Enough Already! W/ Signs That We Are In No Economic Recovery At All, Obama & The Dems Continue to Focus on Their Massive, Unpopular Health Care Bill.

Today House Speaker Pelosi indicates that they want to continue to focus on their health care legislation over the next 6 weeks. Nothing overly surprising there: I've always maintained that if you've watched how these far left progressives have conducted themselves over the past year, you'd know that their health care aspirations would not go away easily, even after the breaking up of their supermajority in the Senate with Scott Brown's election. They just can't let go, regardless of the continued unpopularity of this legislation throughout the country. They know best for us. We don't. That's the far left world view. And perhaps it might be a bit more tolerable at present if only we didn't have so many other much more pressing issues facing the country right now. I know that Independents are paying attention to this continued silliness by the progressive-controlled dem party. Those same Independents are going to be having some real fun come this fall's elections, I predict.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce7b18ff74d1dcc6be3181f05e48255b.151&show_article=1

56% of Americans Think Federal Government Poses a Threat to the Rights of Americans. Where's the Shock?

...that according to a new CNN poll (link below). Drudge describes this poll result as a "shock." But why? It's no shock. Not when you have people like Obama's "diversity czar" Mark Lloyd (who has previously expressed admiration for the way Hugo Chavez has controlled the Venezuelan media) running around the FCC. Not when you have a White House that encourages the public to report any person who has a "fishy" opinion concerning health care reform. Not when you have a ruling party that seems dead-set on ramming through massive health care legislation through procedural gimmicks despite the legislation being overwelmingly unpopular with the American people. And of course, I could go on and on, but I'll spare you. Suffice it to say, I haven't been calling these Scary Days for nothing the last several months.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/26/cnn-poll-majority-says-government-a-threat-to-citizens-rights/?fbid=0CPSEH9AB0v

"Obama Rejects Cries of 'Socialism'." Me: I Wouldn't Call Him a Socialist, Per Se -- But Same Difference?

It's very entertaining to observe the far left and far right and how they spend so much of their every day trying to toss labels and insults at the other side, while at the same time spending just as much time trying to defend against the same mindless little labels and insults foisted upon them by the opposite side. I just laugh. (And they think I'm the uneducated, ignorant and infirm one over here since I'm an Independent! -- but I digress).

In the history of this blog, as much as I have been so often critical of Obama and his world view and policies, I think there was only one time when I, in a fit of rage about something I'd heard that Obama wanted to advance, labeled the idea as "socialist". (I believe my blog headline was something like, "Goodbye America, Hello Socialism" (a take-off on the old song, "Goodbye My Darlin', Hello Vietnam," which runs over the opening credits of the movie "Full Metal Jacket")). And sure enough, the left (including my annoying little left friend Draconem -- that dude is always gettin' me mad!) crawled right out of the woodwork to decry such a moniker being placed at Obama's feet.

And for the record: I would not call Obama a "socialist," because I don't think his world view fits the letter of that term. That term commonly connotes a philosophy of the government taking over most all or all of the means and modes of production of a particular country and society. I wouldn't accuse Obama and all of his radical-leftist-progressive friends of wanting to go quite that far. But they damn sure want to "take advantage of a good crisis" (Obama right-hand-man Rahm Emanuel's words) in order to try to grow the scale of the federal government just as far and as big as they can ram-rod through the house and senate and right down our throats.

Anyone believing anything else is a fool. You know what really gets my goat about the far left and far right? They will always deny that which is obvious that they want to accomplish, such as that which I just stated above concerning the progressive agenda to increase the size of the federal government in our everyday lives just as big and huge as they can force it. Hey Radicals!: If any of you goofs would EVER, JUST FOR ONCE, ADMIT the truth concerning the goals that you seek to accomplish, I would actually give you freaks an ounce of respect for just being honest for a change! But that'll never happen (them being honest, that is)!

http://www.cnbc.com/id/35564308

Reconciliation: The Big Bluff?

You know, from a party full of politician leaders who are incessantly disingenuous and oftentimes just downright dishonest (not that they aren't just as many slimeballs in the repub party), I asked myself this question today: "Self, why do you typically distrust everything that this democrat party has to say, but yet you take it at face value when it comes to their threats, such as the nuclear option/reconciliation"? And the more I read and hear on the issue, I'm thinking reconciliation (i.e. the threat of ramming a massive health care bill through the Senate with only 51 votes) may well be little more than an idle threat.

