A Good Feeling
-
I have been through hell in my life, as has been documented in this blog
before. But, here I am at this point, both personally and professionally
happy. I ...
13 years ago
Thursday, February 28, 2008
WFB
William F. Buckley, perhaps the beginner of THE "Conservative Movement" died yesterday. Call me callous, call me mean, call me a psychopathic asshat...but count me as one who is not upset the fucker is dead.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Go out swinging!
Big Hill, as I've said earlier...go out swinging like a mother fucker. Bring the 2-by-4 and start hacking away.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
McCain has another way to win
Public Enemy Number 1 for Democrats...who is it?
Right-wing radio?
FoxSnooze?
The Dems own pussiness on tough issues?
Nope, it's Ralph-FUCK-Nader.
SOMEONE, ANYONE take out this mother fucker. He's running for President AGAIN this year, as a 3rd party candidate.
The man is abominable.
Right-wing radio?
FoxSnooze?
The Dems own pussiness on tough issues?
Nope, it's Ralph-FUCK-Nader.
SOMEONE, ANYONE take out this mother fucker. He's running for President AGAIN this year, as a 3rd party candidate.
The man is abominable.
When a sex offender really isn't a sex offender
Yes, I'm serious.
Read this article on a 16 year old dude who went to a party, met a chick who said she was 16 (when she really was 13). Now California is looking into developing a life long sex offender registry list, like the state of Oklahoma apparently has done.
In my opinion, there's no way this kid should be put on any sex offender list, but if we must, then put him on there for a 2 year probation to keep his shit clean, or until he's 18. But, to punish this kid for life because he was lied to by some chick, that's cruel and unusual punishment.
What has happened to the girl? Probably nothing. Where's her responsibility for lying? If he has to be on the list, then she does as well for lying about her age. A list entitled, "Watch out! This bitch lies about her age!"
Read this article on a 16 year old dude who went to a party, met a chick who said she was 16 (when she really was 13). Now California is looking into developing a life long sex offender registry list, like the state of Oklahoma apparently has done.
In my opinion, there's no way this kid should be put on any sex offender list, but if we must, then put him on there for a 2 year probation to keep his shit clean, or until he's 18. But, to punish this kid for life because he was lied to by some chick, that's cruel and unusual punishment.
What has happened to the girl? Probably nothing. Where's her responsibility for lying? If he has to be on the list, then she does as well for lying about her age. A list entitled, "Watch out! This bitch lies about her age!"
Saturday, February 23, 2008
The WIIG
I do believe that during tonight's return of SNL, and during the opening skit...Kristen WIIG showed us her o-face. I love the WIIG. That was priceless.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Gracious Gore Mistake
Last night, I applauded the Big Hill for her perhaps gracious exit to the campaign.
However, that was not an elicit endorsement of that motus operandi.
Gore, who was by all accounts cheated out of a Presidential win in 2000...went out with the most graceful and gracious speech in American history. At the time, I was a Gore supporter who applauded his graciousness, but I hated his willingness to give up.
All that "good will" that Gore bought (similar to what the pundits are saying about the Big Hill -"good will") got him....ehhh...what?
At the time, it was a smart political calculus. Come back in '04 when Dubya falls on his face. But, the ONE thing you cannot predict is the future. Had Gore known about 9/11, would have really graciously gone out as he did? I'd argue not.
The punditry bullshit is asinine about "good will." She should go kicking and screaming. If Obama gets elected the earliest she could run again is 2016. If she's not the VP nominee with Obama, and he serves 2 terms, she's still screwed.
All this "good will" shit doesn't get her shit. What? A long, boring-ass Senate career? I'd argue that she has 4 more years of her Senate term and by then New Yorkers will forget the ugliness and will roundly re-elect her, she has NOTHING to lose by going out scratching and clawing. She needs to fight, and keep fighting.
However, that was not an elicit endorsement of that motus operandi.
Gore, who was by all accounts cheated out of a Presidential win in 2000...went out with the most graceful and gracious speech in American history. At the time, I was a Gore supporter who applauded his graciousness, but I hated his willingness to give up.
All that "good will" that Gore bought (similar to what the pundits are saying about the Big Hill -"good will") got him....ehhh...what?
At the time, it was a smart political calculus. Come back in '04 when Dubya falls on his face. But, the ONE thing you cannot predict is the future. Had Gore known about 9/11, would have really graciously gone out as he did? I'd argue not.
The punditry bullshit is asinine about "good will." She should go kicking and screaming. If Obama gets elected the earliest she could run again is 2016. If she's not the VP nominee with Obama, and he serves 2 terms, she's still screwed.
All this "good will" shit doesn't get her shit. What? A long, boring-ass Senate career? I'd argue that she has 4 more years of her Senate term and by then New Yorkers will forget the ugliness and will roundly re-elect her, she has NOTHING to lose by going out scratching and clawing. She needs to fight, and keep fighting.
The Secret Service planning a JFK moment for Obama?
How stupid can the Secret Service be? Apparently, very stupid.
They are charged with guarding the safety, the very life, of the first candidate of color who has a more than reasonable shot of being the next President of the United States of America. So, what is their grand plan for ensuring his safety?
Ehhh...skip the metal detectors, skip the random bag/purse searches because the crowd "seems" friendly.
Wait???!!! WHAT!!!????
No matter how friendly any crowd seems, there's no way this country would not go into all out hell-a-panic if Obama were even attempted to be killed...much less anything worse. The Secret Service taking this kind of risk is not only stupid, but is blatantly incompetent.
This can NEVER happen again. Thanks to the anonymous Dallas police Officer(s) who blew the whistle on this one.
Note: Yes, indeed. Some stories that ARE true are broken by ANONYMOUS sources. So, fuck off Republicans. Our man got impeached over anonymous sources who led to a semen-stained dress. OY!
Further Note: What is it with the Secret Service and freaking Dallas, Texas? Do we have a mole somewhere that's been there since the early 60s?
They are charged with guarding the safety, the very life, of the first candidate of color who has a more than reasonable shot of being the next President of the United States of America. So, what is their grand plan for ensuring his safety?
Ehhh...skip the metal detectors, skip the random bag/purse searches because the crowd "seems" friendly.
Wait???!!! WHAT!!!????
No matter how friendly any crowd seems, there's no way this country would not go into all out hell-a-panic if Obama were even attempted to be killed...much less anything worse. The Secret Service taking this kind of risk is not only stupid, but is blatantly incompetent.
This can NEVER happen again. Thanks to the anonymous Dallas police Officer(s) who blew the whistle on this one.
Note: Yes, indeed. Some stories that ARE true are broken by ANONYMOUS sources. So, fuck off Republicans. Our man got impeached over anonymous sources who led to a semen-stained dress. OY!
Further Note: What is it with the Secret Service and freaking Dallas, Texas? Do we have a mole somewhere that's been there since the early 60s?
Has Bill Keller just hand McCain the Presidency?
Publicly, McCain is "disappointed" by the Times story, but assuming it never grows legs beyond a few news cycles, he HAS to be thrilled at the timing.
Bill Keller, the big chief editor of the NYT, just did McCain a huge-ass favor. Keller kept the story quiet during the primaries when Romney could have blown past McCain and kicked his face in. Keller waits until after McCain has the nomination all but locked up, and is desperately trying to court/excite the Republican base and movers and shakers.
The Drug Kingpin (Limburger) has been hammering McCain along with other conservatives talking heads.
No more. They have begun to rally to McCain's side. They will back him up, and they may even start giving McCain some serious cash.
So, barring a terrorist attack (which, in my view would be devastating to Obama during the campaign), if McCain SOMEHOW manages to beat Obama in the fall (assuming Obama hangs on)...this may be the moment that turned the momentum of right-wing support to McCain's side.
Great plan Keller...great plan.
Bill Keller, the big chief editor of the NYT, just did McCain a huge-ass favor. Keller kept the story quiet during the primaries when Romney could have blown past McCain and kicked his face in. Keller waits until after McCain has the nomination all but locked up, and is desperately trying to court/excite the Republican base and movers and shakers.
The Drug Kingpin (Limburger) has been hammering McCain along with other conservatives talking heads.
No more. They have begun to rally to McCain's side. They will back him up, and they may even start giving McCain some serious cash.
So, barring a terrorist attack (which, in my view would be devastating to Obama during the campaign), if McCain SOMEHOW manages to beat Obama in the fall (assuming Obama hangs on)...this may be the moment that turned the momentum of right-wing support to McCain's side.
Great plan Keller...great plan.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Speaking of the "Right-Wing-Scheme-Machine"...
The Republican National Committee (RNC) is SO eager to attack the Democratic nominee that they have sent out en mass e-mails tonight.
And they were so quick, they labeled something that Obama said, when in truth, it was Hillary...this is the kind of shit Dems who have a brain are aware of and why I want Hill to be the nominee.
Finally, I find it especially appalling that freakin' Donna Brazile is asked a question of how Hill can seem more human and she proceeds to not answer the question (I swipe over during MSNBC's commerical breaks). This clearly is because the dumbass beoch who ran Gore's 2000 campaign didn't let him say what he wanted, didn't let him get "humanized." The nerve...
And they were so quick, they labeled something that Obama said, when in truth, it was Hillary...this is the kind of shit Dems who have a brain are aware of and why I want Hill to be the nominee.
Finally, I find it especially appalling that freakin' Donna Brazile is asked a question of how Hill can seem more human and she proceeds to not answer the question (I swipe over during MSNBC's commerical breaks). This clearly is because the dumbass beoch who ran Gore's 2000 campaign didn't let him say what he wanted, didn't let him get "humanized." The nerve...
Hill's Swan Song?
The end of that debate where Hill addressed the final question was perhaps the most human we have ever seen her in public. Moreover, perhaps she sees the end of the line and going out gracefully...bravo to her if that's the case...bravo!
Again, Obama Looks Weak
The Big Hill just laid some bitch-slaps across Obama's face...and he stumbling to answer and really refute the charges. He's leaving the larger argument stay, while addressing in a very weak way the health care proposal Hill talked about being different between him and her.
As Maddow would say, "weak defense."
As Maddow would say, "weak defense."
The NY Times/McCain story
It's clear the Times is taking SERIOUS heat for this story as it looks like they (The Times people in power) ran the story before it may have been fully flushed out because The New Republic was prepared to run a story of their own about the turmoil inside the Times newsroom, where several people have recently quit in frustration at the Times' big-wigs chicken arms to let stories run that they felt should run. The New Republic story, as the Times people expected, ran today which gives color to the timing of the story being run.
