Don Fowler - Still Reprehensible

Well.  One day after having foot-in-mouth-and-nothing-in-brain disease, Don Fowler says this:  " "One doesn't anticipate that one's private conversation will be surreptitiously taped by some right-wing nutcase," said Fowler. "But that's the nature of what we're dealing with." "

"...some right-wing nutcase." 

OK...quick test.  Exactly who was the idiot that said that to begin with?  Even though it was said "in jest" it was tasteless, classless, CLUELESS, reprehensible, and now you appear to blame the blogger for something that YOU were stupid enough to say.

YOU are the one that said it.  And you appear to be blaming the person that taped you.  Tell me, did that person make you say what you were stupid enough to say?

Of course not! 

YOU are the person that said it, therefore the fault LIES WITH YOU.

Now let's switch feet.  If a Republican had said that, I feel safe enough to bet my entire life's savings that you'd be one of the people jumping up and down and screaming at the top of your lungs for that Republican to be punished.  You and Michael Moore both.

Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong.

YOU are the person that said it.  Even if it was in jest it was dead wrong.

Please duct tape your mouth shut.  It'll help us combat global warming if you obnoxious, gaseous windbags can't talk.  Too much hot air, not enough brain cells.

Don Fowler - Reprehensible

A link:  http://www.redstate.com/diaries/absentee/2008/aug/30/fowler-fouls-hurricane-is-gods-favor-to-dem/

That's right.  Don Fowler, former Chair of the Democratic National Committe said that the timing of Hurricane Gustav (Still a Cat 4 as of this writing 21:45pm on 30-AUG-2008) "...just demonstrates God's on our side." 

The exact quote (to make sure the dispicable bastard doesn't claim he's taken out of context) is "The timing is, at least as it appears now, that it'll [Hurricane Gustav] be there [Louisiana] on Monday.  That just demonstrates God's on our side." 

Later in the conversation, he uses the word "hurricane" and somebody else says "New Orleans." 

Taken out of context?  Really?  Tell us that you apologize, that you 'regret' your remarks.  Then go duct tape your mouth shut.

You clueless, reprehensible, dispicable, bastard.

And if innocent Americans lose their lives, well.  It's all good because it disrupted the Republican Convention, right?  It worked out, and the Americans that die from Gustav will just be serving your purposes, right?

You FILTHY BASTARD.

The saying goes that "only the good die young."  Randy Pausch died at 47.  And yet here you are...just proving how dispicable you are, and how true that saying is.

You're a waste of resources, if you ask me.

Hurricane Gustav

As of this writing (17:37hrs on 30-AUG-2008) Hurricane Gustav is a Cat 4 storm and is still on course for Louisiana.

But that brings up something that happened during Hurricane Katrina, and happens all too frequently.

If you remember, in the hours and days after Katrina roared ashore, numerous "charities" sprang up claiming to represent honest charity groups and organizations.  These "charities" (I'm trying not to spit as I write that, because these are criminals.  Plain and simple.  If it were up to me, I'd jail every last one of them ... and put them to work at hard labour.  They are, in my opinion, among the lowest of the low.) claimed to be collecting monies for the Red Cross and other legitimate charities, and then ran off.

Beware, my friends, because although this is another of those 'duh' moments, the same thing will happen after Gustav makes landfall.

The American Red Cross (http://www.redcross.org/) has on its website a list of their chapters, as well as ways to spot thieves. 

If you do donate to charity (I hope you do!), give only to legitimate charities, such as the American Red Cross.  (As an aside, and in the interest of full disclosure, I have no relationship in any way with the American Red Cross.  I do donate money to them, but that is all.)

Beware of those who call you and claim to be involved with legitimate charities.  Ask questions!  The real charities won't mind this.  The bogus ones will.  Visit their website (if they have one.) 

And if they claim to be collecting money for the Red Cross, consider giving the money directly to the Red Cross.  (Again, the Red Cross and other legitimate charities have on their respective sites addresses and locations where you can give money and other items.  They will also tell you with whom they do business, and what other charities collect money and other items for them.)  But please be cautious.

Although there are many legitimate organizations that do collect money and other items for the Red Cross and other charities, (yes, another 'duh' moment) we're about to be inundated with scams and criminals claiming to do the same thing. 

Please, please be careful. 

One final note on this subject:  I've named the Red Cross several times.  And they are an excellent legitimate charity that does wonderful work.  But they're not the only one, to be sure.  There are many other legitimate charities out there that also do wonderful work.  If you do donate to charity (I hope you do!) consider also giving to them.

We're all in this together.

FOR THOSE IN HARM'S WAY:

My thoughts, indeed my prayers, go out to you.  If you can leave on your own, please do so.  If you do need assistance, contact a charity or your local authorities to see about getting assistance to evacuate.  Take only what you need, and please don't forget to take your important papers with you.  (These include your passport, birth certificate for yourself and family members, bank account information, and so on.  Also, your Social Security Card, Driver's License (or State ID,) and other such documents.) 

The reason I mentioned that is because there are even lower people out there who will loot stores and homes.  And some of those are identity thieves.

Please be careful, and I will hold you in my prayers.

Shock and Awe

Well, it's a start.  Coast to Coast AM with Ian Punnett actually discussed that the Obamessiah might not be eligible to run for President.  Honestly.

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/shows/2008/08/22.html

(NOTE:  I have not listened to this particular show.  My streamlink account expired.)

They even gave a website: http://www.obamacrimes.com/

(NOTE:  I have not visited this website, either.)

People usually think of Coast to Coast AM as 'the' place for wackjobs, nutjobs and other weirdoes. 

And some of their guests do tend to make you go "hmmmm..."  But, they also have many top-notch guests, such as:

Dr. Michio Kaku
Dr. Peter Ward
Guy Cramer
Dr. Joseph Resnick
Willie Nelson (Yes, he actually was a guest on Coast to Coast.)
Jennifer Ouelette
     and many many more

And if you ask who Jennifer Ouelette is, I'm gonna send you straight to http://twistedphysics.typepad.com/

So there. :)

I'm a sexist racist!

Well, I've been called one.  But that doesn't make it true. 

But for somebody to write me and complain about my writings about HRC and BHO, you'd think I am.  I've been told that I won't vote for HRC "...for the simple fact that shes a woman.  That alone is what keeps you from liking her."