I know, I know -- I've previously thought these radical-leftist-progressive-controlled dems would do anything necessary to ram through a huge health care bill, but I'm starting to think that the completely drastic measure of reconciliation is a "Bridge Too Far" that even the dems do not intend to try to cross. I think they may well be bluffing, with an aim towards bringing onboard a moderate republican or two (such that reconciliation would not be necessary) with minimal concessions to said moderate republican(s) in terms of the language of the bill.

I'm starting to think this for at least a couple of reasons: (1) Trying to ram this huge monstrosity through using reconciliation would be, based upon what I have read, a huge procedural nightmare based upon all the procedural roadblocks that repubs would be able to throw up; and (2) If Obama & The Dems have the unmitigated audacity to use such an obscure procedural mechanism (typically only used for budget-related matters) to ram through the most wide-sweeping legislation in 45 years against the clear will of The People (who overwelmingly oppose this legislation), it will be a disaster for the democrat party this fall of nearly Biblical proportions.

So my current money is on "BLUFF". That would also explain the leaks 4-6 weeks ago to the likes of Dick Morris (why would ANY DEM ever leak anything to him?) that reconciliation had been agreed upon by Obama/Pelosi/Reid as an option: Such leaks were probably calculated to have the reconciliation idea/threat out there for a number of weeks in order to give the Bluff more credibility down the road. Could I be completely off-base here? Absolutely. I'm just trying to guess the probabilities.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6235624.shtml

Oh My! The Far Right Must Be SEETHING Tonight! Scott Brown to Vote FOR the Dems' New Stimulus/Jobs Bill!

As I said the night Brown captured the hearts of Massachusetts Independents and won senatorial election there Against All Odds, very little is still known about this dude -- We'll have to see how he acts in the years to come in the Senate. He's already committed to voting against Obama & The Dems' massive, unpopular health care bill. That's the correct side (as far as I'm concerned). Today he agrees, along with 5 or so other repub senators, to vote with the dems on this current New Stimulus/Jobs bill.

Off-hand opinion: I like the Independence he's exhibiting (and it's hilarious how Drudge has this as tonight's headline -- like I said, the right-wingers have to be Pi$$ed tonight!, and BTW, if you've read this space for even a week, you'll know that I love when either the right-wingers or the radical far left progressive-controlled dems are pi$$ed about anything -- It's hilarious, But I digress). So, I say "off-hand" opinion because frankly, I have not studied this New Stimulus/Jobs bill to any great degree, although it does seem to be very scaled-back legislation cost-wise and, completely unlike the massive First Obama Stimulus bill (which primarily was loaded with earmarks and pork for lawmakers in both parties), the current bill seems actually aimed at creating new jobs (BTW, why wasn't this the focus from Day 1 from Obama & The Dems? -- not that it's their focus even now, as they continue to focus on unpopular health care legislation).

Anyway, from what I have read, and like I said, it has not been intensive, I have not seen a credible basis to oppose this current New Stimulus/Jobs bill. If anything, repubs seem mainly to oppose it out of spite, since that slimeball Harry Reid unilaterally took off the table a prior version of this bill that certain repubs had invested some serious time in trying to negotiate. Nevertheless, spite should not be a reason for making substantive decisions as to whether to give a yea or neah on a piece of legislation. Bottom line: I do not have a credible basis to say this bill should be rejected and, based on that premise, Scott Brown appears again to be on the correct side of things here. Good start so far for him.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2221899520100222

Some Reassuring Words From an Unlikely Source.

As an Independent who does not like to see the country being driven towards either the far left or far right, and who is scared to death when either side/party has too much unfettered power in Washington, the past year has consisted of very Scary Days in my opinion. And even now, after the recent election results in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia, Obama & the Dems seem as dead-set as ever to ram through their desired ultra-liberal pieces of massive federal legislation, such as the widely unpopular health care bill. To me, it's at times a feeling of almost complete helplessness watching this stuff going on in Washington. But today I noticed the closing sentences from an early-February column of conservative Charles Krauthammer. He may be a dyed in the wool conservative, but I think he realizes also that this has always been a centrist country. Such realization was exhibited in those closing words, which I found to provide just an ounce of reassurance during these dark times:

"No matter how far the ideological pendulum swings in the short term, in the end the bedrock common sense of the American people will prevail. The ankle-dwelling populace pushes back. It recenters. It renormalizes. Even in Massachusetts."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403623.html

U-S-A! U-S-A! The Americans Shock Canada Tonight 5-3 in Winter Olympics Ice Hockey.

