I find it really interesting that the sex offender and convicted perjurer, William Jefferson Clinton, is still the most popular person to the Democrats. The Democratic Party constantly talks about the Republican Party as having a "Culture of Corruption". In examining history though, that conclusion may not be so obvious.
1) Rep. Mark Foley, Republican from Florida, sent some clearly inappropriate (horny) emails to Congressional pages. There was never any indication that he engaged in any sexual activity with those pages. There was a national uproar which led to the ousting of Rep. Foley from the House of Representatives. By contrast, Rep. Gary Studds, Democrat from Massachusetts, was actually caught in the act of having sex with an underage Congressional Page. Did the Democrats scream for the pedophile predator's expulsion? Did the Democrats wail about ethical standards in Congress? No. They made him a committee chairman and supported his re-election to three or four more terms.
2) When Rep. William Jefferson, Democrat from Louisiana, is caught red-handed with $90,000 in cash in a freezer in his house, he is not investigated by the Ethics Committee. He is given a committee chairmanship by the Democratic leadership. Just for completeness, the same Rep. Jefferson was recently indicted on nineteen counts of corruption. There is still no uproar from the Democrats in Congress.
3) Sandy Berger steals classified documents from the National Archives to cover up what the Clinton Administration knew prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and only has to pay a fine. Despite being neither indicted or accused of anything, the Democratic Party calls on Karl Rove to resign during the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation. The hypocrisy is astounding.
4) Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Majority Leader, makes hundreds of thousands of dollars from real estate he does not own. In his defense, I suppose it is impossible to be elected in Nevada without having connections to crooks, given the history of the state.
5) The most obvious example, however, is how despite abusing his power as President to have sex with a White House intern and being convicted of perjury, William Jefferson Clinton continues to be the most popular Democrat in the party. The Democrat's argument about his perjury at the time was "It is only about sex". Apparently, in the Democratic Party, individuals are free to choose which subjects they are allowed to perjure themselves about. A question was asked at the Democratic Party debate about how to use former President Clinton in a new Democratic administration. All of the candidates had grandiose plans for him. Not one candidate has the nerve or moral fortitude to call him to task for his past actions and to not hold him up as a superb leadership example.
The party that owns the true "culture of corruption" is obvious.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Pardon controversy
This whole Lewis Libby sentencing thing is becoming very intriguing. Thirty months is a long time to spend in jail when you are Libby's age. I am generally not a pardon aficionado but this case does have some interesting factors:
1) The judge said that someone in as high a position in the government as Libby's should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, the sentence would be stiff. I suppose it is redundant to point out that the President of the United States was convicted of the same offense a few short years ago and only had his law license revoked and served no jail time. It is clearly adverse and impractical to try a President while in office but it could have been once he left office. It is obvious that position is not a factor given this comparable case.
2) The Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew specifically that Richard Armitage was the definitive source of the information about Valerie Plame very early in his investigation. With this knowledge, he a) continued the investigation, and b) not only allowed, but encouraged speculation that that others (Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, etc.) were involved to keep press coverage intense. This strikes me as prosecutorial misconduct.
3) Fitzgerald also continued the investigation after testimony under oath by Victoria Toensing, the individual who authored the law in question, that it specifically and clearly did not apply to Valerie Plame. Therefore, the "crime" he was investigating could not have possibly been committed.
4) Knowing that there was no crime and who the leaker was, Fitzgerald continued the investigation for at least another year.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Fitzgerald, a Clinton appointee, wanted to "get" higher profile targets and is taking out his frustration on Lewis Libby. Given the bogus nature of the investigation, many argue that Libby shouldn't have even been prosecuted. While the investigation was bogus, I still believe if he actually lied under oath, there should be a penalty. Sandy Berger paid a fine for stealing classified documents. Bill Clinton had his law license revoked for perjury. Thirty months just seems excessive.
1) The judge said that someone in as high a position in the government as Libby's should be held to a higher standard and, therefore, the sentence would be stiff. I suppose it is redundant to point out that the President of the United States was convicted of the same offense a few short years ago and only had his law license revoked and served no jail time. It is clearly adverse and impractical to try a President while in office but it could have been once he left office. It is obvious that position is not a factor given this comparable case.