That's not true, and I've stated as such numerous times in this blog (or journal.)  I can't, and won't, vote for her because I don't agree with her.  And now that the Obamessiah's the Democratic candidate, that whole discussion is moot.  But for the record (again!) I would have no problem with a woman being the President.  Unfortunately, Dr. Rice isn't running.

I've also gotten an email (OK...more than a few) accusing me of being a racist because of my stance on the Obamessiah.  That I won't be voting for him "...because hes a brother and we all no (sic) that you cant stand a brother being the pres."

Again, this is simply untrue.  In fact, it's just plain wrong.  Again, I would have no problems whatsoever with an African-American being the President.  Unfortunately, General Powell isn't running.  I greatly admire General Powell.  I really do.  He was the Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  On top of that, I agree with the General on a great many things.  Not everything, to be sure, but a great many things.

General Powell understands much more than the Obamessiah does, having been around longer.  I'd trust General Powell with my life. 

If he'd been the candidate, I would have voted for him in the blink of an eye.  Seriously.  I don't think there are as many people as qualified as General Powell, although Dr. Rice comes quickly to mind.

But that brings up its own hornet's nest.  Let's imagine this:  General Powell is on the ballot in the November election, as is Dr. Rice.  It would be the same situation we just had in the Democratic primaries - man versus woman.  African-American man versus African-American woman.  That would remove the race card from play, wouldn't it?

But I guarantee you that just as there are (still!) some Clinton supporters who are (still!) pulling out the race and gender cards, there would be some people that would pull out the gender card in our hypothetical matchup.

Makes your head spin, doesn't it?

The Obamessiah's Stiffling of Dissent

Well.  If you haven't heard "that" podcast now, you need to.  Here's the link to it.  http://wgnradio.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=44075&Itemid=467

But does anybody remember with Keith Olbermann and John Cook (of Radar Online) were discussing alleged "troops" of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Laura Ingraham.  Here's a partial transcript.  "These, Ann Coulter and (Michelle) Malkin, you know, they sort of, uh, present a kind of rhetorical, um, uh, rhetorical world-view where they have their troops out there, uh, and I think that he thought of himself as one of their troops.  Uh, and, uh, uh, and, and, and, wanted to live up to their standards."

Ok...that's a partial transcript, including the "uh"s and "um"s.  BUT, here's the point.  According to John Cook, those three (Ms. Coulter, Ms. Malkin, and Ms. Ingraham) have "troops" to do their bidding.

Let's now go to the link to the podcast that I gave earlier.  In it, the radio station is deluged with callers supporting the Obamessiah.  Mr Olbermann and Mr Cook, are you willing, now, to admit that people on the left might have "troops?"  If not, why not, given the evidence?

The callers called in as requested and used the talking points (also called bullet points) from the Obamessiah's email.  Just like a "troop" would do, ne?

But in using those talking points, the Obamessiah's troops missed several things.  The producers of the show asked the Obamessiah's campaign to come on the show and present their view.  They mention that at least five separate times during the interview.  Let me say that again.  They mention at least five times in the interview that somebody from the Obamessiah's campaign was invited to refute their guest.  In fact, one caller said they should have called "ten times."  Honestly.  But here's the point that the Obamessiah's troops are missing. 

I'm now going to offer a partial transcript of that show, starting at 52:35:

"Did you hear, did you hear what our producer Zack Christiansen [I'm guessing on this spelling] reported earlier in the programme?"

"I did not.  I just tuned in."

"Well, there you are, Ma'am.  Let me say it again, cuz some others may have tuned in late.  We called, we only arranged for Stanley (Kurtz) to come on last night, because, he only came to town yesterday.  Uh, and uh today, we called the Obama campaign.  The National Headquarters, just down the street on Michigan Avenue, and, uh, uh, Zack talked to somebody in their communications department a man named, I have it here, um, but I can't find it at the moment, uh, Ben LaBolt [I'm guessing on this spelling as well] and, uh, offered to have him or anyone else they wanted to supply come on the programme for 15 minutes, or for the full two hours, whatever they wanted, and he was told 'no' and he was asked the name of the (station's) Programme Manager, and then Mr LaBolt hung up on him.  So we made the offer. Uh, and, uh, made it in good faith.  Does that placate you in any degree?"

"Not really, I'm sorry to say."

"Why not?"

"I think one phone call was made, yes, but (interrupted).

"We should have made 10?"

"Yes."

"This was an empowered..."

You get the idea.  They called the Obamessiah's campaign.  The man they spoke with, Ben LaBolt (or it could be LaVolt, it sounds like one one time and the other the other time, so I'm not exactly sure) demanded the name of the Programme Manager and then hung up. 

So you'll excuse me for saying this, but it really didn't sound like the Obamessiah's campaign had any intention of listening to what Mr Kurtz had to say.  And if the campaign really wanted to get "the facts" out, as they claim to, they would've had somebody on that programme so fast it would make your head spin.  And I guarantee you that they'd have done that, in spite of the Obamessiah's being at the convention.  If it was that important, they'd have made the time.

Instead, well.  We saw, didn't we?

Mr Olbermann, are you now ready to admit that people on the left, as Mr Cook has accused people on the right, have troops?

Mr Olbermann?

Anybody?

So let's review.  WGN did ask the Obamessiah's campaign for a representative to discuss and/or refute the facts presented by Mr Kurtz.  The person at the campaign, an empowered person in their communications department demanded the name of the Programme Manager and then hung up.  Tell me, how can you have a conversation with somebody who has hung up on you?

the Obamessiah.  Change we don't need.  Change we can't afford.

I, again, rest my case.

CELL PHONES and lack of manners.

First, a link:

http://video.aol.com/video/news-anchor-answers-phone-on-air/2209024?icid=200100397x1208104081x1200444495

Yes, a news anchor answered her cell phone on air.

I'll be brutally honest, since that what you've come to expect from me.  Yes, I own a cell phone.  And yes, I've used it before to make and take calls.  I've even, before I nearly lost control of the vehicle I was driving, used to talk on the phone while driving.  Since that time, I've become "anal" about not using the phone while driving.  My now-ex-wife will confirm that.  So will my friends.  Some of them will complain about it, too.