Obviously, this is NOT an upset on quite the same level as 1980's Miracle on Ice, which might have been the biggest upset (actually, it was a couple of upsets) in the history of sport, at least not with the current American squad playing with a roster full of NHL players (as opposed to college kids playing against NHL-caliber players in 1980 from the Cold War era Soviet Union). But that being said, as the announcers noted tonight, the American team may consist of NHL guys, but "only a handful of them are recognizable NHL players." In contrast, Canada's team (also consisting entirely of NHL players) has been described as a veritable All-Star team of NHL guys. AND, tonight's game was played in Canada, which held a huge home ice advantage in this one. Bottom line: Canada was heavily favored here, the US has not beaten Canada in Olympic hockey EVER to my knowledge (or least not in many, many decades), and this was a HUGE upset. I only caught the third period, and it was extremely exciting. Great win. But this is only the preliminary round. Plenty of hockey left to play.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/olympics/2010/02/21/usa.canada.blog/index.html?eref=sihp

Colin Powell Blames the Dumb American People for Obama's Woes This Weekend.

Multiple-time political turncoat Colin Powell indicates this weekend that we're not capable of "getting" everything that Obama's been trying to do, spouting: "I'm afraid he (Obama) put too much on the plate for the American people to absorb at one time."

Sorry, General, but I would beg to differ. Not only are the American people perfectly capable of understanding the policies and initiatives that Obama has been pushing, we have understood and "absorbed" them just fine. And that's why your man's poll numbers have been in the tank, and it's why Independents have been running away from him faster than you run to a new party every 10 years or so. Or you can just blame it on a "dumb America" that supposedly needs your current party to think for it and take care of it. Whatever floats your boat, turncoat.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0210/Powell_doesnt_regret_Obama_vote_.html?showall

Hey Obama&Dems: Don't You DARE Try to Force Me To Give Some Portion of My IRA to You In Exchange for "Annuity Payment Streams"! Because I WON'T!

My God. I'm just getting wind of this after listening to the MarketWatch radio show this afternoon. The linked item also discusses it. As I understand it, Obama's Treasury and Labor Departments want to implement regulations that would require people with existing IRA's and 401K plans to "invest" with (i.e. relinquish to) the goverment substantial portions of the monies already contained within those plans. Cutting right to the chase here, folks, the Obama and his minions want to seize your retirement funds so that the federal government can use them as it sees fit, and in exchange the government will pay you some unspecified monthly "steady annuity payment stream."

This is outrageous. And I will not abide if this becomes law. I will not permit the federal government to tell me how I have to use and invest my retirement funds so that it can receive the full time value of my money and just pat me on the head with some monthly annuity payment. This would not be some voluntary program, folks, but would be all-the-way mandatory. Something like is purely un-American, I'm sorry. I don't much care for sounding like one of those damn republicans, but this, if it becomes law, is un-American.

So, what's to be done? Fortunately, there is time for all of us to make our voices heard, whether that be calling your federal lawmakers, making noise on the Internet, etc. Obama's plan is about to enter a public comment period before any such new regulations would be implemented. Let's make some noise, people!

http://www.taipanpublishinggroup.com/news-0129103.html

Dems To Try to Ram Through Massive Health Care Bill? Stop The Press! That's Exactly What I've Said They Would Try Since Scott Brown's Election.

It's hilarious that Drudge headlines with this tonight, when it's been pretty clear for weeks that Dems would use the "nuclear option" (51 votes in the Senate) to shove some massive and highly unpopular health care bill that no one's read right down our throats (including a public option intended to ultimately achieve a single payer, government-controlled health care system).  As I commented around the time of Brown's election -- No way do I buy that this radical-progressive-controlled democrat party would simply abandon their massive bill without making every possible effort to shove it right up our asses (I can use a bit more language like that, BTW, now that I've returned to The Underground -- Sweet Feeling!). 