2) The Special Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew specifically that Richard Armitage was the definitive source of the information about Valerie Plame very early in his investigation. With this knowledge, he a) continued the investigation, and b) not only allowed, but encouraged speculation that that others (Karl Rove, Vice President Cheney, etc.) were involved to keep press coverage intense. This strikes me as prosecutorial misconduct.
3) Fitzgerald also continued the investigation after testimony under oath by Victoria Toensing, the individual who authored the law in question, that it specifically and clearly did not apply to Valerie Plame. Therefore, the "crime" he was investigating could not have possibly been committed.
4) Knowing that there was no crime and who the leaker was, Fitzgerald continued the investigation for at least another year.
The only conclusion I can draw from this is that Fitzgerald, a Clinton appointee, wanted to "get" higher profile targets and is taking out his frustration on Lewis Libby. Given the bogus nature of the investigation, many argue that Libby shouldn't have even been prosecuted. While the investigation was bogus, I still believe if he actually lied under oath, there should be a penalty. Sandy Berger paid a fine for stealing classified documents. Bill Clinton had his law license revoked for perjury. Thirty months just seems excessive.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
The Pinnacle of Hypocrisy
In the past on TV, there was a sort of unwritten rule that one network never mentioned another network, as if they didn’t exist. For example, a television actor promoting their show on the Tonight Show would never state the name of the network on which the show appeared, if it wasn’t NBC. I can’t help but notice the recent coordinated effort on the part of the liberal news media to collectively try to make the Fox News network look biased and disreputable. Everyone knows that Fox News was originally created because of the liberal bent of the mainstream news media so it shouldn't be surprising that the network would be more accomodating to conservative viewpoints.
It is nauseating to see a smarmy ideologue like Keith Olberman, who does not have a reputable cell in his body, interviewing a host of an Air America program about Fox News. If Olberman had another nerve cell, he could make a connection. Air America, the ultra-liberal talk network which went bankrupt because no one watches it, is a competitor of Fox. That is like interviewing Target about how great WalMart is doing. Olberman called the people at Fox “idiots” on the air. The Air America host said that the Fox News network is a part of the Republican Party. No matter your political persuasion, that is not journalism of any quality, whatsoever. I suppose they are just upset because CNN’s viewership is at an all-time low and the six or seven people who watch MSNBC are insignificant. Fox News now has three times the viewers that CNN does. It would be a bigger deal if anyone actually watched Olberman’s show but since hardly anyone does, he can spread his rants without much consequence.
Along the same lines, CNN is another pot calling the kettle black. Lou Dobbs does a show that is supposed to be a news show but he makes biased comments about every story and never presents both sides of any story. It is like they hired him to do a one hour diatribe every night and pretend to be news. On Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, I know Jack Cafferty is a liberal ideologue but I can’t say recently how bad he is since I started muting the television every time I see his image now. He is the most whining harpie on television and, since he never had anything resembling useful information to say, I no longer waste my time listening to his spewing. He always reinforces his rants with poll questions like “Do you think the Bush Administration should continue to starve the American people?" It is always a “Do you still beat your wife?” type question.
Don’t misunderstand. I actually like to hear both sides of a debate but I want to hear facts on the news with commentary and analysis correctly labeled as such. Even CBS, which historically is one of the most liberal networks, had Eric Severeid come on with the label “commentary” when he appeared. News is fact and commentary is opinion. They should be kept separate.
I find that when two opposing sides give information, the truth is usually somewhere between the two. That is why I like both sides to explain their views. Calling the other side names and yelling does little to clarify debate and expose truth. But since Air America, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are fading like cheap wallpaper in the sun; I guess they feel they have nothing to lose by compromising journalistic standards and whining about declining viewer numbers.