I've seen people on cell phones in supermarkets, in the corner store, driving, walking down the street, standing in line, in a restaurant, even talking on the phone while 'talking' with the cashier at a store.

What is wrong with you people?!?  Except for the driving bit after the near-crash and the talking while in line bit, I've done most of these things.  But to answer the cell phone on air?!?  Do your viewers mean that little to you??

Let me explain.  More than a year ago, while I was still married, my now-ex-wife and I went out to dinner.  There were four young people, all of whom appeared to be teens, on their cell phones.  They were all at the same table, and from the motions their hands were making, I was assuming that they were sending text messages (texting) other people.  It wasn't until I saw a girl snicker and point to a guy across the table and say "I can't believe you said that!" that I realized that they were texting each other.  And they were all at the same table.  True story.  Again, you may ask my now-ex-wife.

Then, a few months ago, I saw a young couple in their twenties having a quiet dinner together.  Whether they were actually 'together' or were simply friends, I have no way of knowing.  But the young man's phone rang, he answered, and then began an animated conversation with whoever was on the other end.  During this time my friends and I were having our quiet conversation, but I kept glancing at that young man and his companion.

It came to the point where I seriously expected that that young man would end up wearing what was on his plate.  I couldn't see his expression due to the angle but I could see hers and she was not happy.  Not a bit.  To be frank, I don't blame her. 

In my opinion, and I could be wrong on this, when you're out with a friend (or friends) and your phone rings and you keep up a conversation, you're telling whoever that you're out with that the person on the other end of the phone means more to you than they (the person(s)) do.  Again, that's my opinion.  It's as if you're saying "This call is really important to me, moreso than you are."

Granted, if it were an emergency call, that is far far different.  It's also different if the person on the other end is ill or really really needs to talk.  But there are far too many people out there that will pick up their cell phones and lay down their manners.  Usually, it seems, in the sewer.

Remember that young man out with the young woman?  From what I could tell of him (laughing and the motions that I was able to see) I would assume that it wasn't an emergency.  Nor, was it somebody in trouble.  He was, again in my opinion, telling the woman he was with that the call meant more to him than she did.  And although I'm not a fan of wasting food, I probably would have applauded her if she'd thrown hers (or his!) at him.  Again, in my opinion, he had it coming.

That one is right up there with talking on your cell phone while 'talking' to a cashier at the store.  You're saying the cashier doesn't matter.  And if you ask me, that's disgusting.

Again, to be honest, my cell has also rung while I was at dinner with friends.  Yes, I did answer it.  "Hi, (Joe) it's good to hear from you.  I'm sorry, but I'm out with friends right now and I don't want to be rude.  If it isn't an emergency, would you mind if I called you back?  Thanks.  Bye."

Now there are those that would say that my telling (Joe) that I was out with friends would be saying to Joe that they meant more to me than he did.  And they do have a point, right?  But I did ask him if it were an emergency and if it would be OK if I called him back (which I did.)  He took no offense.  I dare say he expected me to do what I did.

That also tells my friends that I was out with that they are important to me.  My asking (Joe) if it were an emergency tells them that he too is important to me.  (For the record, (Joe) is not his real name.  But the conversation did happen.

And, to be honest, I have been on the phone while waiting in line.  But when it came my time to pay for my purchases, I either ended the call or asked the person I was talking with if I could put the phone down for a moment.  That's just common courtesy, which doesn't seem all too common these days.

But for an anchor to answer her phone on air?  That's just wrong.  There's no other way to say that.  If you know you're going to be on air (yes, I know, that's one of those 'duh' statements) then you should also know that your phone could ring.  Either set it to vibrate, or put it some place else.  Seriously.

I do sometimes watch MSNBC and I do sometimes watch the show Morning Joe.  And though I do think that they're about to melt down, I haven't yet seen them answer their cell phones on air.  Granted, it could easily have happened when I wasn't watching.  I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, only that it hasn't while I was watching.  But somehow, I don't think it would.  Call me crazy, but it's just a gut feeling.

But this anchor did.  She answered her phone (that was NOT set to vibrate) on the air.  That's like telling your viewers "I know I've thanked you for watching, and I know I've said that you're important to me.  Now watch me as I lie to you and prove how little you really do mean."

My opinion only.  Your mileage may vary.

Wow. Is Barack Obama even eligible??

"OBAMA:  National Security Risk?"

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/20080823O

"Obama committed Fraud upon Plaintiff and the American Citizens by running for President claiming to be eligible knowing he was not eligible as a result of his failure to regain his United States Citizenship and by maintaining multi citizenships with Kenya and Indonesia."

There's part of it.  Um....OK. 

You won't find THAT in Obama's Media and their Cult of Personality.

The Vegetable Orchestra

I actually didn't know there was one.  But there is.  Go to http://www.vegetableorchestra.org/ which will redirect you to http://www.gemueseorchester.org/

I'm not making this up.  I'd never seen a cucumberophone before.

What Do the Obamessiah and the RIAA have in common?

(Entry edited at 18:14hrs on 28-AUG-2008 to correct spelling of lawsuits.)

First, a link to the article:  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_camp_Prosecute_Simmons.html

"It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution." (emphasis added)

Great.  Instead of launching your own advert putting out your side of the facts, lets shut up our detractors!  Let's sue 'em into the ground!  Do you think you're the RIAA now?  Remember (and this is off on a tangent, I know) when the RIAA said they were launching their lawsuits so that the artists would get fair compensation?  From Wikipedia: 

"In 1999, Stanley M. Glazier, a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "works made for hire," thereby stripping artists of their copyright interests and transferring those interests to their record labels.[15] Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which vigorously defended the change when it came to light. The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the Recording Artists' Coalition, which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change." (emphasis added)

Here's a link to that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riaa#Efforts_against_copyright_infringement

But it gets worse:  "In February 2008 it became known that the RIAA has been withholding roughly $400 million from artists for several years now. The RIAA gained the money through lawsuits claiming to defend the rights of artists, although none of the artists whose music was 'illegally' downloaded have received any of the settlement money.[49]" (emphasis added)

The link to THAT article is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_group_efforts_against_file_sharing#Criticism

They've sued dead people, people without computers, even suggested that somebody attend a community college rather seek an advanced degree so that the person could afford to pay the "penalty."

