My two hours of happiness

On a given night from Monday to Thursday, I watch The Colbert Report, Countdown with Keith Olbermann and The Daily Show in that order. On Fridays I just watch Keith who is my hero. Really, the man already was during his ESPN days but in the last few months, I've really come to love him.

Anyways, I bring this up because I watch Bill O'Reilly on occasion. Tonight, I found him awful. There was a case of an 8-year-old boy who called 911 to report his mother driving drunk. While I don't doubt that she may have been intoxicated, O'Reilly jumped to the conclusion that she is an addict. When it became known that the father was not in the picture, she became "trouble".

It's rare that I, a Libertarian, my father, a staunch Republican and my moderate mother all agreed that taking her kids away, even for a month was wrong. We all agreed that O'Reilly was making assumptions and jumping to conclusions. Both my mother and I brought up that the child could have damn well been exaggerating about his mother. Children know at the age of 12 months how to play the game and get shit. They aren't stupid! Not that I'm blaming the kid but are we getting to the era where a kid need only say anything they want to incriminate their parents or any other relative.

Bill O'Reilly likes to consider himself an objective journalist. Despite his lengthy education, he comes across as a narrow-minded ass. He'd advocate taking the children away which even my 20-year-old video gaming brother thought would only compound the problem. Moreover, children once placed in that system do not usually get back to their parents. So, Bill O'Reilly, someone who constantly sticks up for families and family values wants to break up one without knowing all the details or even letting due process take its course. Bill needs to get a clue. He also needs to get a brain with it. I'm not holding my breath.

Good Night and Good Luck!

Foot in Mouth for everyone

That's It!!!!!!

I say this with all impunity: no more Congressional comments on political activity. Not that there have been more really since the Moveon.org ad attacking General Petraeus. In fact that was ok. And there haven't been any more since....

All right, there was only the one. But repeatedly I see Congressional types and Senators get asked if Congress should make a call about the 12-year-old Bush critic that has been swift boated by the Right Wing blogosphere. But to be honest, this is still not the activity of congress. Let me explain.

Civics 101: You shoulda learned this shit in 9th grade.

There are three (3) branches to the US government. The Legislative, the Executive and the Judicial branches constitute the government at the federal level according to the constitution. The Legislature has the powers of the purse and the sword. This means they have the powers to declare war and raise taxes (Oddly enough, the big guy does not). They also have powers to create laws, enact bills, ad nauseam. In fact here are their powers:

The constitution of the United States of America (in congress assembled), Article !, Section 8. All the numbered statements would be called powers.

1)The aforementioned power of purse and sword (providing for common defense).
2)To borrow money on the credit of the US.
3)To regulate commerce with other nations, states and even Indian tribes (I guess this was before we threw them on reservations)
4)To establish rules of Naturalization and Bankruptcies.
5)To coin money and establish and fix weights and measures
6)To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting and something else I can't remember off the top off my head (Yes, I'm doing this off the top of my head!)
7)To establish post office and I think roads, too.
8)To further progress of Arts & Sciences (read: they should be helping PBS & NPR. And the National Endowment for the Arts!)
9)To create tribunals that are inferior to the Supreme Court (cuz its like Supreme. Who can be superior to them?!?!)
10)To define and punish piracies on the high seas
11)To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisals
12)To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years (what does that even mean?)
13)To provide and maintain a Navy (there are no restrictions on the Navy. Interesting, considering I'm ex-Navy, I like that)
14)To make rules for the government and regulations for land and naval forces
15)To provide for calling of militias and to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
16)To provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the said militia (does this include the Minutemen?). This one is long but I do believe there is a part that says they can erect forts, armories and dock-yards. Yes, it specifies dock-yards. Yes, one of the vaguest legal documents in history is specific about what Congress can build for the militias. Yes, dock-yard is written in your constitution. No, Jesus is not.
17)To make all laws which shall be necessary for proper for carrying into execution the aforementioned powers, all other powers the constitution decides to give to congress and the offices and yada yada yada...