It is nauseating to see a smarmy ideologue like Keith Olberman, who does not have a reputable cell in his body, interviewing a host of an Air America program about Fox News. If Olberman had another nerve cell, he could make a connection. Air America, the ultra-liberal talk network which went bankrupt because no one watches it, is a competitor of Fox. That is like interviewing Target about how great WalMart is doing. Olberman called the people at Fox “idiots” on the air. The Air America host said that the Fox News network is a part of the Republican Party. No matter your political persuasion, that is not journalism of any quality, whatsoever. I suppose they are just upset because CNN’s viewership is at an all-time low and the six or seven people who watch MSNBC are insignificant. Fox News now has three times the viewers that CNN does. It would be a bigger deal if anyone actually watched Olberman’s show but since hardly anyone does, he can spread his rants without much consequence.
Along the same lines, CNN is another pot calling the kettle black. Lou Dobbs does a show that is supposed to be a news show but he makes biased comments about every story and never presents both sides of any story. It is like they hired him to do a one hour diatribe every night and pretend to be news. On Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room, I know Jack Cafferty is a liberal ideologue but I can’t say recently how bad he is since I started muting the television every time I see his image now. He is the most whining harpie on television and, since he never had anything resembling useful information to say, I no longer waste my time listening to his spewing. He always reinforces his rants with poll questions like “Do you think the Bush Administration should continue to starve the American people?" It is always a “Do you still beat your wife?” type question.
Don’t misunderstand. I actually like to hear both sides of a debate but I want to hear facts on the news with commentary and analysis correctly labeled as such. Even CBS, which historically is one of the most liberal networks, had Eric Severeid come on with the label “commentary” when he appeared. News is fact and commentary is opinion. They should be kept separate.
I find that when two opposing sides give information, the truth is usually somewhere between the two. That is why I like both sides to explain their views. Calling the other side names and yelling does little to clarify debate and expose truth. But since Air America, CNN, MSNBC, and the like are fading like cheap wallpaper in the sun; I guess they feel they have nothing to lose by compromising journalistic standards and whining about declining viewer numbers.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Intolerance and the Inane Media
This latest flap in Nevada about the Democratic Party not wanting to debate on Fox News reminded me of the intolerance of ideas in America. It is similar to the rhetoric post I made earlier in some ways. The same people at liberal arts universities who scream for anti-war, abortion freedom, gay rights, and entitlement program “freedom of speech”, will not allow anyone of contrary views to even make a speech. What an incredible double standard. Without taking a side on any of those issues, it is easy to see why it is just ludicrous to support that. Freedom of speech was first and foremost put into place to protect political discourse (not strippers, sorry). Liberals, conservatives, libertarians, socialists, communists, or anyone else should be able to discuss their own views with anyone who cares to listen, as long as it is not something illegal like inciting violence or creating an unacceptably dangerous public environment. The Founding Fathers knew that representative government works best with an informed electorate who are free to exchange ideas and attempt to influence others to their point of view. A group can never achieve consensus if none of the members ever communicate with the other members. The world is a Bell curve. There will always be people on both sides of any issue. To say that the other side cannot even express their views about the issue revives the specter of totalitarian societies. Ann Coulter is obnoxious in presentation to liberals but she has the right to speak. Bill Maher clearly has brain damage to conservatives but let him talk. People who make no sense, make moronic statements, or have nothing of clarity to say expose themselves by speaking loudly. It is the best way to ferret them out. It is better to have them expose their inconsistencies and errors in logic than to have people assume that their arguments are credible because their name is familiar. If you disagree heartily, you don’t have to attend a speech or you can use the ultimate weapon, the remote control. If you think about it, why would political candidates trying to reach the voters not want to appear on the most-watched cable news channel? It is going to be your own words that are broadcast. Conservatives appear in front of liberal political fronts like Tim Russert and Chris Matthews. Liberals appear with staunch conservative Sean Hannity. If your ideas have merit, you will be able to defend them.