If the Times wants to look good on this they better have more and they better dish it out fast, even if it has to be "leaked." I am of the view, the Times have more backing up their story than they originally reported. Whether it be more about the lobbyist problem or the possible sexual relationship McCain may have had with said lobbyist, they must have more. They must. And, McCain better watch himself if they do in fact have more. Taunting the NY Times by your trophy wife may not be the best way to go here...I'm just sayin'.
If the Times wants to look good on this they better have more and they better dish it out fast, even if it has to be "leaked." I am of the view, the Times have more backing up their story than they originally reported. Whether it be more about the lobbyist problem or the possible sexual relationship McCain may have had with said lobbyist, they must have more. They must. And, McCain better watch himself if they do in fact have more. Taunting the NY Times by your trophy wife may not be the best way to go here...I'm just sayin'.
It's just Manny bein' Manny
In New England, we love our man Manny Ramirez.
This is classic Manny, who RARELY speaks to the media, spoke today. While he was speaking he made the comment saying something close to the following in response to a question: I sometimes came in late (to camp), but I was always on time.
That's just Manny being Manny, yo.
Red Sox - looking like heavy favorites to repeat a deep playoff run, if not, World Series winners. However, every year recently, the teams that went to the World Series that year before, the next year their Starting Pitching took a dive. The White Seox had it happen, the Tigers had it happen. Those extra, tough innings you have to pitch through the playoff run kills your starters and doesn't allow them to rest more during the off season. It will be interesting to see how the starters hang in this year.
This is classic Manny, who RARELY speaks to the media, spoke today. While he was speaking he made the comment saying something close to the following in response to a question: I sometimes came in late (to camp), but I was always on time.
That's just Manny being Manny, yo.
Red Sox - looking like heavy favorites to repeat a deep playoff run, if not, World Series winners. However, every year recently, the teams that went to the World Series that year before, the next year their Starting Pitching took a dive. The White Seox had it happen, the Tigers had it happen. Those extra, tough innings you have to pitch through the playoff run kills your starters and doesn't allow them to rest more during the off season. It will be interesting to see how the starters hang in this year.
Rachel Maddow
I like Rachel Maddow. She's a woman who hosts a show Air America radio, and has become a frequent contributor to my delight on the MSNBC election/debate round table.
I listen to her show infrequently, because she's about 3rd on my list of priorities of show to listen to daily. But, today I listened to her show from last night and interestingly she noted how she was talking about how steep a hill the Big Hill is indeed going to have to climb in order to have a chance to win this Democratic nomination.
She also noted that she sees some weaknesses in Obama. In fact, she counted five specific legitimate issues Obama can be hit on, not counting those swift-boat-like traditional Lee Atwater "right-wing-scheme-machine" tactics. The same types of tactics that took down John Kerry, Max Cleland, and McCain in 2000.
One thing she specifically noted that I have been harping on about in this blog...Obama doesn't know how to really fight (in her words, "He doesn't play good defense.") I would argue I don't want my people to have good defense, so much that I want them to have a fantastic offense, and thus, the ability to turn-around a potential attack and make the attacker look like the moron.
However, Maddow also noted she doesn't like negative campaigning. I think we all agree with the sentiment, but the reality for Obama and for the party is that Hill go massively negative with everything she has tonight. Punch Obama with every dirty little thing you can. As Maddow said, he's never faced a real tough campaign the likes of the "right-wing-scheme-machine"...Hill's last duty to this party is to fire all bullets at Obama she's got.
If he stays upright, fine. But, I'd still rather know he's toasted now as opposed to later.
I listen to her show infrequently, because she's about 3rd on my list of priorities of show to listen to daily. But, today I listened to her show from last night and interestingly she noted how she was talking about how steep a hill the Big Hill is indeed going to have to climb in order to have a chance to win this Democratic nomination.
She also noted that she sees some weaknesses in Obama. In fact, she counted five specific legitimate issues Obama can be hit on, not counting those swift-boat-like traditional Lee Atwater "right-wing-scheme-machine" tactics. The same types of tactics that took down John Kerry, Max Cleland, and McCain in 2000.
One thing she specifically noted that I have been harping on about in this blog...Obama doesn't know how to really fight (in her words, "He doesn't play good defense.") I would argue I don't want my people to have good defense, so much that I want them to have a fantastic offense, and thus, the ability to turn-around a potential attack and make the attacker look like the moron.
However, Maddow also noted she doesn't like negative campaigning. I think we all agree with the sentiment, but the reality for Obama and for the party is that Hill go massively negative with everything she has tonight. Punch Obama with every dirty little thing you can. As Maddow said, he's never faced a real tough campaign the likes of the "right-wing-scheme-machine"...Hill's last duty to this party is to fire all bullets at Obama she's got.
If he stays upright, fine. But, I'd still rather know he's toasted now as opposed to later.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Hannity, the whore
Skimming by FoxSnooze on my way to watching an NBA game, I caught Hannity blowing his asshole about the McCain story and how the NY Times should be ashamed for putting out 20 year old charges.
More proof that FoxNews reports wrongly, and thus causes idiot white men in middle America to believe the stupid things that they do. This just in...they aren't 20 year old allegations, they're 8 years you fucking moron. Learn how to count you dumbfuck!!
For the record, I am thinking the NY Times has more to this story that they aren't willing to go into...oddly worded about what kind of "relationship" this chick and McCain had. Very dubious reporting, making me think the Times knows more than they are reporting...perhaps they're holding it back for a late hit if McCain starts to grow some momentum on Obama.
Oh wait, doubt that. The liberal Times doesn't do what FoxSnooze does and hold stories until it's a good time to dump them for maximum impact of retard-republicans. In fact, they wait until the story holds little to no impact. Everywhere I look, tv pundits are saying they heard whispers about this story the Times was holding as far back as Christmas.
So, the Times was holding the story until after McCain had all but shored-up the nomination. Real fucking helpful NY Times. Brilliant!
Edit: 11:55pm...all this bitching from the network that basically MADE itself from the Clinton-Lewinsky blow job scandal...go fuck yourselves...geez!!
More proof that FoxNews reports wrongly, and thus causes idiot white men in middle America to believe the stupid things that they do. This just in...they aren't 20 year old allegations, they're 8 years you fucking moron. Learn how to count you dumbfuck!!
For the record, I am thinking the NY Times has more to this story that they aren't willing to go into...oddly worded about what kind of "relationship" this chick and McCain had. Very dubious reporting, making me think the Times knows more than they are reporting...perhaps they're holding it back for a late hit if McCain starts to grow some momentum on Obama.
Oh wait, doubt that. The liberal Times doesn't do what FoxSnooze does and hold stories until it's a good time to dump them for maximum impact of retard-republicans. In fact, they wait until the story holds little to no impact. Everywhere I look, tv pundits are saying they heard whispers about this story the Times was holding as far back as Christmas.
So, the Times was holding the story until after McCain had all but shored-up the nomination. Real fucking helpful NY Times. Brilliant!
Edit: 11:55pm...all this bitching from the network that basically MADE itself from the Clinton-Lewinsky blow job scandal...go fuck yourselves...geez!!
McCain's ethics problem?
As far as I've read about McCain, heard about him in terms of his behavior and dealings with colleagues, I was aware that McCain had some issues in terms of his temper. He is *known* to have quite the temper behind the scenes, something referenced by this blogger in previous posts.
But, now, per a breaking news story from the NY Times, he also has perhaps a big ethics problem. They just broke a story 15 mins ago about a shady relationship with a female lobbyist (whom he apparently did a big favor for when she was in regulatory peril). Moreover, McCain privately noted to advisers back in his 2000 campaign when the story first started growing legs, that he had indeed acted improperly, but he would "stay away from her."
It appears this is now going to be a full story and fully investigated now despite his attempts in 2000 to quietly scuttle this story and he was effective in doing so. This will damage McCain and his squeaky-clean image as a campaign-finance and ethics candidate. How much so, it will remain to be seen. No official word yet from the McCain campaign.
But, now, per a breaking news story from the NY Times, he also has perhaps a big ethics problem. They just broke a story 15 mins ago about a shady relationship with a female lobbyist (whom he apparently did a big favor for when she was in regulatory peril). Moreover, McCain privately noted to advisers back in his 2000 campaign when the story first started growing legs, that he had indeed acted improperly, but he would "stay away from her."
It appears this is now going to be a full story and fully investigated now despite his attempts in 2000 to quietly scuttle this story and he was effective in doing so. This will damage McCain and his squeaky-clean image as a campaign-finance and ethics candidate. How much so, it will remain to be seen. No official word yet from the McCain campaign.
John Murtha needs to be delivered to a hopsital DOA
As a Democrat, I vote this asshole gets his fat, phoney, white, butt uncerimoniously kicked out of the Congress. Rep. Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif “Jack” Murtha (D-Pa.) has finished in first place in the pork-hole sweepstakes. The man looks like a pig, and apparent acts so borish it's like he's a wild boar, so the title is fitting.
"In fiscal year 2008, Murtha garnered (not that Jennifer Garner) 72 pork projects totaling over $149 million."
Moreover, "Murtha violated House ethics rules by both failing to submit his required earmark certification for the NDIC in a timely manner and threatening to block the earmarks of those who voted against his project. A privileged resolution seeking a formal reprimand of Murtha was killed on a 219-189 party line vote."
See the news release from the Citizens Against Gov't Waste.
I am a big fan of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) who has been a vocal critic of pork projects and earmarks. If I could vote for him, I would.
"In fiscal year 2008, Murtha garnered (not that Jennifer Garner) 72 pork projects totaling over $149 million."
Moreover, "Murtha violated House ethics rules by both failing to submit his required earmark certification for the NDIC in a timely manner and threatening to block the earmarks of those who voted against his project. A privileged resolution seeking a formal reprimand of Murtha was killed on a 219-189 party line vote."
See the news release from the Citizens Against Gov't Waste.
I am a big fan of Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) who has been a vocal critic of pork projects and earmarks. If I could vote for him, I would.
Michelle Obama's blunder
A few days ago Michelle Obama, Barack's wife, made a tiny blunder in my view. She made the comment that this was the first time in quite a while she'd been proud of the country.
Depending on her definition of a "quite a while," I find this to be an abominable line. Sure, under Dubya, the country has tanked...but to not be proud of this country for something in "quite a while" (or however the fuck she put it) is a farce.
