren’t. Worse, they seem intent on following suit. The Senate, unlike the House, requires Republican complicity. I see Republicans who aid and abet the Democrat majority in this instance as political cowards who buy into the Democrat position - surrender.
Those who voted for the House resolution chose, by putting themselves on record through their vote, to stand with Osama Bin Laden and his supporters in their assertion that the United States of America does not have the stomach to stand up to terrorism. Not unless it’s easy, anyway, which, of course, it never is. Politicians in both parties in the U.S. Senate appear intent on rushing to stand with Bin Laden as well.
Don’t worry Senators. There is still plenty of disgrace to go around. You’ll get your share. The second saddest part is that those of you rushing to grab your fair share don’t appear to realize it or feel the shame. You should. The saddest part is the damage you aspire to do to my country and my military.
There are alternatives, but I don’t see the people complaining the loudest putting any forward – just whining as usual. The Commander-In-Chief should have support in this action. If the Iraqis do not stand up and fight the terrorists instead of each other, it is not the President or the U.S.A. that will have failed. That is the point at which I, at least would like to have our troops withdraw to the borders to engage whoever comes across. That would still be more than we seem willing to do on our own borders – to our lasting shame.
If civilizations are intent on willingly risking death for the privilege of killing each other, let them have at it. We can still keep the vultures out and help the survivors build a future that will benefit all, including us; especially us. Remember, we did win the Iraq wars – both of them – and that’s what you get for winning a war.
See Senators and Representatives? Even we, here at the bottom, can put forth some sort of alternative. Why is it that all you can do is pass judgment outside your area of expertise and constitutional assignment (That would be legislation, for those of you who need a reminder.), whine, and advocate surrender?
Back when the Senate was under Republican “control” it was the Senate that consistently disgraced itself through its lack of action. One notable example of this was its refusal to confirm John Bolton, thus sending the message to the world that we absolutely love a scandal-ridden, wasteful U.N. that is too arrogant to even pretend to attempt to reform itself.
This time around, the Senate has, so far, partially spared itself through its usual non-action, although it appears determined to not escape the cloud of disgrace. The members of the Senate could have influenced their fellow party members if they were so inclined. They weren’t. Worse, they seem intent on following suit. The Senate, unlike the House, requires Republican complicity. I see Republicans who aid and abet the Democrat majority in this instance as political cowards who buy into the Democrat position - surrender.
Those who voted for the House resolution chose, by putting themselves on record through their vote, to stand with Osama Bin Laden and his supporters in their assertion that the United States of America does not have the stomach to stand up to terrorism. Not unless it’s easy, anyway, which, of course, it never is. Politicians in both parties in the U.S. Senate appear intent on rushing to stand with Bin Laden as well.
Don’t worry Senators. There is still plenty of disgrace to go around. You’ll get your share. The second saddest part is that those of you rushing to grab your fair share don’t appear to realize it or feel the shame. You should. The saddest part is the damage you aspire to do to my country and my military.
There are alternatives, but I don’t see the people complaining the loudest putting any forward – just whining as usual. The Commander-In-Chief should have support in this action. If the Iraqis do not stand up and fight the terrorists instead of each other, it is not the President or the U.S.A. that will have failed. That is the point at which I, at least would like to have our troops withdraw to the borders to engage whoever comes across. That would still be more than we seem willing to do on our own borders – to our lasting shame.
If civilizations are intent on willingly risking death for the privilege of killing each other, let them have at it. We can still keep the vultures out and help the survivors build a future that will benefit all, including us; especially us. Remember, we did win the Iraq wars – both of them – and that’s what you get for winning a war.
See Senators and Representatives? Even we, here at the bottom, can put forth some sort of alternative. Why is it that all you can do is pass judgment outside your area of expertise and constitutional assignment (That would be legislation, for those of you who need a reminder.), whine, and advocate surrender?
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Air Force Three
Could we please get Nancy Pelosi’s damned plane off the news already?
The White House should now be involved and dictate the solution. It’s the military that reports to the President who is providing the transport. It’s a 3-minute decision – if there is a coherent national security strategy in place – even if the President and his national security team drag their feet.
If that assumed coherent national security policy dictates providing this military protection to Speaker Pelosi to travel home to California, then why would it not be necessary to provide protection to a conference 150 miles away in Williamsburg, Virginia? If there were a terrorist (or other fanatical jack-ass) strike against our leadership structure, she or anyone else targeted would be just as dead if attacked on a trip to Williamsburg as on the way home to California.