No where in there does it say “To rebuke the press for printing things, even if they are crap and badly rhymed, that Congress assembled thinks is crap”.

Reasons Congress is pissing me off. First, As much as the moveon.org ad is wrong, I don't think Congress should take up precious tax subsidized time with. I, you and the kid who delivers your paper are paying for congress to sit around and tell people on the internets to not say crap because it makes them so mad.

Second, for Congress to take time to address every little prick on the Internet is just silly. The Internet is so full of shit, there is no toilet big enough to put it into. For such a respected body (if you believe such) to single out a little turd among the shitpile is disgusting. They have better and more important things to do like getting our troops out of misguided and badly planned wars. Oh, like the scales are falling from your eyes!!!

Third, its completely politically motivated and cannot convince a thinking American that politicians aren't just covering their collective asses. There is nothing like Congress saying “OMG, IMHO those fuckups!!!!!”

So, in the spirit of Congress who obviously has too little to do, I move for the following motion:

That both houses of the Congress of the United States shall not make negative nor positive remarks in congress assembled toward the media in its many forms and formats as well as free speech by any citizen of these United States. Furthermore, Congress is urged to restrain its spirit when making bills that exceed the powers of congress as stipulated in the Constitution of the United States.

My mother seconds the motion. Motion so moved and seconded.

All those in favor say Yea:

“Yea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

All those opposed say Nay:

[crickets in the galleries]

As the yeas outweigh the nays by 100%, the motion is resolved. Its now a bill. Mozel Tov.

Look I spent all that fucking time on this. I didn't even get to the juicy part about Ann Coulter making anti-semitic comments. I guess I can wait... no, I really can't.

For those of you who know me, you know that I think Ann Coulter is insufferable (I must be tired. There is no long string of obscenely large adjectives describing the acrimonious and repugnant spew that she calls her opinions... Oh wait...). Miss Coulter thinks her opinions matter. And despite the fact the woman is educated, she makes some really pathetic and poorly thought through comments like women should not be allowed to vote because they are stupid and have no knowledge of money. To be fair, she is just like any other political hack, Republican or otherwise, who thrives on name calling and insult mongering to sell books. For other people with actual shows and lets just be honest, jobs, they call it raising their ratings.

Ann Coulter appeared on CNBC “The Big Idea” with Donny Deutsch all the way back on Monday. But since I do not go out of my way to consume all things Coulter, I didn't hear of it till it came up on The Countdown with Keith Olberman ( I love you, Keith!), who is by the way on MSNBC, and yes, they are affiliated channels.

She made some rather anti-semitic comments but they were grounded in theology. Basically, she said that Christians want Jews to be perfected. She also used Seinfeld, a sitcom that went of the air 9 years ago as a reference for mixed race couples in New York City having chips on their shoulders. To think Ann Coulter bases her critique on modern urban society on Seinfeld boggles the mind. I think Jerry Seinfeld is weeping somewhere.

I enclose the following transcript in my already overly long post. I actually procured this from Fox News. See they aren't all bad.