Depending on her definition of a "quite a while," I find this to be an abominable line. Sure, under Dubya, the country has tanked...but to not be proud of this country for something in "quite a while" (or however the fuck she put it) is a farce.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Milano Redux
Yet another reason to LOVE Alyssa Milano, beyond her love of sports, her being insanely hot..she's got a fairly quaint little palace she inhabits.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Obama/Patrick & Plagiarism
Having paid some fair amount of attention to the newly-elected Governor Deval Patrick's campaign in 2006, and voting for him in November of 2006, I thought Obama's message had several familar tones. All were fine with me because I voted for Patrick because I loved his positive message campaign, and let the record show Deval has had mixed reviews since he got into office in early 2007.
I don't disagree with Obama's assertion that this plagiarism rap, where he's being accused of lifting Patrick's rhetoric (even with Patrick's approval) and not citing Patrick, is a bit of a phony-baloney charge...THIS is exactly the kind of bullshit crap that Obama will face come the general election campaign. The right-wing will hurl everything they have to see what can/will stick, and see if they can rattle Obama. Obama has been a very cool customer so far, and this has proven to be one of his strengths.
This is classic Clinton strategy, which I don't think will ultimately work, but I appreciate Clinton for continuing to dig up any possible piece of dirt they possibly can on this guy to fully test him.
I don't disagree with Obama's assertion that this plagiarism rap, where he's being accused of lifting Patrick's rhetoric (even with Patrick's approval) and not citing Patrick, is a bit of a phony-baloney charge...THIS is exactly the kind of bullshit crap that Obama will face come the general election campaign. The right-wing will hurl everything they have to see what can/will stick, and see if they can rattle Obama. Obama has been a very cool customer so far, and this has proven to be one of his strengths.
This is classic Clinton strategy, which I don't think will ultimately work, but I appreciate Clinton for continuing to dig up any possible piece of dirt they possibly can on this guy to fully test him.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Sony War Update
According to this story from Reuters, Toshiba (the company that produced and sold HD-DVD players) has officially given up. As noted in a post on Feb. 11th, this war, which had been on-going for a few years...has ended with Sony's Blu-Ray format coming in first. Congrats to Sony, who after the horrible launch of their over-priced PS3, and the Betamax loss to VHS, deserved this win.
Let's hope the players prove to be awesome and durable.
Let's hope the players prove to be awesome and durable.
Obama should fear JFK's ghost
Why should Obama fear a dead man? So many comparisons are made to JFK and Obama, which that in and of itself is preposterous, that we should remind ourselves of a bit of history.
JFK barely "won" the election in 1960 over Nixon, and I think most people aware of the history would argue he may in fact, NOT have won. A lot of shaking down courtesy of the Chicago mafia was taking place, thanks in large part to the connections of the morbidly corrupt Joseph Kennedy (the patriarch of the Kennedy legacy). I firmly believe the election was stolen in some regard.
Moreover, JFK barely won while having much more real politics experience and legislative experience in the Massachusetts House (6 years) and in the US Senate (7 years). He accrued a lot of legislative experience and know-how to get shit done while serving for 9 years combined I believe. Obama has held elected office for 7 years in the Illinois House, and only 3 years in the US Senate. Moreover, one could argue that in the 24-7 media cycle and needing to fundraise big wads of payola, Obama's been virtually absent from the Senate for a good year.
JFK had a total of 13 years experience, Obama has (taking off a year) 9. Not saying it is impossible...because McCain looks imminently beatable, but...
JFK barely "won" the election in 1960 over Nixon, and I think most people aware of the history would argue he may in fact, NOT have won. A lot of shaking down courtesy of the Chicago mafia was taking place, thanks in large part to the connections of the morbidly corrupt Joseph Kennedy (the patriarch of the Kennedy legacy). I firmly believe the election was stolen in some regard.
Moreover, JFK barely won while having much more real politics experience and legislative experience in the Massachusetts House (6 years) and in the US Senate (7 years). He accrued a lot of legislative experience and know-how to get shit done while serving for 9 years combined I believe. Obama has held elected office for 7 years in the Illinois House, and only 3 years in the US Senate. Moreover, one could argue that in the 24-7 media cycle and needing to fundraise big wads of payola, Obama's been virtually absent from the Senate for a good year.
JFK had a total of 13 years experience, Obama has (taking off a year) 9. Not saying it is impossible...because McCain looks imminently beatable, but...
If I were Marc Cuban or Bill Gates
Both of those men have Billions in disposable income. My first step would be to buyout some entity that gave me a routine profit to do what I wanted in my next step.
My second step would be to completely buyout the New York Times company in a completely hostile takeover if necessary. As much as I despise editors who get to chose what stories go where in the paper, I like them even less because they often write shitty mis-leading headlines about the content of the story. Newsflash to newbies: The writer of the story doesn't get to write their headline, editors write the headline.
Why would I buyout the New York Times? I would immediately re-hire the 100? people they recently dumped from their news department and I would re-open permanent bureaus overseas in key cities like: Moscow, Paris, London, Jerusalem, Beirut, Beijing, Tokyo, etc. I would re-hire great reporters who covered those areas back when real news organizations had such bureaus and I would also hire people to be trained under the experts I re-hire.
In short, I would STOP running the freakin news like a business and I would go DEEP into the red if necessary to do so. I would contract with NBC, ABC, or CBS (not Foxsnooze) to get coverage of good investigative peices on the air consistently.
As much as I despise and dislike Couric, her idea of the longer form nightly news is exactly what the country needs, but then we need to expand the nightly news to 45mins-1hour, or eliminate ALL ads from the nightly news so they get the full 30 mins instead of approx. 22mins. That's right folks: for every 30 mins of tv air time, there's a whopping 8 minutes of ads give or take.
I would mandate that we no longer cover stories relating to Hollywood star problems, unless it's a death or a trial of serious social significance. One could argue that the OJ trial, which ridiculous, was an important societal moment that needed to be covered seriously. But, clearly the way it was covered and the time devoted to it's coverage was appalling on SO many levels.
In recent years, all news organizations have been taken over by the stockholders of large companies, and they have proceeded to shit all over them. Taking away valuable, insightful news bureaus that only help broaden the horizons of a self-agrandizing nation, and a nation who is so narcissistic as to not give a whit about the genocide in Rwanda, Kosovo, Chechnya, the Congo, et al.
That is what I would do with $5-$10 billion.
My second step would be to completely buyout the New York Times company in a completely hostile takeover if necessary. As much as I despise editors who get to chose what stories go where in the paper, I like them even less because they often write shitty mis-leading headlines about the content of the story. Newsflash to newbies: The writer of the story doesn't get to write their headline, editors write the headline.
Why would I buyout the New York Times? I would immediately re-hire the 100? people they recently dumped from their news department and I would re-open permanent bureaus overseas in key cities like: Moscow, Paris, London, Jerusalem, Beirut, Beijing, Tokyo, etc. I would re-hire great reporters who covered those areas back when real news organizations had such bureaus and I would also hire people to be trained under the experts I re-hire.
In short, I would STOP running the freakin news like a business and I would go DEEP into the red if necessary to do so. I would contract with NBC, ABC, or CBS (not Foxsnooze) to get coverage of good investigative peices on the air consistently.
As much as I despise and dislike Couric, her idea of the longer form nightly news is exactly what the country needs, but then we need to expand the nightly news to 45mins-1hour, or eliminate ALL ads from the nightly news so they get the full 30 mins instead of approx. 22mins. That's right folks: for every 30 mins of tv air time, there's a whopping 8 minutes of ads give or take.
I would mandate that we no longer cover stories relating to Hollywood star problems, unless it's a death or a trial of serious social significance. One could argue that the OJ trial, which ridiculous, was an important societal moment that needed to be covered seriously. But, clearly the way it was covered and the time devoted to it's coverage was appalling on SO many levels.
In recent years, all news organizations have been taken over by the stockholders of large companies, and they have proceeded to shit all over them. Taking away valuable, insightful news bureaus that only help broaden the horizons of a self-agrandizing nation, and a nation who is so narcissistic as to not give a whit about the genocide in Rwanda, Kosovo, Chechnya, the Congo, et al.
That is what I would do with $5-$10 billion.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Term Limits
Along with only allowing publicly-financed campaigns to try to stamp out some lobbyists in DC, we should make term limits mandatory. Senators should be limited to two 6-year terms. Instead of 2 year terms for House members, I'd argue stretching that to 3 years per term and limiting them to a total of 3 terms.
Others have argued to make the President serve one term of six years instead of the current two terms of four. This I don't like because perhaps the biggest power a President has is the power of the bully pulpit, and the ability to force things to get shit done. I think by eliminating 2 years to the possible term, and cutting to only need to win (or in Dubya's case, steal) one election would sharply hurt a President's ability to effectively use his/her power. Currently, it's right around June of year 6 when the President becomes a lame duck and shortly thereafter, their ability to force people to get shit done precipitously goes down. I think a one term of 6 years would cause that ineffectiveness to be moved up by a good six months.
Moreover, if the changes recommended above were made, all the terms would end in multiples of 6 which would make the math virtually impossible to get it so the Congress members are running for re-election in the 5th year of a President's 6th year of that one term. Then the Congress would want to curry favour with the President and make him/her more powerful than a current President in his/her 7th year.
Others have argued to make the President serve one term of six years instead of the current two terms of four. This I don't like because perhaps the biggest power a President has is the power of the bully pulpit, and the ability to force things to get shit done. I think by eliminating 2 years to the possible term, and cutting to only need to win (or in Dubya's case, steal) one election would sharply hurt a President's ability to effectively use his/her power. Currently, it's right around June of year 6 when the President becomes a lame duck and shortly thereafter, their ability to force people to get shit done precipitously goes down. I think a one term of 6 years would cause that ineffectiveness to be moved up by a good six months.
Moreover, if the changes recommended above were made, all the terms would end in multiples of 6 which would make the math virtually impossible to get it so the Congress members are running for re-election in the 5th year of a President's 6th year of that one term. Then the Congress would want to curry favour with the President and make him/her more powerful than a current President in his/her 7th year.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Sad, Sad Irony
"A Green Bay-based Internet gun dealer who sold a weapon to the Virginia Tech shooter last year sold handgun accessories to the man who killed five people at Northern Illinois University on Thursday."
This gem of a story from the Green Bay Press-Gazette. Hope the dealer is enjoying his freaking profits.