OK...now that we know that the RIAA doesn't give a you-know-what about the artists, let's turn our attention back to the Obamessiah. 

I thought the Obamessiah had to at least get into office before he could start acting like a dictator. 

""Having failed in its attempts to get our legal, factual and fully-supported ad off the air, Barack Obama's campaign now wants to put our donors in prison for exercising their right to free speech," said Ed Martin, the group's president. "These over-the-top bullying tactics are reminiscent of the kind of censorship one would see in a Stalinist dictatorship, with the only difference being that those guys generally had to wait until they were in power to throw people who disagreed with them into jail." "

Again, from http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0808/Obama_camp_Prosecute_Simmons.html

Let's throw all politicians AND everybody at the RIAA into prison.

MSNBC - No Longer Pretending to be Neutral?

First, a link to the article:  http://media.newsbusters.org/stories/scarborough-mocks-shuster-msnbc-for-no-bias-claims.html

"Tensions are running high at MSNBC, at least surrounding veteran host Joe Scarborough who seems to be increasingly discontented at his network's decision to market itself as the cable net of choice for Bush haters. That hasn't sat well with the likes of the far left Keith Olbermann who has played a large role in getting MSNBC to pursue this strategy"

First, we have the decision for MSNBC "...to market itself as the cable net of choice for Bush haters."  (Here I thought reporters were supposed to report the news without distortion or concealment?  I must've fallen into a parallel reality...)

And then, two children Shuster and Scarborough get into it on the air.

OK, kiddies.  Neutral corners.  You're supposed to be professionals, although professional what needs asking. 

Start acting like professionals or get your sorry selves off the air.

It really is that simple.

End of story.

Barack Obama and William Ayers

The advert that Barack Obama is mad about, and doesn't want shown.  His campaign even "warned" station managers and asked the Justice Department to investigate.

The advert, of course, found its way onto YouTube.  As of this writing, this link will retrieve the advert:  http://www.youtube.com/v/m89m0pC_bpY&#038

I can only find one thing wrong with the advert.  They state that "How much do you know about Barack Obama?  What does he really believe?  Consider this:  United 93 never hit the Capitol on 9/11."  United 93 didn't hit any structure.  It impacted in a field in Shanksville, PA during a passenger revolt. 

So while United 93 might have been aiming for either the White House or the Capitol (building?) it never got there, thanks to the brave passengers. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

 

But it does raise an interesting question, one that I think deserves answering.  Why would Barack Obama be friends with William Ayers, who remains proud about his group's bombing the Capitol?

"Hamas: Coming to a School Board Near You?"

"Exactly how did a known Hamas operative obtain an interview with and almost get appointed to the Columbus, Ohio Public School Board, which oversees one of the largest school districts in the country? And what does this incident tell us about the domestic terror threat and the process of radicalization happening right now in the US?"

Good question:  Go here for the answer:  http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hamas_on_board_the_school_boar/

Black Eye for the IOC

I think we need to come up with a few new words for IOC after their shameful display (or lack thereof) during these Games.

I (and others) have blogged about them on numerous sites, and I've been incorrectly credited with coining the term "Fauxlympics."  (For the record, I did not coin this term.)

But they are Fauxlympics and now with the IOC doing ... nothing ... it's the Farcelympics.

Here's a link:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_human_rights_2;_ylt=A0wNcxXTjaxI1.EAc3LfjOQA

""The Chinese government's own voluntary pledges to improve human rights, allow public protests and guarantee 'complete freedom to report' made meeting these self-set human rights benchmarks one of the tests for a successful Olympics," Minky Worden of Human Rights Watch said in an e-mail from New York. "That is a test that both Beijing and the IOC have failed." "

You sound surprised.  You shouldn't be.  Here's this one:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_as/oly_china_protests_7;_ylt=A0wNcxXTjaxI1.EAbXLfjOQA

It's the story about two elderly women (aged 77 and 79) who wanted to protest (and applied to protest) the loss of their homes.  They've been ordered to spend a year in a labour camp.  Just because they wanted to protest the loss of their homes.  They did apply to protest, according to the article.

But that doesn't matter to the Chinese.  ""China is riding roughshod over its promises to allow lawful protests during the games," said Nicholas Bequelin of the New York-based Human Rights Watch."

Really?  Took you this long to figure that one out, eh?

OK....time for a test.  I've been called "sick," "stupid," "just plain wrong," and a few other things that I won't post.  Since I'm these things and I knew that the Chinese wouldn't keep their word, what does that make you?

We're waiting...

Earth to IOC?  Are you there?  Do you care?  Hellooooooo.....

More Fauxlympic Coverage

This'll make you scream.  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/china/article4547323.ece

And then there's this one:  http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/18/asia/protest.php

"Still, he said, the International Olympic Committee should be held accountable for not pressing China on the issue. "The IOC seems oblivious to the fact that they're holding the Games in a repressive environment," he said."

No kidding.  Did you actually think the Chinese would allow demonstrations?  They're not about to show dissatisfaction.  They're not about to show anybody who is not towing the party line with a perfect smile on their face. 

Remember all those migrant workers (the same people that build the Bird's Nest and other buildings) being shipped out of Beijing? 

I think somebody on the IOC was on something when they selected Beijing.  And now they're (in my opinion) either on drugs, drunk, or just plain don't care. 

New word....the farcelympics. 

Barack Obama is NOT the Second Coming

First, a link to the article:  http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=5601700&page=1

And now, to quote from a sentence: 

"But Obama is scheduled to be in Virginia this Thursday, giving him a perfect moment in the days before the Democratic National Convention to anoint Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine as his running mate." (emphasis mine)

ANOINT?!?  I checked dictionary.com, just to be certain that the word hadn't changed meaning overnight.  It hadn't.  Here's that link:  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anoint

I loved #3)  "to consecrate or make sacred in a ceremony that includes the token applying of oil:  He anointed the new high priest."  (emphasis theirs.)

Great.  Michelle Malkin and others call Mr Obama the "Obamessiah," and "The One."  They do it sarcastically to draw attention to the cult of personality that has been created by the media.  Here's the Wikipedia entry:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_personality  It fits in with what the media's doing, doesn't it?