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your — forget that any of them —
COULTER: I like this.
DEUTSCH: — are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's — with abortion — what would this country look like?
COULTER: UMMMMM (pause) ... It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.
DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?
COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, no, but I'm talking about this country. You don't want to make this country — it's not about Republicans. I'm saying, what would the fabric of this country look like? Forget that the Republicans would be running the show.
COULTER: Well, everyone would root for America, the Democratic Party would look like Joe Lieberman, the Republican Party would look like Duncan Hunter —
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, I don't want — I'm not talking about politically the landscape. What would our — would we be safer? Would people be happier? Would they be more —
COULTER: We would be a lot safer.
DEUTSCH: Would there be more tolerance? Would there be — would women be happier, would the races get along better? The Ann Coulter subscription — prescription. What — tell me what would be different in our fabric of country, because —
COULTER: Well, all of those things.
DEUTSCH: I can give — I can give you an argument there would be more divisiveness, that there would be more hate —
COULTER: Oh, no.
DEUTSCH: That there would be a bigger difference between the rich and the poor, a lot of other — tell me what — why this would be a better world? Let's give you — I'm going to give you — say this is your show.
COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they —
DEUTSCH: Christian — so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?
COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?
DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?
COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am. That's not true. I really am. But — so we would be better if we were — if people — if there were no Jews, no Buddhists —
COULTER: Whenever I'm harangued by —
DEUTSCH: — in this country? You can't believe that.
COULTER: — you know, liberals on diversity —
DEUTSCH: Here you go again.
COULTER: No, it's true. I give all of these speeches at megachurches across America, and the one thing that's really striking about it is how utterly, completely diverse they are, and completely unself-consciously. You walk past a mixed-race couple in New York, and it's like they have a chip on their shoulder. They're just waiting for somebody to say something, as if anybody would. And —
DEUTSCH: I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that at all. Maybe you have the chip looking at them. I see a lot of interracial couples, and I don't see any more or less chips there either way. That's erroneous.
COULTER: No. In fact, there was an entire "Seinfeld" episode about Elaine and her boyfriend dating because they wanted to be a mixed-race couple, so you're lying.
DEUTSCH: Oh, because of some "Seinfeld" episode? OK.
COULTER: But yeah, I think that's reflective of what's going on in the culture, but it is completely striking that at these huge megachurches — the idea that, you know, the more Christian you are, the less tolerant you would be is preposterous.
DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not — we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or —
COULTER: Yeah.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.
DEUTSCH: Really?
COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.
COULTER: Yes.
DEUTSCH: You can't possibly — you're too educated, you can't — you're like my friend in —
COULTER: Do you know what Christianity is? We believe your religion, but you have to obey.
DEUTSCH: No, no, no, but I mean —
COULTER: We have the fast-track program.
DEUTSCH: Why don't I put you with the head of Iran? I mean, come on. You can't believe that.
COULTER: The head of Iran is not a Christian.
DEUTSCH: No, but in fact, "Let's wipe Israel" —
COULTER: I don't know if you've been paying attention.
DEUTSCH: "Let's wipe Israel off the earth." I mean, what, no Jews?
COULTER: No, we think — we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?
COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners —
DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued — when you say something absurd like that, there's no —
COULTER: What's absurd?
DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself —
COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.
DEUTSCH: Ann Coulter, author of "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," and if Ann Coulter had any brains, she would not say Jews need to be perfected. I'm offended by that personally. And we'll have more "Big Idea" when we come back.
(BREAK)
DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?
COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe — this is just a statement of what the New Testament is — is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.
DEUTSCH: You said — your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.
COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.
DEUTSCH: But that's what you said — don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic —
COULTER: No!
DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?
COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.
DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK —
COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.
DEUTSCH: We will let the audience decide then, won't we? Ann Coulter. New book. More "Big Idea" straight ahead.

She would have been better of by just going “Hm.... foot”. Ha! A quote I got from Friends no less. To be honest, she is stating what many Christian Evangelicals believe. Many will deny it and for the most part it is not ill-intentioned. They have a mission to save as many souls as they possibly can. I have no idea. I was raised Catholic. We believe in Good Works and that Judgment is reserved for God and God alone. We also said we weren't going to try to convert the Jews anymore. We weren't even going there. If anything we want to become one of the Righteous among the Nations.

So, all Ann did was present the side of Evangelical thought that is for the most part frightening. She mentioned Jerry Falwell and he probably would have rooted her on. He had some beliefs about the Jews and Israel, particularly that if there were an Israel and it conquered the Middle East, Rapture's gonna come. If it does, I got dibs on the car.

I want to point out how difficult it is for her to not base things in political terms. She has to keep everything politics. Does she consider politics when changing lanes.

Just for the hell of it, here's the YouTube entry for this. It must be seen!!!



For the love of all things good and American, someone help her!!!!!