Oklahoma-Sampson
It was heard by this driver on his commute home that there's a debate going on about what Indiana University (IU) should do with it's basketball coach. The basketball coach they hired, Kelvin Sampson, after not giving the man who replaced legendary coach Bobby Knight (Mike Davis) his due respect. So, Davis did what he should have done, and left, because they treated him like shit when he did good things with that team.
Sampson, who previously coached the Oklahoma University (OU) program, which had been an up and coming program until it was blasted with massive recruiting violations by the NCAA. Sampson and his assistant under his direction, while at OU, made massive amounts of calls to high school players to recruit them to the OU program. These calls were not only vastly over the limit of the number of calls he was allowed to make according to NCAA rules, but he also called players he wasn't even allowed to call by those very same rules. So, Sampson did what any smart college coach does when their program is bitch-slapped by the NCAA for recruiting violations, they skip town to a new college and start fresh. For some reason, the NCAA sanctions the schools by not allowing them to play in the post-season and by taking away valuable scholarships, but if the coach leaves the school...the coach gets off scott-free with the school holding the steaming bag of shit.
So, Sampson leaves OU to escape his own blatant recruiting violations and heads to IU. But, IU, being the responsible school that it is, takes on part of the sanctions imposed by the NCAA on OU, to smack Sampson on the hand a bit. Okay, fine.
Now, Sampson is at IU recruiting, when IU apparently catches wind that Sampson is again making calls that blatantly violate NCAA rules, and they question him about it. Sampson lies through his teeth to the universities investigators, and then to NCAA investigators (who have by now caught the same wind from their feelers that Sampson and his assistants are pulling the same shit).
All this comes to a head as someone breaks the story (more like someone at IU told the AP in a press release...again IU trying to be responsible here) that Sampson is formally being investigated and has lied to the investigators on both ends.
How, I ask you dear reader, is there any debate to be had???!!!!
This is, to paraphrase that nitwit George Tenet, "A Slam Dunk." This is as one of my favorite sports columnists, and currently Sunday Night Football commentators, says, "A gots to go situation!!!" (Kudos: Tony Kornheiser)
Sampson should be fired immediately and he should be excommunicated from coaching ANY collegiate program for a fucking decade. And as a fave comedian would say, "THAT'S THE END OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!!!" (Kudos: Lewis Black)
Sampson, who previously coached the Oklahoma University (OU) program, which had been an up and coming program until it was blasted with massive recruiting violations by the NCAA. Sampson and his assistant under his direction, while at OU, made massive amounts of calls to high school players to recruit them to the OU program. These calls were not only vastly over the limit of the number of calls he was allowed to make according to NCAA rules, but he also called players he wasn't even allowed to call by those very same rules. So, Sampson did what any smart college coach does when their program is bitch-slapped by the NCAA for recruiting violations, they skip town to a new college and start fresh. For some reason, the NCAA sanctions the schools by not allowing them to play in the post-season and by taking away valuable scholarships, but if the coach leaves the school...the coach gets off scott-free with the school holding the steaming bag of shit.
So, Sampson leaves OU to escape his own blatant recruiting violations and heads to IU. But, IU, being the responsible school that it is, takes on part of the sanctions imposed by the NCAA on OU, to smack Sampson on the hand a bit. Okay, fine.
Now, Sampson is at IU recruiting, when IU apparently catches wind that Sampson is again making calls that blatantly violate NCAA rules, and they question him about it. Sampson lies through his teeth to the universities investigators, and then to NCAA investigators (who have by now caught the same wind from their feelers that Sampson and his assistants are pulling the same shit).
All this comes to a head as someone breaks the story (more like someone at IU told the AP in a press release...again IU trying to be responsible here) that Sampson is formally being investigated and has lied to the investigators on both ends.
How, I ask you dear reader, is there any debate to be had???!!!!
This is, to paraphrase that nitwit George Tenet, "A Slam Dunk." This is as one of my favorite sports columnists, and currently Sunday Night Football commentators, says, "A gots to go situation!!!" (Kudos: Tony Kornheiser)
Sampson should be fired immediately and he should be excommunicated from coaching ANY collegiate program for a fucking decade. And as a fave comedian would say, "THAT'S THE END OF THE FUCKING ARGUMENT!!!" (Kudos: Lewis Black)
Blame MLB and the NFL
The people who run MLB and the NFL are at fault. Yes Congress looks incredibly foolish by even holding hearings on the state of sports when we have so many better, more serious, things to "investigate" or hold hearings on.
For example: FEMA has finally had to admit that the trailers brought down to the Gulf Region hit by Katrina are basically infected with a fucking plague are are toxic to live in. Shocker! This, is one of the problems that should have those hearings. Focus on the shit that has happened, is happening in these types of problems.
But, by MLB, and Bud "Dickwad" Selig (The Commissioner of Baseball) not having the balls to stand up to the Player's Association back when this steroid shit started, and then refusing to do anything when the problem became SO blatant, they were asking for Congress to stick their nose in the business of the MLB. It took a serious threat of Congressional action, and the action therein, to force these fuckers (MLB) to even attempt to clean the sport up. MLB more than asked for it, and they are getting it in the form of some of their biggest stars going down in flames.
Be warned, NFL. The NFL Commish, Goodell, is in serious danger of falling into the same trap with the spying on games. "Who cares if games are spied on? It's just a game!," you say??? Sure, that's true. But when you have gambling in Vegas on those games, there's a high potentiality for fraud and point shaving.
Speaking of point shaving, the Goodell can take a page from the David Stern (Commish of the NBA) PR-playbook. Eight months ago a scandal was a brewing where an NBA referee was busted in a point shaving scandal, and who admitted taking steps to throw a playoff series. After the ref was busted and "taken care of," the NBA quietly announced that MOST of their refs had been gambling legally. But, then...it was all silent. Not a word has been said since, and Congress never even flinched. Stern is a master PR man, and he has swindled the public on this one.
So, blame Congress for taking such things perhaps too seriously. But, more importantly, blame the "leadership" of MLB to let it get this far to begin with. As noted previously in this blog, Alan Specter is a colossal douchebag. But, blame MLB and the NFL for giving that grand-standing jackass the opportunity to play his little game.
For example: FEMA has finally had to admit that the trailers brought down to the Gulf Region hit by Katrina are basically infected with a fucking plague are are toxic to live in. Shocker! This, is one of the problems that should have those hearings. Focus on the shit that has happened, is happening in these types of problems.
But, by MLB, and Bud "Dickwad" Selig (The Commissioner of Baseball) not having the balls to stand up to the Player's Association back when this steroid shit started, and then refusing to do anything when the problem became SO blatant, they were asking for Congress to stick their nose in the business of the MLB. It took a serious threat of Congressional action, and the action therein, to force these fuckers (MLB) to even attempt to clean the sport up. MLB more than asked for it, and they are getting it in the form of some of their biggest stars going down in flames.
Be warned, NFL. The NFL Commish, Goodell, is in serious danger of falling into the same trap with the spying on games. "Who cares if games are spied on? It's just a game!," you say??? Sure, that's true. But when you have gambling in Vegas on those games, there's a high potentiality for fraud and point shaving.
Speaking of point shaving, the Goodell can take a page from the David Stern (Commish of the NBA) PR-playbook. Eight months ago a scandal was a brewing where an NBA referee was busted in a point shaving scandal, and who admitted taking steps to throw a playoff series. After the ref was busted and "taken care of," the NBA quietly announced that MOST of their refs had been gambling legally. But, then...it was all silent. Not a word has been said since, and Congress never even flinched. Stern is a master PR man, and he has swindled the public on this one.
So, blame Congress for taking such things perhaps too seriously. But, more importantly, blame the "leadership" of MLB to let it get this far to begin with. As noted previously in this blog, Alan Specter is a colossal douchebag. But, blame MLB and the NFL for giving that grand-standing jackass the opportunity to play his little game.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Bonds the Bitch
Just weeks after breaking the single-season home run record at 73 during the 2001 season, Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids. YET, this record is still considered legit. This is a joke and baseball, for this and many other things, should be so beyond ASHAMED of this crap.
Bonds is not just a colossal dickhead, who has treated virtually every person in his life like shit, but he's a fraud and a clear steroid abuser.
Bonds is not just a colossal dickhead, who has treated virtually every person in his life like shit, but he's a fraud and a clear steroid abuser.
Olbermann
I heart when Keith does his Special Commentary, it's some of the most sanctimonious pile of words on television, but it's often terrific, spot-on analysis.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
SOLD!
I'm sold on the Obama juice. However, with him facing McCain, look for Dubya to do McCain some favors by playing with the terror alerts in the fall. Look for a tightening security, random base-less threats to America, talk of thwarted plots against America. This happened in the fall of 2004, and after he won re-selection, we never heard a peep about the terror threat level.
This is what could make McCain stronger THEN than he appears to be now.
This is what could make McCain stronger THEN than he appears to be now.
Looking doomed for the Big Hill
Hmmm...more easy, substantial wins for Obama. And he will likely do the same this coming Tuesday. Hill has to be seriously concerned, she may be toasted.
Monday, February 11, 2008
My 101st post
Here I did it. I ran over my 100th post like a mack truck racing a hooker with vials of crack. Well, then...this marks my 101st post of this blog...yee haw! And still only 1 reader, that I know of. But, I don't do this for the glamour...
Quick off topic note: Amy Winehouse is fucked up, but damn her music is groovy, baby.
Quick off topic note: Amy Winehouse is fucked up, but damn her music is groovy, baby.
Sony may have finally won
Back, back, back, back, when I was probably 5 years old, there was a war between Sony's Betacam tape and the VHS tape to play movies on. Despite the better quality, and despite being chosen by media companies for it's superior quality, Sony and their Betacam lost that war.
Since then Sony has been ruing the day that happened and they've plotted their revenge. For a few year there's been a battle between new dvd's; HD-DVD or Sony's Blu-Ray DVD. It appears that after Netflix announced today that they are stopping their HD-DVD service and moving onto the Blu-Ray discs, that Sony may finally have tipped the balance and will win this war.
It's not looking good for HD-DVD's. It appears that Sony's Blu-Ray format will hold out to be the winner this time. Which makes sense, because from what I remember the Blu-Rays were slightly better.
I've held out buying a player or any dvd's of this higher quality for this reason, the war has been a waging. It will probably be a few years before the prices come down though for me to buy. $30 for a dvd?...I think not. I won't even spend $15 anymore.