Remember reading in the American media how he was heckled at the Western Wall?  I didn't read it there...I read it in the Times of London!!  Here's THAT link:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4388078.ece

You're also not reading in the American media about how abortion was not above his pay grade in 2001.  Here's THAT link:  http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2008/08/18/obamabortion/

Get the idea yet?  The American media wants Mr Obama to be the next President.  Finally, perhaps, somebody in the media is waking up to that fact:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/15/AR2008081503100.html?sub=AR  This link discusses the type and amount of coverage between Mr Obama and Mr McCain.

"Numbers aren't everything in political coverage, butreaders deserve comparable coverage of the candidates." 

Too bad they're not getting it.

Michelle Malkin Sez...

I know...several moods in several different entries. :)  I'm not bipolar before anybody asks. :)

But I do read Ms. Malkin's site as well as Daily Kos and sometimes the Huffington Post.  Today, Ms. Malkin had this:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/08/15/cheating-chicoms-crouching-ioc/

Sounds like what I asked. :)  But she wrote it better than I could have.

The question, however, remains.  Now that it's achieving widespread coverage, what will the IOC do?  Probably nothing (still.)

They, like the United Nations, are worthless.  And yet the United States continues to waste our taxpayer dollars supporting these useless things. 

Once upon a time, the UN and the IOC might have actually meant something.  Now Russia is in Georgia (NOT the US state) and the Chinese have been caught redhanded four times in fakery. 

The UN ... does nothing.  The IOC does ... more nothing.

Except stand there and be useless.

Hell, I could do that.  Anybody want to pay me for sitting on my duff and doing absolutely nothing other than sit there and look really ugly?  Anybody?

Maybe I could form a dummy corporation, 'sell' a product that doesn't exist and then defraud the Government.  I'd get lots and lots of money then.  When (IF) I got caught I could claim I was a 'victim' and wait for somebody to bail me out.

Hey, it's the new American way.  Buy a home you knew you couldn't afford?  You're a victim!  It's not your fault. 

Hell, I could have done that, too.  I was making $36,000 a year with very few bills.  I could have easily bought a $250,000 house (was in fact approached numerous times about doing just that) at a rock-bottom interest rate and gotten the dream.

I said no.  The reason I said 'no' was because I knew I couldn't afford it.  I asked questions and listened to the answers that were provided.  I knew I couldn't afford it.  So I lost out on being a 'victim' due to being too smart. 

Mayhaps I'm still a victim?  I'm too smart take loans I can't afford, won't somebody save me?  Please?

Another Addition

I wrote a recent article about Russia's invasion of Georgia and wrote that the waitress asked how the Russians got over here. 

That wasn't a typo, as one of my readers emailed me.  The waitress did ask how the Russians got over here, and it wasn't until I explained to her that I was talking about the "other Georgia" that she understood.

Thank you for the question, and I apologize I didn't make that clearer.

Thanks for reading! :)

Nuclear Blackmail

If you remember, on 10-JUL-2008, I wrote about "Oil Blackmail."  You can find it here:  http://journals.aol.com/gregb1967/my-journey-my-journal/?page=3#Entry1396

And now, from the Drudge Report: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec3816b6-6a60-11dd-83e8-0000779fd18c.html  Let me show you the very first sentence:  "Moscow lashed out at Washington and Warsaw on Friday, saying the plan to site a US anti-missile defence shield in Poland would undermine the global balance of power and put Poland at risk of nuclear attack." (emphasis added)

DING, DING, DING, DING!!!!!  I remember reading through the multiple emails that told me that nuclear and oil blackmail didn't exist, that I was "crazy," "stupid," "insane," "...making shit up for your worthless journal..." and other things.

I rest my case.

Georgia (NOT the U.S. State)

I don't know if anybody saw it ... or cares, but there on the Drudge Report today was this headline:  "Bolton:  'US fiddled while Georgia burned'... ."

A direct link to that article is here:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2563260/John-Bolton-After-Russias-invasion-of-Georgia-what-now-for-the-West.html

That's a valid question, one which I would expect from Mr Bolton.  'What now?'

He said that our (the US's) actions match those of the "...very definition of a paper tiger."  And sadly for us ... he's right.

I was watching the news yesterday and ran across this:  One of the networks analysts said that the United States wouldn't go to war with Russia over Georgia.  He's also right.  But short of going to war, what can we do?

Mr Putin knew that the west wouldn't risk war over Georgia.  Make no mistake; this is not just my opinion, but also the opinion of many in the intelligence service (which I'm not, for the record.) 

But does anybody remember when Adolf Hitler 'only' wanted Austria?  This is the same thing.  Mr Putin knows that the other "stans" (the breakaway republics in that area) are now worried about what Russia will do ... and they've now seen that the United States, the West, and even the EU were willing to let it happen. 

Sadly, despite all the hollow talk, they are now truly on their own.

Do you think Mr Putin will stop there?  Perhaps for the moment, seeing that he's got from Georgia what he wanted.  He wanted a message to be sent to the other 'stans.'  And sent it was ... loud and clear.

Sadly, I also saw one of the anchors asking another analyst whether or not we're in a new Cold War.  She (the analyst) hesitated for a second and although I knew what she was about to say, her answer still chilled me.  She said two words "Not yet." (emphasis hers)

Not yet.

Most people reading this have only heard of the Cold War ... I lived through it.  I spoke with one of the waitresses about it when I took my parents to dinner last night.  She asked why Russia was in Georgia and how they got over here.

But there's also this little headline at the Drudge Report:  (which I had to access through the archives) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ayrpPV6nJ4Qk&refer=worldwide  The title?  "Russia may focus on Pro-U.S. Ukraine after Georgia (Update5)"

Cold War, anybody?

 

Fauxlympics

Now there's a somewhat new word...we've had fauxtography, and now we've got fauxlympics.

This is from Breitbart:  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080815053413.qvidog9b&show_article=1 The article states:  "If true, it would be the third high-profile faking incident of the ceremony, after it was revealed a girl was substituted as a singer because she was deemed too ugly, and supposedly live fireworks on the TV broadcast were pre-recorded."

Um...no, it'll be the fourth one. 

The first, of course, is the CGI editing of the Opening, where they used CGI graphics for the footprints.  That one, I might actually give them given the atrocious air quality.