This begs the question “Does the use of this military aircraft constitute part of a national security strategy or is it merely another perk of office?" If it is a security measure, then she needs to be protected ALL the time; the protection and accommodation Dennis Hastert had appears to have been appropriate. Any more would be a perk (by my definition of government waste) and would be blatantly breaking the promise to reduce waste under a Democrat Congress. If it is not a security measure, it is a perk, and should be eliminated. Nancy Pelosi should decline the plane and we should all congratulate her on eliminating waste in government and keeping the one reasonable Democrat campaign promise that was made.
She (or one of her people) is correct when they claim she should not be punished for being a woman or for living farther away from Washington than Dennis Hastert. Neither should she be rewarded on either count.
I am very much not a fan Nancy Pelosi, her politics, or her tactics, but she is entitled (and more importantly we are entitled) to whatever security is appropriate to her position. It’s not fun for me to speak in her defense, so I wish that whoever the idiots are that are holding up this legitimate security issue would get off their dead asses and resolve it, or, alternatively, leave public service and leave the resolution to someone competent.
Apparently, the first step is a coherent security strategy – one that you at the top can explain in terms that we here at the bottom can understand.
This is one more in a long list of distractions and sideshows that we at the bottom can’t afford and neither can you at the top. The difference is that we at the bottom know it; you at the top don’t appear to.
Let’s hear what that security strategy is so that after the media has O.D.’d on Anna Nicole Smith, we can move on to the next issue. That would be whether the vocal citizens of San Francisco will protest the presence of the United States Military in their city to protect one of their own and whether they will turn on Nancy Pelosi for allowing this unspeakable invasion.
The White House should now be involved and dictate the solution. It’s the military that reports to the President who is providing the transport. It’s a 3-minute decision – if there is a coherent national security strategy in place – even if the President and his national security team drag their feet.
If that assumed coherent national security policy dictates providing this military protection to Speaker Pelosi to travel home to California, then why would it not be necessary to provide protection to a conference 150 miles away in Williamsburg, Virginia? If there were a terrorist (or other fanatical jack-ass) strike against our leadership structure, she or anyone else targeted would be just as dead if attacked on a trip to Williamsburg as on the way home to California.
This begs the question “Does the use of this military aircraft constitute part of a national security strategy or is it merely another perk of office?" If it is a security measure, then she needs to be protected ALL the time; the protection and accommodation Dennis Hastert had appears to have been appropriate. Any more would be a perk (by my definition of government waste) and would be blatantly breaking the promise to reduce waste under a Democrat Congress. If it is not a security measure, it is a perk, and should be eliminated. Nancy Pelosi should decline the plane and we should all congratulate her on eliminating waste in government and keeping the one reasonable Democrat campaign promise that was made.
She (or one of her people) is correct when they claim she should not be punished for being a woman or for living farther away from Washington than Dennis Hastert. Neither should she be rewarded on either count.
I am very much not a fan Nancy Pelosi, her politics, or her tactics, but she is entitled (and more importantly we are entitled) to whatever security is appropriate to her position. It’s not fun for me to speak in her defense, so I wish that whoever the idiots are that are holding up this legitimate security issue would get off their dead asses and resolve it, or, alternatively, leave public service and leave the resolution to someone competent.
Apparently, the first step is a coherent security strategy – one that you at the top can explain in terms that we here at the bottom can understand.
This is one more in a long list of distractions and sideshows that we at the bottom can’t afford and neither can you at the top. The difference is that we at the bottom know it; you at the top don’t appear to.
Let’s hear what that security strategy is so that after the media has O.D.’d on Anna Nicole Smith, we can move on to the next issue. That would be whether the vocal citizens of San Francisco will protest the presence of the United States Military in their city to protect one of their own and whether they will turn on Nancy Pelosi for allowing this unspeakable invasion.
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
A Call for Change – Not Surrender
Sometimes it hurts to be a news junkie. In fact, it hurts more and more lately, which is why I started writing about it. Yesterday was yet another one of those times. I heard Senator Clinton declare that the November, 2006 elections were a call for change. Pandering to the left wing that she feels she needs to get the democratic nomination for president, she joined the cut, run, and surrender movement, just like the rest of her socialist, European would-be peers of 2009.
Is it any wonder that politicians are so low on the list of admired professions? The disconnects from reality come one after another, without regard for any type of historical fact or logic, and based on the assumption that we, here at the bottom, are stupid and/or short-sighted and/or without memory.
She indicated that it would be irresponsible of President Bush to pass the Iraq war on to his successor. This statement alone is wrong on a number of levels. We have already had two presidents that have passed the war on terror on to their successors. They served concurrently and were named Clinton. President Bill told us all that we were getting two for the price of one and that was what we got (I took him at his word on this and he followed through on this promise. I know this because President Hillary was hard at work, as President Bill had promised, concocting a failed socialized health-care plan – clearly a Presidential task.). Presidents Clinton ignored the terror war that became public in 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing and continued through their administration, passing it to their successor – George W. Bush. Hypocrisy alert – Hillary is slamming someone for doing something that she has already done as one-half of the Presidential team.