Since then Sony has been ruing the day that happened and they've plotted their revenge. For a few year there's been a battle between new dvd's; HD-DVD or Sony's Blu-Ray DVD. It appears that after Netflix announced today that they are stopping their HD-DVD service and moving onto the Blu-Ray discs, that Sony may finally have tipped the balance and will win this war.
It's not looking good for HD-DVD's. It appears that Sony's Blu-Ray format will hold out to be the winner this time. Which makes sense, because from what I remember the Blu-Rays were slightly better.
I've held out buying a player or any dvd's of this higher quality for this reason, the war has been a waging. It will probably be a few years before the prices come down though for me to buy. $30 for a dvd?...I think not. I won't even spend $15 anymore.
The nation's best paper, but...
As I've often noted here and as I say frequently in real life, the New York Times IS the nation's best newspaper. However, there's one consistent problem I've had with them within the past decade: An unfair slant of liberal writers who continue to unfairly attack liberals, while letting the real bullshit of the right-wing (see the lack of honest reporting to the run-up to the Iraq war festival) slide by unspoken and hardly covered because their editors' tiny penises are scared by the right-wing scheme machine.
The Times and other mainstream media organizations (eg: NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC) have been brown-beaten to hell by the right-wing constantly harping on them that they only favor liberal causes. It's one of the effective examples of what's happened in covering the Dubya Dumbass Administration; if the admin. reapeats a blatant falsehood enough times, it eventually will be believed and reported as a fact when it really isn't a fact (and it's likely to be far from factual). Again, ask Cleland about swift-boating.
Thus, these organizations have been more and more infiltrated by right-wing zealots (see CNN and their employment of Glenn-Fuck-Beck), and there has been a chilling effect on their ability to effectively report the bullshit that goes on in the right-wing.
All this while hyper-criticizing Democrats and their ilk, in an effort to appear more neutral when in fact they become less neutral.
See the current front page of tomorrow's NY Times. They are apparently planning a front page story tomorrow where they go after Obama's book and they are saying they cannot verify that Obama actually used marijuana, blow, and all the other drugs he claims to have tried using way back when he was a 20-something.
OF ALL THE THINGS TO BE INVESTIGATIVELY REPORTING????!!!!! ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME???!!!
NY Times, again you disappoint me here. And I'm a Hillary supporter! GET A CLUE!
The Times and other mainstream media organizations (eg: NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC) have been brown-beaten to hell by the right-wing constantly harping on them that they only favor liberal causes. It's one of the effective examples of what's happened in covering the Dubya Dumbass Administration; if the admin. reapeats a blatant falsehood enough times, it eventually will be believed and reported as a fact when it really isn't a fact (and it's likely to be far from factual). Again, ask Cleland about swift-boating.
Thus, these organizations have been more and more infiltrated by right-wing zealots (see CNN and their employment of Glenn-Fuck-Beck), and there has been a chilling effect on their ability to effectively report the bullshit that goes on in the right-wing.
All this while hyper-criticizing Democrats and their ilk, in an effort to appear more neutral when in fact they become less neutral.
See the current front page of tomorrow's NY Times. They are apparently planning a front page story tomorrow where they go after Obama's book and they are saying they cannot verify that Obama actually used marijuana, blow, and all the other drugs he claims to have tried using way back when he was a 20-something.
OF ALL THE THINGS TO BE INVESTIGATIVELY REPORTING????!!!!! ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME???!!!
NY Times, again you disappoint me here. And I'm a Hillary supporter! GET A CLUE!
Seen while driving to work...
I drove briefly behind an Ford F-150 with a bumper sticker saying: "I (HEART symbol) HEAD"
I took note, and no, Larry Craig was nowhere to be seen in the cab, tho there were two men in the cab...hmmmm
I took note, and no, Larry Craig was nowhere to be seen in the cab, tho there were two men in the cab...hmmmm
Edwards' Choice?
Late news tonight that John Edwards, my initial choice in 2004 and in 2008, is "agonizing" over who to endorse for the Dem nomination.
Color me shocked. I was shocked when he didn't come out for Obama in the first week he dropped out. Wonder if Obama not giving him the Attorney General spot is what this is about. But, if he's looking to be a VP candidate again, he'd have a much better chance with Obama than will Hill. I still don't seeing him getting either to pick him as the Veep, but Obama is likely to have more options than Hill because I do believe with the strength Obama has shown, she would have to pick Obama.
Color me shocked. I was shocked when he didn't come out for Obama in the first week he dropped out. Wonder if Obama not giving him the Attorney General spot is what this is about. But, if he's looking to be a VP candidate again, he'd have a much better chance with Obama than will Hill. I still don't seeing him getting either to pick him as the Veep, but Obama is likely to have more options than Hill because I do believe with the strength Obama has shown, she would have to pick Obama.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Hill's white man problem
Hill has been losing votes from white men to Obama...I believe this is because of the crying fits she's had recently. I don't believe they've been staged to help her with the women vote, but no matter what...she needs to stop tearing up NOW. American men, generally speaking, aren't comfy with voting for a woman to head anything, muchless their country for all the psychologically-related reasons related to patriarchy. When the woman cries for any reason, that makes most men uneasy and they will abandon the cause.
Note: It's now 7:17pm EST, Obama just finished his interview with Steve Croft on 60 Minutes. And Croft just said Couric was coming up with the interview with Hillary. Yet another strategic mistake from the Hillary camp. Couric's negatives are through the roof, wose than Hillary's (fuck, I'd hit Couric with a mack truck if I could get off the tv)...Hill should have demanded an interview with Scott Pelley or Bob Simon. Only positive that I can see with going with Couric, is to make Hill look great in comparison to Katie the numbskull. Here comes Katie, damn she's such a fucking tool.
30 seconds in...Couric already whining and sounding defeatest...JUST what the fucking campaign needs Hillary. STOP WHINING COURIC YOU DIPSHIT! GOOD GRIEF!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT HILLARY DRINKS??????????????????????????????
Note: It's now 7:17pm EST, Obama just finished his interview with Steve Croft on 60 Minutes. And Croft just said Couric was coming up with the interview with Hillary. Yet another strategic mistake from the Hillary camp. Couric's negatives are through the roof, wose than Hillary's (fuck, I'd hit Couric with a mack truck if I could get off the tv)...Hill should have demanded an interview with Scott Pelley or Bob Simon. Only positive that I can see with going with Couric, is to make Hill look great in comparison to Katie the numbskull. Here comes Katie, damn she's such a fucking tool.
30 seconds in...Couric already whining and sounding defeatest...JUST what the fucking campaign needs Hillary. STOP WHINING COURIC YOU DIPSHIT! GOOD GRIEF!!!! WHO GIVES A FUCK WHAT HILLARY DRINKS??????????????????????????????
Today's Frank
Per Frank Rich of the NYT (a couple grafts):
On how the Hill campaign has sort of abandoned black voters thinking that when she sews up the nomination she will get them back: "In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself)." Recently, Obama has been winning the black voters basically 80-20%.
On how the Clinton's may be using the race card to pit Latino's against blacks: "Mrs. Clinton did pile up her expected large margin among Latino voters in California. But her tight grip on that electorate is loosening. Mr. Obama, who captured only 26 percent of Hispanic voters in Nevada last month, did better than that in every state on Tuesday, reaching 41 percent in Arizona and 53 percent in Connecticut." I would say that if this trend continues...it could mean the end of the Hill campaign. However, while I like the stats, I'd be interested to see the age breakdown of those. Perhaps more younger Hispanics voted in the Arizona and Connecticut races, thus with Obama getting the younger vote, this may be expected.
I don't doubt Frank's assertions here and his op-ed today refers to the cut-throatedness of Hill's campaign, a willingness to do anything to win. As a Dem, this is what I want. I want someone to fight dirty because we already know the right will. And while the old adage "the truth will set you free," it may do that...but, it won't be as sexy or fun for the media to cover and thus it would be drowned out by the nasty innuendos. Ask John Kerry...fuck...ask Max Cleland about being Swift Boated. Those accusations against Cleland were so preposterous, so false, but the electorate never heard it because that wasn't fun or sexy for the media to cover. Until the media cleans up their act, you have to fight like a dirty dog.
Finally, I think while slightly shady for Bill to do so, he was making a factually accurate point when referencing Jackson. Also, I think it was prudent for Clinton to begin to pseudo-ignore black America voters when Obama got going. People tend to vote for people like them, and they tend to live where people have the same views as them...familiarity is comforting. That's why I moved from a red state where I grew up to a blue, liberal New England state. There's virtually NO argument Hill could make to stop black America for voting for Obama. He's most like them in the most instinctive way...color. Thus, she had to court the vote of another group to offset the large percentage of voters Obama was sure to get.
As for the Hallmark channel thing, a colossal waste of money, which causes me to judge Hill's thinking of spending such money on that kind of gambit. I doubt anyone with a brain watched that beyond those who HAD to for their job.
On how the Hill campaign has sort of abandoned black voters thinking that when she sews up the nomination she will get them back: "In October, seven months after the two candidates’ dueling church perorations in Selma, USA Today found Hillary Clinton leading Mr. Obama among African-American Democrats by a margin of 62 percent to 34 percent. But once black voters met Mr. Obama and started to gravitate toward him, Bill Clinton and the campaign’s other surrogates stopped caring about what African-Americans thought. In an effort to scare off white voters, Mr. Obama was ghettoized as a cocaine user (by the chief Clinton strategist, Mark Penn, among others), “the black candidate” (as Clinton strategists told the Associated Press) and Jesse Jackson redux (by Mr. Clinton himself)." Recently, Obama has been winning the black voters basically 80-20%.
On how the Clinton's may be using the race card to pit Latino's against blacks: "Mrs. Clinton did pile up her expected large margin among Latino voters in California. But her tight grip on that electorate is loosening. Mr. Obama, who captured only 26 percent of Hispanic voters in Nevada last month, did better than that in every state on Tuesday, reaching 41 percent in Arizona and 53 percent in Connecticut." I would say that if this trend continues...it could mean the end of the Hill campaign. However, while I like the stats, I'd be interested to see the age breakdown of those. Perhaps more younger Hispanics voted in the Arizona and Connecticut races, thus with Obama getting the younger vote, this may be expected.
I don't doubt Frank's assertions here and his op-ed today refers to the cut-throatedness of Hill's campaign, a willingness to do anything to win. As a Dem, this is what I want. I want someone to fight dirty because we already know the right will. And while the old adage "the truth will set you free," it may do that...but, it won't be as sexy or fun for the media to cover and thus it would be drowned out by the nasty innuendos. Ask John Kerry...fuck...ask Max Cleland about being Swift Boated. Those accusations against Cleland were so preposterous, so false, but the electorate never heard it because that wasn't fun or sexy for the media to cover. Until the media cleans up their act, you have to fight like a dirty dog.