Then, we had the little girl who lip-synched the song because the girl who actually DID sing it was deemed "too ugly" due to her buck teeth.  (As an aside, I wonder what they'd do to me.  Robert Redford I ain't.  They'd probably shoot me.)

As if that weren't enough, there's this:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_gym_underage_chinese "Just nine months before the Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government's news agency, Xinhua, reported that gymnast He Kexin was 13, which would have made her ineligible to be on the team that won a gold medal this week."

Oops. 

And now, we've got the "Ethnic Minority" children, who were all of the Han majority (90 per cent of Chinese are Han.)  This, despite the claim that the 56 children represented each of the ethnic identities. 

Another oops.  Oops...sorry, that's not two ... that's not three, that's four.  FOUR instances of fakery. 

And the IOC does ... not one damn thing. 

Just imagine, for example, the uproar if the United States had done that.  If we'd done just one instance of fakery.  Suppose it had been Greece committing the fakery during their wonderful and beautiful Opening Ceremonies.  I'll admit, I was in awe of those Ceremonies.  Now we've got four ... and the Games have only just started!!!  But since it's China, they get a free pass?

Am I the only person that smells something really wrong here?  I stopped watching the Fauxames after the Fauxopening.  I haven't watched since. 

But now, here's the fourth instance of fakery.  Hello, IOC?  Are you awake?  Do you care?

Helllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooo......  Earth to IOC.

Addition

A few days ago, I wrote about Hillary Clinton, and quoted from Morning Joe and from an interview with Chris Matthews. 

I got an email asking why I was worried...that they were only opinions in the newsroom.

Here's why:  These people are supposedly unbiased.  But they were actively booing the President.  Here's another reason ... let's assume that one of those people booing was a news anchor.  And let's assume that our hypothetical person slanted a certain news story about the President. 

Again, this is a hypothetical situation.  But is it just barely possible that one of them could have and might have slanted a story about the President?  After all, a great many people point to the now completely-discredited 60 Minutes story about the President's National Guard service as an attempt to influence the 2004 election!  (A Wikipedia article about it can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents  Another can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues And an article which covers what the CBS' "documents" "covered" is here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy)

They're supposed to be reporting the news without distortion or concealment.  And as I wrote before, there is a place for opinions ... the Op-ed pages.  Journals are also good places for opinions.  But for a reporter to interject his or her opinion into a story and then present it as fact is just wrong.  This happens to be my opinion, and the opinion of a great many others as well.

Apparently, it's not the opinion of some in the news media.  Instead of reporting the news, some of them are now creating it. 

And that's wrong.

Maureen Dowd writes about Hillary

On 10-JUL-2008, I wrote:  "There is a place for opinions, yes.  The Op-ed pages.  Personal blogs (or journals!) can also be good places for opinions."

Op-ed (or Op-Ed and even OpEd) is a combination of Opinion and Editorial.  Op-ed for short, just like pics is short for pictures and tix is short for tickets.  I really don't like 'pics' or 'tix,' however, and on my journal I'll not be using these shorthands.  There I go digressing already!

But the Op-ed page.  WOW.  This one is a real shocker.  http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/13/opinion/edowd.php

A few things, this is IHT or the International Herald Tribune, which is the Global edition of the New York Times.  The above link is to an Op-ed article.  And what an article it is.  This, my friends, is a real bombshell.  Another bombshell is the name of the writer of this article, Maureen Dowd. 

Ms. Dowd has been called a number of things, not one of which I'll print here, by her detractors.  I, myself, have questioned her motivation about a number of things she's written and have wondered more than once about if she injects her political views into her articles. 

But this article...all I can say is wow.  Ms. Dowd has, in my opinion, hit a great number of nails directly on their heads.  She couldn't have scored a better bulls-eye if she'd tried to.  And again, in my opinion, she's right on the money. 

If you remember, I wrote about one of the Democratic voters a while back saying "We just blew the election!"  I wrote that she might be right, and that for anybody to say they'd be more unified would be wrong. 

And now Ms. Dowd's bombshell.  All I can say is wow.  I know I've said that before, but ... wow.  She said that while Mr Obama was off doing other things, Hillary was busy planning "...her convention."  That's really telling. 

"You can almost hear her mind whirring: She's amazed at how easy it was to snatch Denver away from the Obama saps." (snip)  "Now they've made Barry's convention all about them - their dissatisfaction and revisionism and barely disguised desire to see him fail. Whatever insincere words of support the Clintons muster, their primal scream gets louder: He can't win! He can't close the deal! We told you so!" (emphasis added.)

That's about all I can use under Fair Use, but Ms. Dowd's article goes on in depth.  And what an article it is. 

I've already written about the article in the Atlantic about Ms. Clinton...about the backstabbing within her campaign.  And now this article. 

In my opinion, if Ms. Clinton couldn't correctly manage a campaign, just how is she going to correctly manage the United States?  Anybody?  And now she apparently wants to steal Mr Obama's moment from him.  Granted, I don't want either of them to be President (as I've written before) but still.  This is party "unity?" 

And people call me out of touch!

Ms. Dowd, I loved your Op-ed article.  My hat is off to you.

Hillary Clinton

A link to the article:  http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200809/hillary-clinton-campaign

Wow.  Talk about explosive.  "E-mails and memos—published here for the first time—reveal the backstabbing and conflicting strategies that produced an epic meltdown." (emphasis added.)  Remember me calling Hillary "Old $chool Wa$hington Politic$?"  The backstabbing was bad enough.  The temper tantrums were worse.

And then, this little gem:  "But as a journalistic exercise, the “campaign obit” is inherently flawed, reflecting the viewpoints of those closest to the press rather than empirical truth.

How did things look on the inside, as they unraveled?" (emphasis added.)

((Folks, we're not out of the first few paragraphs yet.)) 

That gem...reflecting the viewpoints of those closest to the press...  That says quite a bit, don't you think?  Remember me writing about the press and their viewpoints?  How they whitewash somethings and bring others out?

How about this, from Morning Joe:  "You have an editor who was actually 'outing' his own people.  The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned.  And of course that's bad." 

"And I gotta say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union Address in 2003.  And I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the President, basically from the beginning to the end."

This is our "unbiased" media?  That was from 16-AUG-2007 and you can find it on (where else?) YouTube.