Along those same lines, I am tired of the news media assuming that I am stupid. When I watch the State of the Union speech in January, I don’t need someone to come on immediately after the speech and tell me what the President said. After all, if I am tuned in to that channel, I listened to the speech. If you want to analyze program changes, spending initiatives, diplomatic initiatives, etc., okay, but I heard what he said. I also don’t need to hear the requisite two political hacks: the incumbent party representative talking about the second coming of Abraham Lincoln in the speech, and the opposition party declaring every program, even ones not yet thought of, “dead on arrival”. I also do not care about the staged “standing ovation” count or how many times each side stood. It is scripted and stupid. Why report on it other than to demean the artificiality of it? It is not news if it means nothing. It is an offensive and insulting waste of my time. Therefore, for major speeches, CSPAN it is. I pity those without cable television who are subjected to that nonsense each time.
Along those same lines, I am tired of the news media assuming that I am stupid. When I watch the State of the Union speech in January, I don’t need someone to come on immediately after the speech and tell me what the President said. After all, if I am tuned in to that channel, I listened to the speech. If you want to analyze program changes, spending initiatives, diplomatic initiatives, etc., okay, but I heard what he said. I also don’t need to hear the requisite two political hacks: the incumbent party representative talking about the second coming of Abraham Lincoln in the speech, and the opposition party declaring every program, even ones not yet thought of, “dead on arrival”. I also do not care about the staged “standing ovation” count or how many times each side stood. It is scripted and stupid. Why report on it other than to demean the artificiality of it? It is not news if it means nothing. It is an offensive and insulting waste of my time. Therefore, for major speeches, CSPAN it is. I pity those without cable television who are subjected to that nonsense each time.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Culture of Celebrity and Cheaters
Not being a psychologist, I am shooting a bit in the dark here but the media and our culture of celebrity baffles me sometimes. It used to be that someone was famous because they had accomplished something which stood them apart from the masses or had some talent or ability which made them distinct. Today, the popular media has reversed the logic. If you are famous (or infamous), you are portrayed as having special distinction and talent. Completely unaccomplished people who wouldn't make decent dinner conversation are followed by the press and there is an insatiable market for that information.
Well known examples (some are like the proverbial fish in a barrel):
1) Paris Hilton - a girl born wealthy with no apparent talent or brains whatsoever except to immediately strike a pose when a camera is in the same zip code. Interestingly enough, it is always the same pose. She is famous for: being an idiot, not wearing underwear, dropping her clothes at a moments notice in public, and making unflattering sex videos with sleazy guys. Which of those qualities deserves admiration? If it were not for her inheritance, she couldn't get a job at a convenience store. I have vowed to change the channel whenever her image appears. It just makes me feel less slimy.
2) Anna Nicole Smith - It is sad when anyone dies but 24-hour news coverage? She is famous for: posing naked (a common denominator in this group), working as a stripper, bilking an old man out of a lot of money, being an idiot (another common thread), appearing semi-conscious in public venues, and not deciding who of the many men with whom she has had sex is the father of her latest child. Which of those qualities deserve anyone's attention?
My daughter laughs at me whenever I bring it up now but the cult of celebrity is cash-based. The motion picture industry discovered this secret many years ago in the horror film genre. Slasher films do not require a star and make lots of money. Beginning with The Real World and Survivor, television networks discovered the same. Therefore, the explosion of reality shows. Instead of paying $100,000 an episode for a star to do a sitcom, you get a bunch of unknowns who will do anything for fame and a buck and make up some ridiculous contest. Every network does it, even Comedy Central and the Food Network. I personally flip the channels occasionally and almost every channel has some show to which I say "who cares?" In the case of the MTV shows, I see people I wouldn't even want to speak with and don't care a lick if they are upset by each other. You can make the argument that television is becoming more about real people and less about fictional characters but the real people I seem to see are really not very entertaining or interesting. I suppose it is too much to ask to have a Hallmark Hall of Fame or a decent variety show. Those types of shows have quality and that costs money. To paraphrase the leader in Demolition Man speaking of how Taco Bell was the only surviving restaurant, "All shows are reality, except the 17 versions of Law & Order and CSI"