Other news. The mercenary company Blackwater, Inc. is being sued in a US court. Well, ain't that dandy! A Philadelphia firm filed a lawsuit against the company for committing murder on behalf of the families of the men who died. The Iraqi government contends that the 17 men killed on September 16th died by “premeditated murder”. The company is usually contracted to protect US diplomats traveling through Iraq. They claim the convoy they were protecting came into danger. There has been no evidence to back this up and an investigation by both the US and Iraqi government is underway.

And the final thing I'm commenting on should have been the first. A bill has passed the the House Foreign Affairs committee with a vote of 27-21. This bill calls the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians by Turkey, then the Ottoman Empire, during World War I, genocide. Turkey does cop to it but calls it a massacre.

This has not gone to the full house floor and may in fact, do so Friday. It has gone through committee before but never gone to the floor. If this gets passed, there may well be very shaky relations for the United States and Turkey ahead. We keep discouraging Turkey's desire to move into Northern Iraq to quash the Kurdish communities there. They shouldn't anyway. It'd be an act of war, boneheads! Secondly, they've obviously slaughtered enough.

Turkey has recalled its US ambassador and there have been protests in the streets of Istanbul. Come on. Just forget about it like you did the Armenians. I mean this is pretty insensitive of Turkey I might add. Not to mention, nobody cares. Look how quickly they stopped talking about Myanmar or Burma. And they really have a gripe!

Not to mention, its or legislature. Not yours or the United Nations. We can say the sky is green. Does that make it true? I'm not saying that we do or that the Armenian genocide did not happen but protesting something that could be so insignificant looks like you're fishing for some excuse to act torked or it really happened and you're in denial.

OK, thats it. No “on this day” segment. I'm wiped. Have a good night y'all!

The Reaction to Bill Clinton: Retorts and...Socks?

Let me preface this post with a comment: I rant at times. Sometimes for great length. I did not go too long in this post. I started out nice and calm but as I wrote more and more, I began to seethe till finally, I exploded in a torrent of anger and insanity focused on the actions of my government. I do not apologize because I'm exercising my first amendment right to free speech. I honestly don't think its that bad but... whatever.

**********************************************************************

I did say I'd find the links to the video of the interview. They are in fact on YouTube. Its in three parts and can be found at these links: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

Onwards to the reaction to Clinton.

I know my appreciation for CNN knows no bounds. I can't help it. It was ingrained in me as a child because my parents loved the news and it was the only 24 hour news network there was. They invented the damned thing. I also loved that James Earl Jones ident that you never hear anymore. The only other channel we watched as much was the Weather Channel! Well, in the last 24 hours or so (except for some of 360 last night), I've watched the "others". I wanted to see how Fox and not to mention MSNBC, ABC, and CBS would cover the Clinton interview. I know what Coop said about it last night and that was good enough for me as far as CNN was concerned. I loved it on 360 last night when they revealed this regarding Clinton: "Spokesman Tony Snow, a former FOX News commentator quipped, 'He retorts, you decide.'" Excellant! A "Rush" transcript of 360 can be read here. To Anderson Cooper's credit, he reported the news with nothing in the way of opinion and interviewed numerous people from different schools of thought. That's why I love Anderson!

Earlier in the day, I watched Good Morning America. Diane Sawyer had Bill O'Reilly on to discuss the recently broadcast Bill Clinton interview we all love to analyse to death. He was milder than he normally is. I can only guess it was because it wasn't his show, he wasn't in charge and its Dame Diane Sawyer, a real Lady of Journalism. He said that Clinton as well as many in the current administration such as the hated 4: Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld. Not to bring me back to Cooper but it reminded me of the spinning going on a year ago about Katrina. Mary Landrieu said people were frustrated. People aren't frustrated! People are dying!!! Those people are our servicmen and women! Whatever...