I'll say it again ... unbiased media?  Really?  How about Chris Matthews?

11-JUN-2006:  "You know, over the weekend, Republican pollsters said that this is the worst political environment for Republicans since Watergate.  Yet it looks like there's some movement going on, so where do you think we stand?  (as he starts grinning)  Why are you smiling?" - female reporter asking Mr Matthews.

"Well, because I think it's gonna be a wipeout."  - Chris Matthews.

There is a reason I went off on this tangent.  The media wants BHO elected President.  Surely you've seen the accusations of the pro-Obama slant in the media?  Surely you've seen some of their slanted reporting?

And here are two more clear instances of anti-Republican feeling at the newsroom. 

No media bias?  And HRC's advisors reflected the feelings of those closest to the press rather than the truth.

Politics and media.  Strange bedfellows indeed.

 

Snooze Alert!

First, a link to the article:  http://townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson/2008/08/07/15_questions_rick_warren_should_ask_obama_and_mccain

Now for what Rev. Warren had to say:  “Since I’m their friend, I’m not going to give them any gotcha questions,” Mr. Warren said, adding that a typical query would be, “What’s the most difficult decision you’ve had to make, and how did you make it?”

Snooze alert.  'Gotcha' questions.  It's gonna be softball...no...T-ball. 

Granted, most of the questions that Mr Jackson would like to ask inclued homosexuality and abortion, but there are other things to ask.

Mr Candidate - do you believe in moral equivalence?  Is it OK to steal money if you do good with the money that is taken?  How about if you buy alcohol with it?

Mr Candidate - we know, from various polls, that many Americans do believe in moral equivalence.  Do you see this as a problem?  If so, why?  If not, why not?

Is it OK to plagarize? 

What are your plan(s) to fix the education system?  Give specifics.

What are your thoughts on 'unfunded mandates?'

Those are a few of the questions I'd ask...but given that this is CNN and given that Rev. Warren is a friend of both gentlemen, I expect the questions to be along the lines of "If blue were a number, what number would it be?" (which is an actual question from TERC Investigations.  (Honestly.))

I can safely say that I'll be doing something else while the snooze-fest is played out on CNN.  Pity, too.  They used to be the world's most important network.  And while I can now think of plenty of words to describe them, 'important' ain't one of 'em.  But in keeping with the "I"....  how about ... irrelevant? 

Republican Revolt

(Entry edited at 15:12hrs on 7-AUG-2008 to correct spelling of cojones.)

First, yes, I am groggy.  I had to take Benadryl because I'm out of Claritin.  So yes, I'm groggy.  Can you imagine me trying to drive in this condition?  *I* wouldn't want to be on the road with me.  Thankfully, I have nowhere to go today. 

Here's a link to an article:  http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=99463

“My message to Democratic lawmakers is this: if you’re really for increased American energy production, then prove it by putting it in writing.  Sign the discharge petitions House Republicans are circulating that will force votes on energy legislation Speaker Pelosi refuses to bring to the floor.

OK....something wrong here.  Mr Boehner missed a few things on this.  But he is a politician, so I expect him to miss a few things.  First, do you really seriously expect that other politicians in Ms. Pelosi's party are gonna have the cojones to stand up to her?!?  You know how powerful she is.  All you have to do is grow a pair and admit it.  They stand up to her and they'll be blacklisted in .00000000028 seconds.  They know it.  So do you.  Of course, you won't admit that you too are grandstanding.  Yet another example of politicians being out of touch with reality.

“This cynical strategy is disgustingly dishonest.  Without any real solutions to help Americans who are struggling with record-high gas prices, it appears the Democratic leadership has hit on a new plan: deceive.  Deceive the press, deceive its members, and deceive the American people.  Democratic members have a ‘pass’ from their leaders to talk about drilling at home, while the liberal Democratic leadership – which is beholden to special interests that want higher gas prices – plays ‘rope-a-dope’ back in Washington, ensuring there is no vote to help the American people before November.  It’s cynical, dishonest, and wrong – and it won’t work.”

1)  Strategy is dishonest.  Yes it is.  But we expect that from our politicians ... from both sides of the aisle.  I do wish the American People would wake up and vote everybody there out.  And out of a pension, too.  I do an honest day's work every day I'm at work and get paid a fraction of what you do.  Yet I've got more integrity in my toenail than you have in your entire body.

2)  Dem leadership has a new plan - deceive.  Son, this isn't a new plan.  This is what the Dems and Reps always do.  When they're not grandstanding.  You just noticed this now?  You really are out of touch.

3)  Dem leadership is beholden to special interests.  Well ... duh.  You, I take it, have never noticed how the ELF (Earth Liberation Front) votes?  Hell, the FBI lists them and the ALF (Animal Liberation Front) as "terrorist groups."  Oh, they also list them as "left-wing domestic groups."  Far far left.  But left.  ie - Democrat, since "right" is Republican.

Need I say more? 

Madam Speaker - Enough Politics

First, a link:  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12304.html

This is the one part of the article I'm going to quote:  "Pelosi’s gambit rests on one big assumption: that Democrats will own Washington after the election and will be able to craft a sweeping energy policy that is heavy on conservation and fuel alternatives while allowing for some new oil drilling."

In other words, politics as usual.  The name of the article should also give you pause - "At-risk Dems back drilling."  So if you're 'at-risk,' "go ahead and say what you need to to get re-elected.  Remember, we'll own Wa$hington after the election and can advance our agenda while ordinary Americans suffer."

No matter who wins - we lose.  I do believe that we really are screwed.

This is NOT What 911 is For

A link to the article is here:  http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92BL5FO0&show_article=1

42 year old Reginald Peterson called 911 because Subway didn't put sauce on his sub sandwich ... if you can believe that.

I remember hearing on Coast to Coast AM sometime back about a woman calling 911 because her hamburger hadn't been made 'correctly,' but I could never find it on the Web.  Well ... here's Mr Peterson.

Sometimes I think that I've seen it all ... and then something like this happens.  The article goes on to explain that the responding Officers tried to calm Mr Peterson down and explain the correct use of the 911 system.  When that failed, they arrested him for making false 911 calls. 