Finally, I think while slightly shady for Bill to do so, he was making a factually accurate point when referencing Jackson. Also, I think it was prudent for Clinton to begin to pseudo-ignore black America voters when Obama got going. People tend to vote for people like them, and they tend to live where people have the same views as them...familiarity is comforting. That's why I moved from a red state where I grew up to a blue, liberal New England state. There's virtually NO argument Hill could make to stop black America for voting for Obama. He's most like them in the most instinctive way...color. Thus, she had to court the vote of another group to offset the large percentage of voters Obama was sure to get.
As for the Hallmark channel thing, a colossal waste of money, which causes me to judge Hill's thinking of spending such money on that kind of gambit. I doubt anyone with a brain watched that beyond those who HAD to for their job.
Just another theory
Another theory as to why/how Obama is doing so well in states that the Dems will NOT win in the fall. Since McCain, at least by the time yesterday's vote came around, has been the foregone conclusion as the nominee for a while, who is to say that Obama isn't seen by voters on the right as easier to beat than the Big Hill?
I know the insiders on the right seemingly are more afraid than the unknown Obama, but what the insiders know/think often doesn't jive with what your average voter would think of either side of the aisle. So, maybe part of Obama's support in those states comes from people who are hoping he's the Dems nominee and see him as easier to defeat.
I know the insiders on the right seemingly are more afraid than the unknown Obama, but what the insiders know/think often doesn't jive with what your average voter would think of either side of the aisle. So, maybe part of Obama's support in those states comes from people who are hoping he's the Dems nominee and see him as easier to defeat.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
An argument for Obama's west victories being meaningless
I freely admit, I have no facts to back up this opinion/view, however I believe my thinking to be solid and reasoned.
1. Despite the cute victories, neither Obama or Hill will win Nebraska, Kansas, or whatever western states he may have won.
2. The caucuses/primaries whether open or closed to independents in those states that Obama won, I'd venture that if you looked at the map of how counties voted, you'd see that most of the votes came from college towns. These are towns where one would think you'd have smarter, more educated people, which has been one of the bases of his support. Moreover, Obama's winning the younger 18-29 year old voters by a large margin, and that's who is voting in those contests.
As far as the southern states, yes, Obama would be competitive in those states. But, looking at the arguments I make for a favorable Hill-McCain match-up, we could still make the southern states interesting by putting Obama on the ticket.
Finally, one more note not necessarily related: McCain once he gets his nomination sewn up he's likely to sound more moderate, go back to his old 2000 version when some Democrats were wondering if we were going to have to make a tough call between voting for him or Gore in the general. That would allow McCain (and right-wing surrogates) to attack Obama as a left-wing nut-job, who currently has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.
1. Despite the cute victories, neither Obama or Hill will win Nebraska, Kansas, or whatever western states he may have won.
2. The caucuses/primaries whether open or closed to independents in those states that Obama won, I'd venture that if you looked at the map of how counties voted, you'd see that most of the votes came from college towns. These are towns where one would think you'd have smarter, more educated people, which has been one of the bases of his support. Moreover, Obama's winning the younger 18-29 year old voters by a large margin, and that's who is voting in those contests.
As far as the southern states, yes, Obama would be competitive in those states. But, looking at the arguments I make for a favorable Hill-McCain match-up, we could still make the southern states interesting by putting Obama on the ticket.
Finally, one more note not necessarily related: McCain once he gets his nomination sewn up he's likely to sound more moderate, go back to his old 2000 version when some Democrats were wondering if we were going to have to make a tough call between voting for him or Gore in the general. That would allow McCain (and right-wing surrogates) to attack Obama as a left-wing nut-job, who currently has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate.
Who brought the brooms out??
Well, on this Saturday night, it's looking like a sweep for Obama in all three caucuses up for grabs in today's primary. I personally dislike caucuses, but I'm willing to tolerate them more-so on a weekend. However, I don't like the format.
I still think Hill should be the nominee.
McCain is in, and his strongest issue is clearly National Security. His other issue is illegal immigration, but I HIGHLY doubt this general election in November will be decided by such a paltry issue. McCain is weak on the economy.
And the economy is beginning to be more and more of an issue. He's even admitted as such in public and on tape. He's said to be reading former-Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan's, book. The Clinton years offer a great backdrop that makes McCain look like a fool. Moreover, Clinton is so wonkish that she can do headstands on McCain's bald head with economic numbers. I'm sure a good adviser can do much the same for Obama, but Hill's year of experience offer more proof and thus, gravitas to that side of the table.
I think Hill is better suited to take on McCain in the national security realm. I can see a debate moment much like the Dubya moment, where Obama's asked who the leader of useless country X is, and he will have no clue. While I think it'd be a bullshit question, much like the Dubya one, it will look bad in a time of war. McCain will be able to HAMMER Obama on his lack of National Security experience. Granted, I think that is not a pre-req for being a President, that's why there's a fucking Cabinet and a National Security Advisor, but the issue will be available for McCain to hit and make Obama seem weak.
I still think Hill should be the nominee.
McCain is in, and his strongest issue is clearly National Security. His other issue is illegal immigration, but I HIGHLY doubt this general election in November will be decided by such a paltry issue. McCain is weak on the economy.
And the economy is beginning to be more and more of an issue. He's even admitted as such in public and on tape. He's said to be reading former-Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan's, book. The Clinton years offer a great backdrop that makes McCain look like a fool. Moreover, Clinton is so wonkish that she can do headstands on McCain's bald head with economic numbers. I'm sure a good adviser can do much the same for Obama, but Hill's year of experience offer more proof and thus, gravitas to that side of the table.
I think Hill is better suited to take on McCain in the national security realm. I can see a debate moment much like the Dubya moment, where Obama's asked who the leader of useless country X is, and he will have no clue. While I think it'd be a bullshit question, much like the Dubya one, it will look bad in a time of war. McCain will be able to HAMMER Obama on his lack of National Security experience. Granted, I think that is not a pre-req for being a President, that's why there's a fucking Cabinet and a National Security Advisor, but the issue will be available for McCain to hit and make Obama seem weak.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
'Roids and The Rocket
New information/material by Roger Clemens' former trainer, Brian McNamee, has been handed over to the feds. This after all the shit that has happened, he's been withholding this evidence? Seems a bit fishy to me.
I don't doubt the needles/syringes will show traces of Roger's blood on them, HOWEVER, if there is proof of steroids in the needle/syringe it doesn't mean that the steroids went in Roger. These syringes were reportedly from the 2001 season. Why did McNamee keep these syringes for this long, and what's to say that if there is residue of steroids found on them, it wasn't planted there post-insertion into Clemens' backside?
Many said Clemens was a slime ball for airing the audiotape of the call he had with McNamee, where McNamee supposedly didn't know he was being taped. However, by keeping these syringes for 6-7 years, McNamee himself now looks like a slime ball. McNamee was caught way back when with a woman who had apparently been given the date rape drug, so he's possibly a rapist.
I'm not saying Clemens is innocent (in fact, I tend to believe he did do some steroids), but McNamee's motives and truthfulness are still somewhat in question.
I don't doubt the needles/syringes will show traces of Roger's blood on them, HOWEVER, if there is proof of steroids in the needle/syringe it doesn't mean that the steroids went in Roger. These syringes were reportedly from the 2001 season. Why did McNamee keep these syringes for this long, and what's to say that if there is residue of steroids found on them, it wasn't planted there post-insertion into Clemens' backside?
Many said Clemens was a slime ball for airing the audiotape of the call he had with McNamee, where McNamee supposedly didn't know he was being taped. However, by keeping these syringes for 6-7 years, McNamee himself now looks like a slime ball. McNamee was caught way back when with a woman who had apparently been given the date rape drug, so he's possibly a rapist.
I'm not saying Clemens is innocent (in fact, I tend to believe he did do some steroids), but McNamee's motives and truthfulness are still somewhat in question.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
McCain has it sewn
Looks like a mortal lock for the Republican nomination for President. Starting to hear the chattering-class and pundit-class rumors about who may be a VP nominee choice. Among the MOST hilarious options I've heard...Condi Rice.
The thought of Condi being the VP nominee makes me lick my chops. She's a peice of cake to beat the ever loving shit out of because while she is, by all accounts, a smart woman...she's clearly a colossal moron. She has fucked up so bad in every possible post she's had in the Dubya Dungeon Clan. However, this will never happen because putting her name on the ticket would make the case for the Democrats a slam-dunk. It'd be an easy vote against the Dubya Dungeon Clan, and any nose-picking Dem would handily win.
The thought of Condi being the VP nominee makes me lick my chops. She's a peice of cake to beat the ever loving shit out of because while she is, by all accounts, a smart woman...she's clearly a colossal moron. She has fucked up so bad in every possible post she's had in the Dubya Dungeon Clan. However, this will never happen because putting her name on the ticket would make the case for the Democrats a slam-dunk. It'd be an easy vote against the Dubya Dungeon Clan, and any nose-picking Dem would handily win.
If I were playing poker...
...Obama has convinced me to go ALL IN. I will take a day to reflect, but in his speech to the supporters last night, his oratory spoke to me.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Another late update from the MSNBC machine
Chuck Todd via MSNBC on the projected delegate vote count they see at the end of the night even though votes have closed in Cali-forn-i-a and NBC has yet to call it: Obama's 594 to Clinton's 546.
She still hasn't fucking fixed it
The Big Hill needs to watch tape of herself giving a couple speeches. I'm sure the campaign has talked to her about her speaking, as has Bill, but I'm not sure if she's watched herself giving a speech in front of a crowd. It's a skill that is largely innate, which she sucks at, but it can be taught to the extent that you are good enough to be an effective public speaker.
From the moment her candidacy for President was announced, she has struggled in front of a crowd. She is terrible at modulating her voice and not sound so damn shrill. Watching her speak as I type this, she's STILL doing it. She's still trying to speak over the crowd, which causes her voice to go shrill and loud. Makes her sound like a scolding old mother, not a caring, warm, Democrat.
She needs further coaching on how to hit her applause lines correctly, ramping up her sentences correctly to get the maximum impact on the big lines. This helps keep Obama, with his brilliant oratory in the race, simply because he sounds better. And as we saw in 2000, Dubya got the votes he got partly because he "seemed" more likeable than Al Gore. The Big Hill suffers from what Al Gore did, but with the shrillness, it's even worse.