So now that it's clear to just about everyone what the dems are going to try, will they be successful?  That's much more of an open issue, but the sad thing is, methinks it's more likely than not that they will be.  I'm not exactly what you'd call a religious man, but maybe I oughta start praying.  Because as often discussed in this space, I'm convinced that what the dems are trying to accomplish through this massive monstosity of a bill is nothing good for this wonderful country -- but don't take my word:  I think the 60-65% of the American population who opposes this bullshit bill is a pretty damn good indication.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100219/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare1

"He Had a Foolproof Scheme, Not Very Scientific, But It Worked. When He Won, He Collected. When He Lost, He Told The Bookies to Go F*ck Themselves."

That's a quote from one of my favorite movies, "Casino," and seemed very appropriate given a certain item in today's news: Current Las Vegas Mayor, longtime prominent Vegas attorney, and actor in the movie Casino -- Oscar Goodman (first pic above; he's the one in the center) -- todays tells Obama to go F*ck himself, expressly rejecting Obama's official request today to meet with Goodman.

See, Obama is out in Vegas to try to campaign for Senate majority leader Harry Reid (Obama campaigning for anyone has very recently been an almost certain kiss of death, BTW). So Obama wanted a sit down with Vegas Mayor Goodman to start things off. Goodman, however, recalling Obama's repeated preachings over the past year that admonished Americans not to blow money on a weekend in Vegas, told Obama today that there will be no sit down meeting unless and until Obama apologizes for his previous comments disparaging any individual who has the free desire to go to Vegas for a weekend (can't have that, after all, right Obama?) -- see link below.

Goodman, BTW, is a man after my own heart -- Previously representing very unpopular defendants in courts of law and previously aligning himself more with the dems but is now a declared Independent. You Rage, Mr. Mayor!

(Postscript: Ironically, Harry Reid is also portrayed in the movie Casino, from his younger years as a state senator in Nevada. One of the Smothers Brothers plays him, and strikingly well. The Reid character is the politician seen in the movie taking kickbacks and free ladies from DeNiro's casino in the first third of the movie. Goodman's character, BTW, is DeNiro's character's attorney in the movie.)

http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=11996202

"Palin to Tea Parties: Pick a Party." Rager To Palin: Pick a Lake, and Then Go Jump In It.

First of all, Palin telling tea partiers to pick a party with whom to be affiliated is the height of absurdity. The tea partiers are, simply put, a conservative movement, and thus they are already republicans (even if they claim they aren't) whose main calling card is that they are republicans who really hate moderate republicans and feel like they will call themselves "independent" (which they are not) until the republican party forcibly kicks to the curb every single republican moderate nationwide. Folks, that's what the tea partiers are all about. And it's pathetic. (As I've said 1000 times in this space, these two TEENY TINY LITTLE SMALL TENT parties have NO PLACE for me or you unless we are also radical extremists like the people who control those 2 parties -- otherwise, you are to be LOATHED, HATED, AND EX-COMMUNICATED. Period.)

But I digress. The main reason for telling Big Hottie (because she IS HOT) to go jump in a lake somewhere is as follows: Why in the hell would I ever purport to "pick" or join either of these 2 parties? For what reason? What reason have they ever given me?!? These are two parties who represent virtually no one in the country. They represent little streaks, and little lines, and little swaths of radical right-wingers and radical progressives. At least 60-65% of the country is not represented by either of these parties in any way, shape or form. So you say that I need to pick a side and pick a party, Ms. Palin? Sorry. But I have to decline your ultimatum. Because it will be a cold day in hell before this true Independent ever aligns himself with either one of your two bullshit parties.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33077.html

Evan Bayh: An Example of These 2 Little Tiny-Tent Parties Who Control Our Political System Effectively Forcing Out Those Who Are Not Extremists.

As I've stated many times in this space, the dem and repub parties have NO PLACE for Independents, non-liberals and non-conservatives except when it comes to election day. The radical extreme right-wingers and left-wingers who control these two parties HATE anyone who is not an extremist like them just as much as they hate the other extreme. Which brings me to Bayh: I read today an article about comments from him essentially stating that he felt he had no place in the dem party anymore given the far left powerbrokers who run the show in that party. In a separate article (linked below), MSNBC reported the following:

"In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system 'dysfunctional,' riddled with 'brain-dead partisanship' and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a 'shock' to Congress by voting incumbents out en masse and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups."

Damn right. Certainly works for me. Folks, I have not voted for a member of either of these 2 bullshit parties (which represent none of us) since 1992, when Slimeball Bill Clinton hoodwinked an impressionable 21-year-old fool into voting for him. But I'm liking Bayh's idea over here: I think that this year, I may vote for a dem or repub in every single election in front of me, meaning whichever one is not the incumbent, he/she will have my vote. I'm very much considering it. I think it's a great idea.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1134

"Bayh Bayh"? (As Drudge Gleefully Proclaims Tonight). Or Just the Beginning?