Paul Harvey Sez

NOTE:  Mr Harvey's website can be found here: http://www.paulharvey.com/

A link to the article I'll be referencing can be found here:  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,846386,00.html

I can't really quote the article because it's so short, but the gist is that the oil companies were collaborating to fix the petrol prices.  The oil bigwigs said that $1/gallon petrol was an "...economic impossibility."  Of course, now that we're close to $4/gallon (and actually were over $4/gallon recently) $1/gallon seems like a huge bargain.

But that's not the point.  Crude prices have fallen sharply over the last week or so.  But if you've noticed, the pump price hasn't kept up with the decline.  Wonder why?

If they were fixing the price then, is it possible that they're doing the same now?  How many lobbyists do they have in the Di$trict of Corruption?  We know that Mr Bush and Mr Cheney are basically in the oil companies pockets (they, of course deny this.)

But it really makes you wonder.  We know that the oil companies colluded to control the price of petrol back in 1923.  Are you absolutely certain that there isn't some funny business going on now? 

Note that I'm not saying there is.  I've no proof either way.  But with the price of crude dropping like a stone, why hasn't the price at the pump kept up with it?  Of course, the oil folks will trot out their same old excuses. 

Is anybody listening to them anymore?  We really need to get off of oil.

Oh, and Mr Harvey's "Rest of the Story" from today stated that the same report spoke about being beholden to foreign countries for oil.  That was in 1923, folks.  This is 2008.

We haven't learned a damn thing. 

"You've Come the Wrong Way, Baby."

Does anybody remember the Virginia Slims cigarette advert "You've Come a Long Way, Baby?"  The advert was from 1989.  Do a Google search for "You've Come a Long Way" and you'll be able to find photos from the print campaign.  (Sorry, but I don't have permission to post one here.  But you can easily find them.)

That's not the point, however.  The point is that the United States, trying to be "diverse" and politically correct, has come the wrong way.

This is gonna make your blood boil:  http://www.t-g.com/story/1449487.html

The title of the article?  "Tyson drops Labor Day holiday for Eid al-Fitr."

Judging from the comments on the site, many people are furious about this.  So am I.  But if you are, don't just boycott Tyson foods, write to them.  Use their website to let them know what you think.

Michelle Malkin wrote: "I have a feeling it won’t be long before CAIR comes knocking on his paper’s door."

Sadly, she's probably right.  In fact, I'd bet money on it.

Bob Brinker Sez More

It's been a while since my last post, and for that I do apologize.  I really haven't had the motivation to journal, although there have been plenty of things I could write about. 

I could start with the snot-nosed punk at a local grocery store who breezed past my father and said "excuse you," I could start with Little Manager Girl who didn't give an overweight rat's rectum, I could start with the surprised look on the little prick's face as I slammed him against the brick wall, I could start with taking his name tag off and snapping it in half, or I could start with the complaint I'm going to file with their home office first thing Monday. 

But they'll probably side with Little Manager Girl ... "he didn't mean to.  I'm sure he didn't do it on purpose."  Really?  So I was hearing things when the prick said "excuse you."  OK.  You'll excuse us as we don't shop there any more.  But I digress.

If little prick had done it to me ... hey; no harm no foul.  I expect snot nosed teens to have no idea about social politeness.  After all, their teachers were too busy teaching them proper sexual techniques and the global warming hysteria.  If he'd done it to me, I wouldn't have said a word.  But my father has enough trouble trying to walk on a level surface.  If little prick had bumped into him, my father would've gone down.  If he'd apologized, nothing that followed would've happened.

But he said "excuse you."  And then there was Little Manager Girl who was probably sucking on her momma's nipple during the first Gulf War.  Remember that one?  I do.

If you can't tell, I really don't expect much from the younger generation.  My problem is that they keep lowering the bar.  Just when I think they can't possibly get worse, something like this happens.  41 years old I may be, but I can still easily hold my own in a fight against two younger opponents.  I've been trained quite well.

But let's switch gears, shall we?

Today, we were listening to Bob Brinker again, since our local professional baseball team wasn't playing.  And believe it or not but they've actually started winning a few games.  But since they weren't playing, Mr. Brinker was on.

I've written about him before, and I'm not going to take him to task about his comments.  Like I wrote before, he's much more versed in financial matters than I am.  But he said a few things that I wanted to comment on.

He said that a Democrat some time ago had said that "GOP" stands for "Gas, Oil, and Plutonium."  The first two I might give you, given Mr. Bush's and Mr. Cheney's ties to oil, but plutonium? 

If that were true, we'd have a great many more nuclear power plants than we already do.  Mr. Brinker, and one of his callers, said that the lack of new nuclear plants was due to the Sierra Club (mentioned by name) and by "...crazies on the far-left."  I'd go further and say by crazies on both sides of the political divide. 

Nuclear plants can be very dangerous if not handled properly.  I won't deny that.  But it can also be handled safely if you treat the technology with respect.  Because just like the deck of a working carrier, there's nothing in that power plant that can't kill you.  John Burns learned that the hard way in 1961 when central control rod #9 shot up and impaled him on the ceiling of the reactor room.  (Source: Dr. Michio Kaku on Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell on 15-DEC-2003.) 

Louis Slotin turned a screwdriver too many times and created a preventable accident.  The article about him can be found here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin and be sure to read about Harry Daghlian, Jr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_K._Daghlian%2C_Jr. who also died in a preventable accident. 

So while nuclear power can be dangerous, if treated with respect it can be safe.  But some environmentalists, while blocking the building of nuclear plants, don't oppose the building of coal-fired plants.  Although I do understand their reasoning, it seems counter-intuitive. 

Mr. Brinker also said that he would wish President Bush would call the Congress back into emergency session.  You might've read about the 'revolt' by a handfull of Republicans who want to talk about the petrol prices.  The Democrats don't.  There's our two-party system for you.  One side opposes the other while we suffer.  And while I do wish the President would do this ... I'm virtually certain he won't.  As Mr. Brinker said, Mr. Bush already has "...one foot out the door..." with the other to follow in January.  Frankly, I don't expect much from Mr. Bush at this point.  I don't expect anything from any politician. 

And Ms. Pelosi, who had promised to make the last session of Congress the one with the least amount of pork ... well, it increased.  I've already written about that, too.

We've already known that politicians lie.

I just wish they didn't keep proving it to us.  We do get the point, pols.  You don't care about anything except yourselves.