One more thing – The war in Iraq is not the point. The war in Iraq was never the point. The war in Iraq is over – We won. The Iraq war was a subset of the war on terror. That is the war we have yet to win, and are in the midst of. That is why the strategies had to change; it’s a different war, with a different, albeit related, enemy having different tactics and different goals. Could you people at the top please wake up?
She indicated that if the congress doesn’t stop the war in Iraq by January, 2009, then she, as President, will, and that if she had been President in 2002, she would not have gone to war in Iraq. She had the chance to not go to war. She voted, and it was not the vote that she now says would have guided her action. Her vote is the opposite of what she now says she would have done – or not done. Is this like voting for the war before you voted against it? I thought John Kerry was not running this time around.
The much-cited call for change reflected in the 2006 elections was, indeed, a call for change – not surrender (although that is one type of change that is possible). The problem is that everyone believes it was a call for the kind of change THEY want. I was happy as a clam with the administration’s conduct of the Iraq war as were most Americans as reflected in the polls when the Iraq war was still being fought. We won.
Again, that war was over years ago. Just because there is still fighting in Iraq does not mean that it is the Iraq war. It is the Iraq front in the Terror War. We are now fighting the war on terror in Iraq, on our borders, and elsewhere. The fact that there is a front in Iraq is, apparently, confusing to our politicians and does not allow them to separate the various skirmishes. They had better learn how pretty quickly, because it is likely to become even more “confusing” as time goes on. The war on terror is the one that I’m not happy about and most Americans are not happy about. We want to WIN that one too! Americans want to WIN! Surrender in Iraq is surrender in the Terror War. I want to WIN!
This should not be interpreted as a slam on our former half-President. From what I can see from down here at the bottom, most of our politicians are looking for ways to surrender in one way or another.
We are also in the process of completing the process of surrender on our southern border. WIN. Don’t surrender.
Is it any wonder that politicians are so low on the list of admired professions? The disconnects from reality come one after another, without regard for any type of historical fact or logic, and based on the assumption that we, here at the bottom, are stupid and/or short-sighted and/or without memory.
She indicated that it would be irresponsible of President Bush to pass the Iraq war on to his successor. This statement alone is wrong on a number of levels. We have already had two presidents that have passed the war on terror on to their successors. They served concurrently and were named Clinton. President Bill told us all that we were getting two for the price of one and that was what we got (I took him at his word on this and he followed through on this promise. I know this because President Hillary was hard at work, as President Bill had promised, concocting a failed socialized health-care plan – clearly a Presidential task.). Presidents Clinton ignored the terror war that became public in 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing and continued through their administration, passing it to their successor – George W. Bush. Hypocrisy alert – Hillary is slamming someone for doing something that she has already done as one-half of the Presidential team.
One more thing – The war in Iraq is not the point. The war in Iraq was never the point. The war in Iraq is over – We won. The Iraq war was a subset of the war on terror. That is the war we have yet to win, and are in the midst of. That is why the strategies had to change; it’s a different war, with a different, albeit related, enemy having different tactics and different goals. Could you people at the top please wake up?
She indicated that if the congress doesn’t stop the war in Iraq by January, 2009, then she, as President, will, and that if she had been President in 2002, she would not have gone to war in Iraq. She had the chance to not go to war. She voted, and it was not the vote that she now says would have guided her action. Her vote is the opposite of what she now says she would have done – or not done. Is this like voting for the war before you voted against it? I thought John Kerry was not running this time around.
The much-cited call for change reflected in the 2006 elections was, indeed, a call for change – not surrender (although that is one type of change that is possible). The problem is that everyone believes it was a call for the kind of change THEY want. I was happy as a clam with the administration’s conduct of the Iraq war as were most Americans as reflected in the polls when the Iraq war was still being fought. We won.
Again, that war was over years ago. Just because there is still fighting in Iraq does not mean that it is the Iraq war. It is the Iraq front in the Terror War. We are now fighting the war on terror in Iraq, on our borders, and elsewhere. The fact that there is a front in Iraq is, apparently, confusing to our politicians and does not allow them to separate the various skirmishes. They had better learn how pretty quickly, because it is likely to become even more “confusing” as time goes on. The war on terror is the one that I’m not happy about and most Americans are not happy about. We want to WIN that one too! Americans want to WIN! Surrender in Iraq is surrender in the Terror War. I want to WIN!
This should not be interpreted as a slam on our former half-President. From what I can see from down here at the bottom, most of our politicians are looking for ways to surrender in one way or another.
We are also in the process of completing the process of surrender on our southern border. WIN. Don’t surrender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