Along the same line, when did cheating become admirable? Does the end truly justify the means? How can anyone in their right mind admire Barry Bonds with all of the performance enhancing substances he uses and the way he lies about it? Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, the list goes on and on. I used to love to watch the Tour De Drugs every summer knowing they were chemical-dependent but the doping there was at least even-handed because almost ALL were using them. At least it was a fairly level playing field. I know, ye of much faith will say your personal favorite never did. Even back in the US Postal days, that team had a reputation. The Discovery Channel team lost riders, T-Mobile lost riders, and on and on. The new preventive program that the Slipstream team has in place is suspect because their coach is a former US Postal rider. Anyone who knows anything about cycling knew, after watching Floyd Landis crack like an eggshell then come back the next day and smoke the field, that something was way fishy about it. Not coincidently, that was the day his test popped positive in both samples. When the New York Yankees won a playoff game with the Baltimore Orioles they should not have won because a young fan interfered with a catch, the boy was treated like a hero by David Letterman, etc. When the University of Colorado beat Missouri on the "Fifth Down" play, they didn't forfeit the win, they claimed a national championship. Willingly accepting cheating is the beginning of a slippery slope. Will we next be celebrating the guy who has a traffic accident with a player intentionally to keep him from attending the game? With that logic, Tonya Harding will be making a comeback and female figure skaters will be wearing hockey uniforms with knee and shin guards.
Apparently, it is too much to ask for the media to exalt people who actually accomplish worthwhile endeavors without cheating and those who actually have talent for anything other than looking good and having bad morals.
Well known examples (some are like the proverbial fish in a barrel):
1) Paris Hilton - a girl born wealthy with no apparent talent or brains whatsoever except to immediately strike a pose when a camera is in the same zip code. Interestingly enough, it is always the same pose. She is famous for: being an idiot, not wearing underwear, dropping her clothes at a moments notice in public, and making unflattering sex videos with sleazy guys. Which of those qualities deserves admiration? If it were not for her inheritance, she couldn't get a job at a convenience store. I have vowed to change the channel whenever her image appears. It just makes me feel less slimy.
2) Anna Nicole Smith - It is sad when anyone dies but 24-hour news coverage? She is famous for: posing naked (a common denominator in this group), working as a stripper, bilking an old man out of a lot of money, being an idiot (another common thread), appearing semi-conscious in public venues, and not deciding who of the many men with whom she has had sex is the father of her latest child. Which of those qualities deserve anyone's attention?
My daughter laughs at me whenever I bring it up now but the cult of celebrity is cash-based. The motion picture industry discovered this secret many years ago in the horror film genre. Slasher films do not require a star and make lots of money. Beginning with The Real World and Survivor, television networks discovered the same. Therefore, the explosion of reality shows. Instead of paying $100,000 an episode for a star to do a sitcom, you get a bunch of unknowns who will do anything for fame and a buck and make up some ridiculous contest. Every network does it, even Comedy Central and the Food Network. I personally flip the channels occasionally and almost every channel has some show to which I say "who cares?" In the case of the MTV shows, I see people I wouldn't even want to speak with and don't care a lick if they are upset by each other. You can make the argument that television is becoming more about real people and less about fictional characters but the real people I seem to see are really not very entertaining or interesting. I suppose it is too much to ask to have a Hallmark Hall of Fame or a decent variety show. Those types of shows have quality and that costs money. To paraphrase the leader in Demolition Man speaking of how Taco Bell was the only surviving restaurant, "All shows are reality, except the 17 versions of Law & Order and CSI"
Along the same line, when did cheating become admirable? Does the end truly justify the means? How can anyone in their right mind admire Barry Bonds with all of the performance enhancing substances he uses and the way he lies about it? Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Jason Giambi, the list goes on and on. I used to love to watch the Tour De Drugs every summer knowing they were chemical-dependent but the doping there was at least even-handed because almost ALL were using them. At least it was a fairly level playing field. I know, ye of much faith will say your personal favorite never did. Even back in the US Postal days, that team had a reputation. The Discovery Channel team lost riders, T-Mobile lost riders, and on and on. The new preventive program that the Slipstream team has in place is suspect because their coach is a former US Postal rider. Anyone who knows anything about cycling knew, after watching Floyd Landis crack like an eggshell then come back the next day and smoke the field, that something was way fishy about it. Not coincidently, that was the day his test popped positive in both samples. When the New York Yankees won a playoff game with the Baltimore Orioles they should not have won because a young fan interfered with a catch, the boy was treated like a hero by David Letterman, etc. When the University of Colorado beat Missouri on the "Fifth Down" play, they didn't forfeit the win, they claimed a national championship. Willingly accepting cheating is the beginning of a slippery slope. Will we next be celebrating the guy who has a traffic accident with a player intentionally to keep him from attending the game? With that logic, Tonya Harding will be making a comeback and female figure skaters will be wearing hockey uniforms with knee and shin guards.