Non-liberal, non-progressive Indiana democrat Senator Evan Bayh shocks the political world by announcing today that he will not seek re-election. This was surprising because he's at least one dem federal lawmaker who likely would not have lost re-election in 2010. I haven't blogged about Bayh before, but I've observed him here and there. During the tumultuous last year, when DC dems, controlled by their leftist progressive extreme, have tried (often successfully) to ram-rod huge pieces of big-spending, big government legislation right down our throats, I multiple times noticed Bayh being fairly critical of the same. He strikes me as fiscally much more responsible than the so-called leftist "base" of his current party, while at the same time not buying in to all of the far-right social and religious conservatism constantly spouted by the right-wing controlled repub party. Put another way, he would appear to make an excellent Independent. And given his widespread popularity in the Hoosier state, might today's announcement be a sign of future (and perhaps Independent) political runnings? Food for thought. And I'd certainly be open to it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100215/ts_nm/us_usa_politics_bayh

The Battle of the Buffoons! Cheney & Biden Exchange Barbs This Weekend...

...and the thing is, they are both right and they are both wrong. When Biden says the Iraq War wasn't worth the "horrible price," he's damn right. And when Cheney says Biden is wrong in saying that another 9-11 is unlikely, Cheney's also right. The one caveat here, to the extent that Biden meant that another 9-11 using the same M.O. is unlikely, I think that would be correct. But I didn't discern that from Biden's comments. Yes, it's unlikely that the next big attempted attack we face will be a repeat of coordinating the flying of several airlines into buildings. Duh! Of course it will be something different, but eventually an attempt to launch an attack on the same or higher scale, even if not using the same method/tactics, will occur. I just hope to God that attempt is thwarted and/or unsuccessful. But it is coming, and only a fool would discount that.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100214/D9DRV98G1.html

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100214/D9DRV98G1.html

Here's One New Twitter Account That I Would Avoid Like the Plague...

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs apparently has joined Twitter (link below). I haven't blogged too much about Gibbs previously -- just here and there -- since he's basically a flunkie, a lackey, and a go-fer for Obama (i.e. small potatoes). Have I previously seen in my lifetime a more annoying, condescending (without any reason whatsoever), and just generally Prick-Like White House P.S. than Gibbs? Uh, that would be a big NO. I mean, would any person out there (even amongst you radical leftist progressives) really want to know this Bloat-Face in real life? What a Jerk. And if his big fat obese mug comes a callin' in my Twitter add-friends space, I'll be doing the quickest beeline (sp) to the Delete Button since John Edwards discovered that he had access to his wife's remote voice mail and could readily delete her handiwork.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0210/Gibbs_joins_Twitter.html

Obama & The Dems Appear Ready to Ram-Rod Through Their Massive Health Care Legislation Using the Nuclear Option. The Beans Were Spilled Today...

by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), who admitted publicly today that the decision has been made that the "nuclear option" will be pursued if republicans fail to cave on this legislation in the upcoming health care summit. As you are all probably well aware, the "nuclear option" means the obscure Senate procedural maneuver of "reconciliation," which permits budget-related measures to pass into law by a mere 51 votes, thereby circumventing Senate rules that require 60 votes to escape a filibuster on unpopular legislation. Put another way, the election of Scott Brown to the Senate would be rendered meaningless.

I've blogged several times in this space and elsewhere that Obama and his radical leftist progressive dem counterparts will probably ultimately resort to reconciliation in order to jam through their massive and unpopular health care monstrosity. Typically, for such sentiments, I've been ridiculed by both sides with cries of either "health care is dead" (from the right-wing freaks) or "we would never resort to reconciliation" (from the leftist goons). Sorry, but I've maintained all along that this legislation is not dead (at least not yet) and that these radicals who control DC will resort to any damn thing they please to jam through unpopular measures aimed at implementing nearly irrevocable Huge Government. We'll see how this turns out, but two things are for sure: (1) This legislation is not dead and (2) the upcoming republican-dem health care pow-wow will be a huge joke, just for show, and intended by the radical leftists as nothing more than a propaganda event.

http://www.lifenews.com/nat6000.html

Old Dead Cow Face Sticks Hoof in Mouth, Equates His Team's Disappointing Season With the Haitain Tragedy, Then Today Disavows That He Really Did That.