Watching on MSNBC, and the shitty microphone doesn't help. It was pumping out some feedback. Bad job by her advance team or by MSNBC and their people behind the scenes watching the audio.
Late update: According to politico.com...606-534 is the current delegate count as of 11:03pm EST in favor of Obama. So, he's holding his own. Cali-forn-i-a will most def be huge.
From the moment her candidacy for President was announced, she has struggled in front of a crowd. She is terrible at modulating her voice and not sound so damn shrill. Watching her speak as I type this, she's STILL doing it. She's still trying to speak over the crowd, which causes her voice to go shrill and loud. Makes her sound like a scolding old mother, not a caring, warm, Democrat.
She needs further coaching on how to hit her applause lines correctly, ramping up her sentences correctly to get the maximum impact on the big lines. This helps keep Obama, with his brilliant oratory in the race, simply because he sounds better. And as we saw in 2000, Dubya got the votes he got partly because he "seemed" more likeable than Al Gore. The Big Hill suffers from what Al Gore did, but with the shrillness, it's even worse.
Watching on MSNBC, and the shitty microphone doesn't help. It was pumping out some feedback. Bad job by her advance team or by MSNBC and their people behind the scenes watching the audio.
Late update: According to politico.com...606-534 is the current delegate count as of 11:03pm EST in favor of Obama. So, he's holding his own. Cali-forn-i-a will most def be huge.
It's Super Tuesday Time
It's just after 10:30pm eastern, and the Big Hill has taken a good chunk of states, and so has Obama. In what I consider to be a surprise, Huckleberry won like 4 states tonight, perhaps making the Republican race more interesting.
All the punditry are talking like Cali-forn-i-a is going to be the big question mark of the night, when I thought I'd heard somewhere that Obama had squeezed past the Big Hill in the polls. I was assuming Cali-forn-i-a would go for Obama, but the delegate count is highly important.
Clearly the delegate count is important, but while the pundit class may say the overall performance shows the momentum going Obama's way, I'd still disagree with that a bit. Obama had some massively good press the past week plus, between all his endorsements and big win in S. Carolina. For him to get all that press and still come up short on the Clinton lead, to me speaks a bit as to the limits of his appeal.
Finally, it's clear with the Huckleberry move, McCain hasn't sealed the deal. While I hate, despise, and would gladly drop a bomb on the right-wing media outlets (eg: Limburger-the Oxycontin Orifice, the stunningly hot, but mis-guided Laura Ingraham, and the Brainless-Twit-Colter), the blow-back that is coming at McCain shows the power they can wield. Dangerous mo-fo's.
All the punditry are talking like Cali-forn-i-a is going to be the big question mark of the night, when I thought I'd heard somewhere that Obama had squeezed past the Big Hill in the polls. I was assuming Cali-forn-i-a would go for Obama, but the delegate count is highly important.
Clearly the delegate count is important, but while the pundit class may say the overall performance shows the momentum going Obama's way, I'd still disagree with that a bit. Obama had some massively good press the past week plus, between all his endorsements and big win in S. Carolina. For him to get all that press and still come up short on the Clinton lead, to me speaks a bit as to the limits of his appeal.
Finally, it's clear with the Huckleberry move, McCain hasn't sealed the deal. While I hate, despise, and would gladly drop a bomb on the right-wing media outlets (eg: Limburger-the Oxycontin Orifice, the stunningly hot, but mis-guided Laura Ingraham, and the Brainless-Twit-Colter), the blow-back that is coming at McCain shows the power they can wield. Dangerous mo-fo's.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Vick and his money
Michael Vick - the dog killer - appropriately won a trial case today against the team that formerly/currently employs/ed him. The Atlanta Falcons were seeing to get Vick's signing bonus back from his most recent contract extension he signed, which was over $20 million.
Frankly, I deplore what Vick did, and he's always been an overrated player in the NFL, but when you sign a contract with a player, you are doomed to that contract and that's the way it should be. If teams can give signing bonuses and then get the money back when a player goes ape-shit, where's the accountability for their bad judgment?
Vick signed that deal in good faith. The Falcons signed that deal in good faith. The Falcons clearly didn't know Vick was killing dogs, but they still don't deserve to get that money back. You made a dumb fuck decision, you pay the price.
Frankly, I deplore what Vick did, and he's always been an overrated player in the NFL, but when you sign a contract with a player, you are doomed to that contract and that's the way it should be. If teams can give signing bonuses and then get the money back when a player goes ape-shit, where's the accountability for their bad judgment?
Vick signed that deal in good faith. The Falcons signed that deal in good faith. The Falcons clearly didn't know Vick was killing dogs, but they still don't deserve to get that money back. You made a dumb fuck decision, you pay the price.
Faux Feud
In one of the best faux feuds of all time: the Jimmy Kimmel - Matt Damon faux feud has hit a new hilarious high.
Now, the fantastic stand-up comedian (though, I must admit her show blows) Sarah Silverman and Kimmel girlfriend has gotten in on the act suggesting she's been fucking Matt Damon behind Kimmel's back. And if you know that when I say "suggesting" she's flat out says it, she's been fucking Damon. I love this shit...great stuff.
Here's the funny video, yo:
http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/2008/02/02/sarah-silverman-im-fucking-matt-damon/
Oh yeah, great choke job there Patriots.
Now, the fantastic stand-up comedian (though, I must admit her show blows) Sarah Silverman and Kimmel girlfriend has gotten in on the act suggesting she's been fucking Matt Damon behind Kimmel's back. And if you know that when I say "suggesting" she's flat out says it, she's been fucking Damon. I love this shit...great stuff.
Here's the funny video, yo:
http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/2008/02/02/sarah-silverman-im-fucking-matt-damon/
Oh yeah, great choke job there Patriots.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
SUCK IT PATS!!!
Fuck the Pats....and fuck you Belichick! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Edit: 10:05pm EST: And AGAIN, Bill Belichick is a SORE loser. What an asshat! I respect Brady, but that's why I cannot stand this team AT ALL. Belichick's a lil' bitch.
Edit: 10:05pm EST: And AGAIN, Bill Belichick is a SORE loser. What an asshat! I respect Brady, but that's why I cannot stand this team AT ALL. Belichick's a lil' bitch.
Frank Rich's Op-Ed
This graft at the end of Frank's Op-Ed today in the NYT is telling: "Richard Goodwin knew in 1960 that all it took was “a single significant failure” by Kennedy or “an act of political daring” by his opponents for his man to lose..."
Frank makes a good argument for trusting in the Obama movement. Goodwin was one of JFK's speechwriters, and for all the good points Frank makes, this is where my support of Hillary is founded.
Obama is inexperienced and not a particularly good debater, at least he hasn't shown it yet. Perhaps he will do better against an opponent is more unlike him, the closeness of his and Big Hill's positions are too close for his comfort. Obama directly attacked McCain, as noted by Frank, and he did hit well in that aspect. But, will Obama be able to take that to McCain when he debates him face-to-face?
We as a party, as a nation more-so, cannot afford to lose this fight, this election. My goodness if the Dems don't win here, when could the Dems win? But, didn't we say that in '04? Obama being so inexperienced could make a fatal error that costs the Dems a darn-near sure-fire win. Not that the Big Hill couldn't fuck up, but, she's less likely to do so in my view.
Tough call.
Frank makes a good argument for trusting in the Obama movement. Goodwin was one of JFK's speechwriters, and for all the good points Frank makes, this is where my support of Hillary is founded.
Obama is inexperienced and not a particularly good debater, at least he hasn't shown it yet. Perhaps he will do better against an opponent is more unlike him, the closeness of his and Big Hill's positions are too close for his comfort. Obama directly attacked McCain, as noted by Frank, and he did hit well in that aspect. But, will Obama be able to take that to McCain when he debates him face-to-face?
We as a party, as a nation more-so, cannot afford to lose this fight, this election. My goodness if the Dems don't win here, when could the Dems win? But, didn't we say that in '04? Obama being so inexperienced could make a fatal error that costs the Dems a darn-near sure-fire win. Not that the Big Hill couldn't fuck up, but, she's less likely to do so in my view.
Tough call.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Super Tues. prediction(s)
After spending the day listening to opinion, and hemming and hawing about the outcome of Tuesday's big primary, I have a few overriding predictions:
1. Yours truly will be voting for the Big Hill in our state's primary. Barring a last minute voting booth mind-fucking.
2. My prediction is that Obama's latest surge post-S. Carolina primary will propel him to do well in many states, however not well enough to finish the Big Hill or even beat her on the sheer number of states. I see him doing well with the delegate count though, enough so that the race will be tight and will go on. I think Hill's latest performance in the debate combined with her faux-Florida primary win, blunts Obama's momentum just enough. It also doesn't hurt that Obama's debate skills are not great, and that he's seemingly been less than gentlemently towards Hill in the debates. He's shown some dismissiveness that has can be telling to a smart audience or a dumb audience (see, me!) after it's been pointed out numerous times by the video vultures.
3. McCain will undoubtedly kick Mitt's ass handily, perhaps even winning in Mitt's "home" state of Massachusetts. McCain has this all but locked-up barring one of his legendary temper tantrums caught on film. McCain is known to have temper tantrums and I can only hope we see his temper flare in the General Election. Hell, even that trophy wife of his reportedly has a freaking "grudge list." How pathetic and lame.
Finally, for the record, I have not looked at any polls to see how accurate these predictions may be. I don't listen to polls, nor do I read them. All this analysis comes straight from my gullet. And analyzing how a stupid body politic will undoubtedly "see" an election choice.
1. Yours truly will be voting for the Big Hill in our state's primary. Barring a last minute voting booth mind-fucking.
2. My prediction is that Obama's latest surge post-S. Carolina primary will propel him to do well in many states, however not well enough to finish the Big Hill or even beat her on the sheer number of states. I see him doing well with the delegate count though, enough so that the race will be tight and will go on. I think Hill's latest performance in the debate combined with her faux-Florida primary win, blunts Obama's momentum just enough. It also doesn't hurt that Obama's debate skills are not great, and that he's seemingly been less than gentlemently towards Hill in the debates. He's shown some dismissiveness that has can be telling to a smart audience or a dumb audience (see, me!) after it's been pointed out numerous times by the video vultures.