Apparently, it is too much to ask for the media to exalt people who actually accomplish worthwhile endeavors without cheating and those who actually have talent for anything other than looking good and having bad morals.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Abortion rhetoric
Does the rhetoric drive you nuts, too? "Pro-life" "Pro-choice" are both happy euphemisms for something completely different. I am pretty familiar with life and death decisions in my line of work. So let's look at the issue with some sense. Granted, there are some nuts out there, but I long to believe that most people have some bit of reasonableness in them.
Even the most strident abortion foe cannot possibly believe that making a woman die to give birth, or carry a dead fetus to term is not incredibly cruel and dangerous. If a fetus is diagnosed with trisomy 13, or trisomy 18 (not trisomy 21 Down's Syndrome, before someone goes nuts), anencephaly (baby with no brain), or Tay-Sachs disease, all universally fatal, incompatible with life; who would make that woman continue to carry that fetus around at the risk of her own health and sanity? The arguments for adoption, etc. can potentially be made for rape or incest victims but not for a fetus which cannot possibly live. The people who say "no abortion" are saying they would let women die and/or deliver dead babies. Therefore, any reasonable person should admit that in some set of cases, abortion is an approprate medical procedure.
Even the most strident abortion supporter cannot honestly think that using abortion as a routine birth control technique of convenience is a good thing and that decapitating a healthy late-term fetus is a good outcome. Therefore, if you believe that a fetus is a living being, there should be some reasonable limits set by society about when abortion is an appropriate procedure.
Given those arguments, the discussion becomes not a yes/no absolute but rather, "When is abortion appropriate?" No law or set of criteria will cover all individual cases but the discussion should be couched in those terms. Of course, you don't hear that question because those reasonable terms do not fire up the hard right and hard left primary voters.
The world is not black and white. There are hundreds of abortion and end of life Terry Schiavo-type medical decisions made every day without national publicity. I have been involved in them with families. Except for political gain, there is no reason to stake out extreme unreasonable positions but to raise campaign funds and demonstrate your prostitution to the vote.
Even the most strident abortion foe cannot possibly believe that making a woman die to give birth, or carry a dead fetus to term is not incredibly cruel and dangerous. If a fetus is diagnosed with trisomy 13, or trisomy 18 (not trisomy 21 Down's Syndrome, before someone goes nuts), anencephaly (baby with no brain), or Tay-Sachs disease, all universally fatal, incompatible with life; who would make that woman continue to carry that fetus around at the risk of her own health and sanity? The arguments for adoption, etc. can potentially be made for rape or incest victims but not for a fetus which cannot possibly live. The people who say "no abortion" are saying they would let women die and/or deliver dead babies. Therefore, any reasonable person should admit that in some set of cases, abortion is an approprate medical procedure.
Even the most strident abortion supporter cannot honestly think that using abortion as a routine birth control technique of convenience is a good thing and that decapitating a healthy late-term fetus is a good outcome. Therefore, if you believe that a fetus is a living being, there should be some reasonable limits set by society about when abortion is an appropriate procedure.
Given those arguments, the discussion becomes not a yes/no absolute but rather, "When is abortion appropriate?" No law or set of criteria will cover all individual cases but the discussion should be couched in those terms. Of course, you don't hear that question because those reasonable terms do not fire up the hard right and hard left primary voters.