My only comment here: North Carolina head basketball coach Roy Williams would make a great politician. (Yes, that's an insult, "dadgummit!").

http://digitalsportsdaily.com/college-basketball/21472

Man, I Get Really Tired of Hearing About All This CEO Bonus Stuff.

Obama says one thing previously, now something different, and the radical leftist base is pissed (links below). Who cares?!? For what is supposedly such a hotbed "populist" issue (to me, much more seems like a hotbead "progressive" issue) -- who gives a rat's ass? I suppose there are some Indendents, non-conservatives and non-liberals who do care, but this crap is not even on my radar screen. Here's how I look at the issue (not that I care that much): If the dude/dudess has a contract saying he/she's entitled to the bonus, then they get it. End of story. In contrast, if (1) it's a bonus that's discretionary from the company and (2) the company has accepted some form of bailout or significant federal government subsidy to supports its operations, then that company better be damn sure that the federal government powers-that-be are onboard before issuing said bonus. Is there really any more to this issue than that? Like I said, I'm sick of hearing about it. I don't care.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aKGZkktzkAlA
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32795.html

The Resounding Answer to the Question Pictured Below? That Would Be a "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!"

...Unless, of course, invading sovereign countries under false pretenses (either known to be false (which I believe) or at best recklessly believed to be true), resulting in horrific wartime deaths of thousands of young American men and women, is your cup of tea.

Folks, this great country deserves so much better than the likes of W and Obama. Both of them represent little ideological fringes of society, not in any way representative of me or you. W was a devoted Neo-Con, a group that doesn't care about much of anything except spreading American power (under the guise of "spreading democracy") by force and intimidation throughout the world. Sorry, that is not what a democratic nation (the greatest in the history of the planet, in my view) goes around doing.

As for Obama -- he's even more garden variety. Garden variety radical far left progressive, that is. If only that garden produced fruit reflective of any more than about 10-15% of the American population, Obama would actually be representing someone. As it stands, he and His Dems in Washington represent hardly anyone. Just another day in America. But I do try to maintain hope. Like I said, we can do better. I hope we will.

(Postscript: Check out the old school Culture Club video, "Miss Me Blind" -- second link below).

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/02/bush_miss_me_yet_billboard_is.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzYGfKGximo

New York Post Is Officially Now My Favorite Newspaper: Today's Headline - Farting Fool Headmaster Gets Busted For Age Discrimination AND Flatulence!

OK, so that's actually a headline that I wrote, but there's plenty of hilarious language in the Post story as well! So apparently this supervisor guy at a New York seminary, who has been referred to as the "unholy 'Gasbag' boss" has been sued for "reeking havoc"! Dude apparently has a very raw ass of almost Biblical proportions (and I thought I was bad). The Post reports that said supervisor "allegedly made life a smelly hell for a longtime employee at the seminary by emitting constant barrages of flatulence in her work area." That's according to the allegations of the employee's new lawsuit. But the story doesn't end there. The employee also alleges that she "caught wind [what else] of an even bigger problem", which would be the supervisor allegedly sending an e-mail to the seminary staff "advocating that older workers put themselves out to pasture." Good stuff from the Post!

As I have expressed a number of times in this space, I LOVE the New York Post and all of the language and puns that it uses in its newswriting. Could journalistic purests criticize The Post? Sure. But at least it's the truth, even if spoken in funny words and puns. And BTW, where are all of those journalistic purests when it comes to FoxNews, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, New York Times, etc., etc., etc., and all of the partisan slants (to both the right and left) that all of those news entities constantly emanate? Until they say anything about that, they can shut the hell up about the NY Post in my view. As a proud grad of the oldest J-School in the country (University of Missouri-Columbia, BTW), I proudly proclaim that I love the New York Post! -- at least they entertain me and don't give me constant reason to distrust their objectivity.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/unholy_gasbag_boss_sued_for_reeking_KIKFRjR8bmHOOqK1QDHdxM

Some Good News for a Change: One of Missouri's Historic Missouri River Bridges Looks Like It Will Escape the Wrecking Ball (i.e. Implosion).