I watched Keith Olbermann and his Countdown over on MSNBC. I like Olbermann and I wish he wasn't on MSNBC which I forget about half the time because its on channel 70 and all the other news channels are clustered together in the 30's. "The Dirty Thirties!" ...Anyway. Olbermann devoted quite a large chunk of his show to an editorial. He pointed out that Clinton's "tear" during the interivew on Fox opened up a lot of doors, not to mention windows, doggie doors, escape hatches and bunker seals to run around and scream at the current administration for their ineptitude and inane stupidity. He also claimed that it was a wake-up call to the media as a whole. That they need no longer swig from the bottle of booze known as Stooge. They could now start ripping down the sets that Bush and his administration built. Olbermann went for quite some time on his own "tear" toward Bush and his administration. So much so I almost jumped up and applauded. I didn't but I shed a tear or ten. Its nice to see the press finally get a spine back. His editorial can (and should) be read here.

This morning on MSNBC, they were still going on about this interview but now they were splitting hairs. An anchorwoman on MSNBC was discussing with two men about Clinton showing a little leg. Apparently, his socks were too low and his pants were too high. Couldn't someone tell him "to pull down his pants?" Oh yeah, that was brilliant! I was astounded that they would devote any more time than 10 seconds mentioning Clinton's wardrobe malfunction.

Ok... things are getting absurd. Maybe they were to begin with. Now, there is talk of pre-planning (isn't planning already pre-whatever? That's like pre-early. "I wanted to beat you here so I got here pre-early") on both sides. Did Wallace plan on brow-beating Clinton to deflect criticsm of Murdoch getting cozy with Clinton and his initiatives? Did Clinton plan on ripping Wallace a new asshole on the GOP leaning Fox news? One may believe that both are correct statements. Fox did need to make an effort to offset the potentially troubling coupling. Dems need help for the election in 5-6 weeks. Leaking parts of the National Intelligence Estimate isn't enough. (Which if you don't know about that, lord, help you!)

Was Wallace even smirking? His colleagues all jokingly told him "just don't smirk!" And Clinton's finger wagging... well, the last time he did that was in fact when he told us he didn't have sexual relations with Monica.

Take this how you want to. There's spinning on either side. Case in point: Condaleeza Rice has come out today to talk about Clinton's claims that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel its first 8 months. "The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false - and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," she said in interview with many staff members of the New York Post. She also mentioned "we were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida" contradictory to Clinton's assertion that he did. The same article ends with Hillary, always defending her husband, saying "I just think that my husband did a great job in demonstrating that Democrats are not going to take this." And, in fact, it is likely they won't take any of this any more.

But before I declare the Democrats awake and out of torpor, I must briefly mention that many of these people went along with every brazen and emboldened thing Bush could think up to ruin this country. Why? Fear be damned, its politics! The Politics of Fear, in fact, a strategy most usefully employed by lords and kings in the feudal era. That was when "Might makes Right" was the slogan of the day. The Bush administration continues to use fear as a political tool to keep the left doing their bidding, the media reporting what he says they can and the American people as a whole sweating and re-electing. He keeps us scared for his own ends. And we are turning into the country we swore we never would, that we wouldn't be terrorized by terrorists. But we are! We are scared because of our privacy isn't, our rights are infringed, we can't bring liquids on airplanes, there's anthrax in the air and e. coli on our spinach (Ok, the last one isn't related but whatever...). They keep asking if Americans feel safer now and the answer is no!!! How could we be? And how can we feel safer with a government that reveals nothing? Even if al-Quada didn't exist, I'd still be scared becuase my government is frightening!!!

So, our government still runs on the medieval idea of whomever has the ability to kill more must be the best. In a WWE smackdown, sure! But this is Global Politics and we are a democracy. Conflict should never be settled with bombs and bullets but debate and discourse. I'm hoping Bill Clinton opened the flood gates for the Democratic Party. I hope they launch into scathing attacks of not only the failings of the current administration but also the lies, the deception and the stupid strategies employed by nitwits who can't win either war we're in. I hope...

And if I sounded crazed and Clinton looked crazed its because we are. Fox did itself a disservice by advertising the crazed Clinton. Anyone would be crazed at this day and year for all the shit we see happening. I feel as though I'm living in Nazi Germany before the war: I'm watching the beacon on the hill become the cesspool in the sewer. And I just can't take it anymore!!!!!

There are too many things to bitch about. I'm done. There is nothing else to say. Whatever...