The world is not black and white. There are hundreds of abortion and end of life Terry Schiavo-type medical decisions made every day without national publicity. I have been involved in them with families. Except for political gain, there is no reason to stake out extreme unreasonable positions but to raise campaign funds and demonstrate your prostitution to the vote.
Politics as usual and bad actors
It never ceases to amaze. Democrats who stood in line to approve removing Saddam Hussein from power now selectively remember that they were never for the war. Hillary Clinton says she wouldn't have voted for the authorization if she thought the President would actually use it. Liar or moron? You make the call.
Hillary also says "if I knew then what I know now, I would have never voted for the authorization." Hmmm If Abraham Lincoln knew then what he knew later, he wouldn't have gone to Ford's Theater. What an incredibly inane argument.
The same people who were all for removing Saddam now say the President "recklessly" got us into a war and "misled the American people." Funny how they looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion but where they are pure as Ivory Soap, the President is an evil plotter. I am not sure Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell but at least he said he was against it before it happened. Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, Barrack Obama is portraying himself as the second coming of Lincoln. As was once said, "I knew Abraham Lincoln, I worked with Abraham Lincoln, and YOU are no Abraham Lincoln."
I always thought Dan Quayle should have replied to Lloyd Bentsen, "You are right, I am no John Kennedy, I sleep only with my own wife", but you can't criticize someone once they are shot. It is an American rule.
Here is a question: other than to look at the classified ads and sports page, why would anyone with two neurons to make a synapse buy the Washington Post or New York Times? Those papers could burst into spontaneous flame, which would be fine if they kept opinion on the editorial pages. The economy is so good there is a surplus predicted. No credit to the administration. The White House says the Pelosi plane story is ridiculous (which it is), no credit.
Here is a random thought. Some actors (i.e., George C Scott, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman) are an almost ironclad guarantee that a movie will be good, or at least interesting. I have my own list of guarantees that a movie will stink on ice. Here is a partial list (nothing personal, folks):
Jean Claude Van Damme, Shannon Tweed, Steven Seagall, Shannon Whirry, and my favorite wood carving of a human being, David Carradine. He was perfect for Kung Fu because he was supposed to barely speak. He has been doing Kung Fu ever since. I will admit I did like Kill Bill but it was despite, not because of.
Hillary also says "if I knew then what I know now, I would have never voted for the authorization." Hmmm If Abraham Lincoln knew then what he knew later, he wouldn't have gone to Ford's Theater. What an incredibly inane argument.
The same people who were all for removing Saddam now say the President "recklessly" got us into a war and "misled the American people." Funny how they looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion but where they are pure as Ivory Soap, the President is an evil plotter. I am not sure Obama has a snowball's chance in Hell but at least he said he was against it before it happened. Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, Barrack Obama is portraying himself as the second coming of Lincoln. As was once said, "I knew Abraham Lincoln, I worked with Abraham Lincoln, and YOU are no Abraham Lincoln."
I always thought Dan Quayle should have replied to Lloyd Bentsen, "You are right, I am no John Kennedy, I sleep only with my own wife", but you can't criticize someone once they are shot. It is an American rule.
Here is a question: other than to look at the classified ads and sports page, why would anyone with two neurons to make a synapse buy the Washington Post or New York Times? Those papers could burst into spontaneous flame, which would be fine if they kept opinion on the editorial pages. The economy is so good there is a surplus predicted. No credit to the administration. The White House says the Pelosi plane story is ridiculous (which it is), no credit.
Here is a random thought. Some actors (i.e., George C Scott, Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, Morgan Freeman) are an almost ironclad guarantee that a movie will be good, or at least interesting. I have my own list of guarantees that a movie will stink on ice. Here is a partial list (nothing personal, folks):
Jean Claude Van Damme, Shannon Tweed, Steven Seagall, Shannon Whirry, and my favorite wood carving of a human being, David Carradine. He was perfect for Kung Fu because he was supposed to barely speak. He has been doing Kung Fu ever since. I will admit I did like Kill Bill but it was despite, not because of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)