(Thanks to one of my favorite sites, Bridgehunter.com (link below) for this story and the two pictures above). This is the old railroad bridge in Boonville, Missouri, built in 1932 (and actually the third railroad bridge over the river there, with the original one dating back to the 1874). This bridge has been tied up in litigation for years, since its owner, Union Pacific ("UP"), has wanted to demolish most of it and use some of the approach spans as a part of a new bridge over the Missouri River in Osage City, Missouri. The bridge (not used since the 1980's) previously carried the MKT railroad across the river, and thus should (although UP has previously refused to allow it) be a part of the Katy Trail (which is now a pedestrian/bicycle trail across a huge swath of Missouri on the old MKT railroad right-of-way).

Well, that's now apparently changed, and you dems will be happy to know that it appears to be an actual (although unintended) consequence of your massive stimulus bill and all of its non-stimulus-related earmarks (as I always say, a broken watch is right twice a day): The stimulus bill includes monies earmarked towards the building of the new bridge that UP wants in Osage City, and so therefore there is no longer any apparent interest by UP is using parts of the Boonville bridge in Osage City. As a result, it's being reported that UP has agreed to turn over the bridge to the City of Boonville for rehabilitation into a Katy Trail crossing of the Missouri River. I credit you on this one, UP, despite all of my previous criticisms of you (elsewhere on the Net -- I don't think I've broached this topic previously in this space). (BTW, what I want to know is how they are going to get that vertical lift to lower the middle span of the bridge down after 25 year of non-operation!?! -- but I digress).

A couple of further observations here. First, this is a great development. Recent years have seen a constant pattern of these old Missouri river bridges in Missouri being torn down right and left and never preserved (Hermann, Glasgow, Miami, Lexington, Leavenworth (railroad), the Chouteau Bridge in KC, the Boonville highway bridge, and SOON to be demolished: Atchison, Washington, and the Paseo Bridge in KC). Second, and more soberly, I'll frankly believe the Boonville bridge being a part of the Katy Trail when I see it. One fly in the ointment could be at the local level, because this will an expensive project, and Boonville is a small town and we are in hard economic times. But where there's a will, there's a way, and I think Boonville can do it!

More of a concern for me here is that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers will try to sink their little devious tenacles into this situation. My previous understanding is that they consider the Boonville bridge to be a hazard to commerical barge traffic on the river (they consider every non-used bridge a hazard to such traffic, by the way). This entity known as the "Corp of Engineers" is the worst enemy of bridge buffs and bridge historians across the country. They sweep in the instant ANY historic bridge is no longer being used, with a constant drumbeat, backed up by federal government resources, that the bridge be immediately torn down. And they almost always get their way. As far as this Rager is concerned, the Corp can go you-know-what itself, and really needs to stay the hell out of the Boonville bridge rehab project. If they try to inject their dirty little hands into this situation, it will become a Crusade in this space and in any effort that I can give (in terms of persuading public opinion) that they fail in any such endeavor. Promise ya that. (Can you tell that I love these old bridges? I'm a bit of a nerd like that, so sue me).

http://www.bridgehunter.com/story/1113/

"Which Group Is Most Obnoxious"?

...asks Politico.com today in a poll you can vote on (link below). Your choices: "Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, or Moderates." What, no choice for Independents? I, for one, can be pretty damn obnoxious. BTW, if you force me to make a choice on the four labels that Politico.com includes in its poll, then I'd have to say All of the Above.

http://www.politico.com/arena/

"Revolution"? Sarah Palin Spouts Off Today to Her Conservative Choir. (Nice Legs, By the Way)

The sounds bites I've seen from Palin's speech today at the National Tea Party Convention were mostly the standard talking points-type stuff. But one quote caught my ear -- "America is ready for another revolution and you are a part of this." Maybe I'm being hypersensitive over here (although when have you ever known me to be that way?), but her particular use of the word "revolution" here kind of rubs me the wrong way. I think if you use a powerful word, having a very distinct common meaning, like "revolution," then it shouldn't just be tossed out there, but instead needs some qualification. Such as, "revolution of ideas," "revolution of change," "peaceful revolution" or, heck, my favorite -- "Rager Revolution"! But when you just use the word by itself, and compare the current state of things to the original American Revolution by use of the word "another," I think it's going a bit too far. I think we all know full well that Palin is in no way advocating any type of violent revolution, but I just find her particular choice of words here at best sloppy, and at worst reckless. But it's also not something worth ranting about all night, so I will bid you farewell for now.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/06/palin.tea.party/?hpt=T1