3. McCain will undoubtedly kick Mitt's ass handily, perhaps even winning in Mitt's "home" state of Massachusetts. McCain has this all but locked-up barring one of his legendary temper tantrums caught on film. McCain is known to have temper tantrums and I can only hope we see his temper flare in the General Election. Hell, even that trophy wife of his reportedly has a freaking "grudge list." How pathetic and lame.
Finally, for the record, I have not looked at any polls to see how accurate these predictions may be. I don't listen to polls, nor do I read them. All this analysis comes straight from my gullet. And analyzing how a stupid body politic will undoubtedly "see" an election choice.
Proof McCain doesn't get "it"
In his own ad running here in New England, McCain uses a quote from a speech he gave where he says, "America will never surrender, and they will." My guess is that it comes from his basic stump speech, and that line shows one of two things: 1. McCain, from way back when he made the infamous stunt where he walked down a street in Baghdad, he swallowed the Neo-Con's philosophy in an attempt to curry their favour. 2. He is really that freaking delusional.
For the record, America has surrendered. It's called Viet Nam.
I tend to believe option 2, that he is that fucking delusional. If this is true, then McCain doesn't get it. He has it exactly back ass-wards. The point is that not only has America surrendered before, but it's in the best interests of America that it do so now. I don't like waiving the white flag, I abhor it. However, there comes a point when one has to look as what's to gain versus what's to lose. America has virtually nothing to gain in this massively inept endeavor, and we risk losing our place in the world as THE Superpower, and risk destroying our economy beyond reproach.
The "evil doers" as Dubya likes to call them, have NOTHING to lose and everything to gain. They will never surrender, for they are on a psychotic religious crusade that knows no rationality. The only possible way to force them to surrender is by atomic bombing them to the stone age, which, quite frankly, I wouldn't mind doing. But, we would ultimately lose that simply because the rest of the Arab would in fair retaliation, come after us hard. And we are in no position to beat that back.
Finally, it only makes sense to end it now. Why did Osama attack the USA? He was peeved that the Americans invaded and pseudo-occupied an Islamic country (Saudia Arabia) during the Gulf War. There is no way to currently quantify how many little Osama's are being created because of this bullshit. To not acknowledge that fact alone shows you don't get it, and thus, you should not be President.
For the record, America has surrendered. It's called Viet Nam.
I tend to believe option 2, that he is that fucking delusional. If this is true, then McCain doesn't get it. He has it exactly back ass-wards. The point is that not only has America surrendered before, but it's in the best interests of America that it do so now. I don't like waiving the white flag, I abhor it. However, there comes a point when one has to look as what's to gain versus what's to lose. America has virtually nothing to gain in this massively inept endeavor, and we risk losing our place in the world as THE Superpower, and risk destroying our economy beyond reproach.
The "evil doers" as Dubya likes to call them, have NOTHING to lose and everything to gain. They will never surrender, for they are on a psychotic religious crusade that knows no rationality. The only possible way to force them to surrender is by atomic bombing them to the stone age, which, quite frankly, I wouldn't mind doing. But, we would ultimately lose that simply because the rest of the Arab would in fair retaliation, come after us hard. And we are in no position to beat that back.
Finally, it only makes sense to end it now. Why did Osama attack the USA? He was peeved that the Americans invaded and pseudo-occupied an Islamic country (Saudia Arabia) during the Gulf War. There is no way to currently quantify how many little Osama's are being created because of this bullshit. To not acknowledge that fact alone shows you don't get it, and thus, you should not be President.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Santana goes to the Met
Finalizing a trade, the Mets have agreed in principle on a contract extension with Starting Pitcher (SP) and Ace Johan Santana. This is perfect!! The Mets blow a whopping $21 million per year on a SP who is quite possibly the most dominant pitcher in the game today. He's a lefty who throws a wicked hard fastball with great accuracy and devastating change-up pitch that has become his hallmark. He will, barring injury, no doubt be the best/most dominant pitcher in Major League baseball for years to come.
However, spending anywhere north of $15 million per year for any SP is a tricky proposition in my view, and apparently the Red Sox view. The Sox get Santana to go to the National League where they won't have to face him, AND the MFY's don't have him. Moreover, the Sox don't have to trade away some young prospects that will not only allow them to hold some cost certainty, but also show what a hell of a job they've done through their scouting department to develop these players.
Also, us Sox fans get to see the promise of Jacoby Ellsbury, and the promise of cancer-survivor John Lester this year. Ellsbury who scored on a freaking passed ball all the way from second base at one point last year. The Lester who had a rough rookie year as a SP in the tough American League, who was found to have been living with a cancer in his body during the year when he underwent routine testing at the end of that campaign. The same Lester, who beat the cancer, fought like a dog to get his way back into the starting roatation by the end of the year and who was the SP in the Championship-clinching game.
Not to mention the minor leaguers the Sox would have had to give up to get Santana: Lowrie, Masterson, and the SP who pitched a no-hitter in only his 2nd start: Clay Buchholtz.
So, see ya Santana. I'm happy the Sox didn't give you $20 mill per for 5 years. We can use that money to find a replacement for Manny when he finally retires...Can you say, Ryan Howard?
However, spending anywhere north of $15 million per year for any SP is a tricky proposition in my view, and apparently the Red Sox view. The Sox get Santana to go to the National League where they won't have to face him, AND the MFY's don't have him. Moreover, the Sox don't have to trade away some young prospects that will not only allow them to hold some cost certainty, but also show what a hell of a job they've done through their scouting department to develop these players.
Also, us Sox fans get to see the promise of Jacoby Ellsbury, and the promise of cancer-survivor John Lester this year. Ellsbury who scored on a freaking passed ball all the way from second base at one point last year. The Lester who had a rough rookie year as a SP in the tough American League, who was found to have been living with a cancer in his body during the year when he underwent routine testing at the end of that campaign. The same Lester, who beat the cancer, fought like a dog to get his way back into the starting roatation by the end of the year and who was the SP in the Championship-clinching game.
Not to mention the minor leaguers the Sox would have had to give up to get Santana: Lowrie, Masterson, and the SP who pitched a no-hitter in only his 2nd start: Clay Buchholtz.
So, see ya Santana. I'm happy the Sox didn't give you $20 mill per for 5 years. We can use that money to find a replacement for Manny when he finally retires...Can you say, Ryan Howard?
Arlen Specter is a douchebag, part deux
I originally lambasted Arlen Specter in my post on Pres. Gerald Ford, for being the moronic creator of the "magic bullet theory," which supposedly killed JFK.
Now there's another reason that Arlen provides he's a total douche bag, albeit a cancer-surviving douche bag: He just came out today with some statement on wanting to drag the NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, in front of Congress to query him about why he destroyed the tapes he confiscated in the beginning of the year from the New England Patriots franchise.
Full disclosure: While I'm a BoSox whore, and a massive Celtics fan, and I like the Boston Bruins, I abhor all things Patriots.
In his public statement about wanting to drag Goodell in front of Congress he compared the destroying of freaking football tapes to the CIA destroying tapes. 'Xcuse me????!!!!!!!
In NO WAY does ANY investigation of anything related to a football organization compare to ANYTHING the freaking CIA does in covert or not-so-covert operations. And to suggest as such shows that not only are you a complete dumb ass, but you deserve to fucking die. Okay, at least have your power and seat in Congress taken away completely. Let the schmuck live. but, that's beyond preposterous!!
Now there's another reason that Arlen provides he's a total douche bag, albeit a cancer-surviving douche bag: He just came out today with some statement on wanting to drag the NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, in front of Congress to query him about why he destroyed the tapes he confiscated in the beginning of the year from the New England Patriots franchise.
Full disclosure: While I'm a BoSox whore, and a massive Celtics fan, and I like the Boston Bruins, I abhor all things Patriots.
In his public statement about wanting to drag Goodell in front of Congress he compared the destroying of freaking football tapes to the CIA destroying tapes. 'Xcuse me????!!!!!!!
In NO WAY does ANY investigation of anything related to a football organization compare to ANYTHING the freaking CIA does in covert or not-so-covert operations. And to suggest as such shows that not only are you a complete dumb ass, but you deserve to fucking die. Okay, at least have your power and seat in Congress taken away completely. Let the schmuck live. but, that's beyond preposterous!!
Obama-Hill, Hill-Obama ticket?
I turn on my tv and what I do I read below the screen on the header..."Buzz about possibility of Clinton and Obama being on same ticket."
Ok, I could possibly see this if Clinton managed to secure the nomination, or if there ends up being a brokered convention and a battle over delegates. However, if I were Obama, why would I want Bill Clinton in the role he'd be in that campaign. I think it's clear Bill would outshine even Obama, and I'm not sure, despite Clinton's insistence that she has the full reigns on Bill she could keep him in line. A former President with Bill's charisma and charm would come dangerously low on outshining the candidate Obama. Moreover, a Obama-Clinton ticket would cause Obama to be somewhat saddled with all of the Clintons' issues and record. Great record it may be in my opinion, it would still open Obama up to questions (no matter how unfair) of the Clinton era, and that would probably include Monica-gate, et al.
If Obama wins the nomination on his own, he doesn't need Clinton's help beyond fund raising and surrogating. I think Obama, knowing he'd basically secure the northeast corridor, would probably go to the south and if Edwards hadn't been the Veep nominee before, he'd be a great option. I'm thinking of someone like Sen. Jim Webb from (D-Virginia), or Gov. Tom Kaine (D-Virginia) (who happens to be term-limited and his term is up for good in 2009).
Ok, I could possibly see this if Clinton managed to secure the nomination, or if there ends up being a brokered convention and a battle over delegates. However, if I were Obama, why would I want Bill Clinton in the role he'd be in that campaign. I think it's clear Bill would outshine even Obama, and I'm not sure, despite Clinton's insistence that she has the full reigns on Bill she could keep him in line. A former President with Bill's charisma and charm would come dangerously low on outshining the candidate Obama. Moreover, a Obama-Clinton ticket would cause Obama to be somewhat saddled with all of the Clintons' issues and record. Great record it may be in my opinion, it would still open Obama up to questions (no matter how unfair) of the Clinton era, and that would probably include Monica-gate, et al.
If Obama wins the nomination on his own, he doesn't need Clinton's help beyond fund raising and surrogating. I think Obama, knowing he'd basically secure the northeast corridor, would probably go to the south and if Edwards hadn't been the Veep nominee before, he'd be a great option. I'm thinking of someone like Sen. Jim Webb from (D-Virginia), or Gov. Tom Kaine (D-Virginia) (who happens to be term-limited and his term is up for good in 2009).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
