Episode 6 Recap of the Real Housewives of DC!"Securing Homeland"

Episode Synopsis: Cat suffers a heartbreaking tragedy in her personal life. Meantime Tareq Salahi barely escapes a nice little trip to the ol' hoosegow!

Segment 1: At Mary’s house, Cat shows up for a visit. They start in saucin' on the white wine (in the middle of the day) and start talking about their daughters. They talk about the struggles of child-rearing, and Cat complains about her White House photographer husband (Charles) being away from home so much. “Sometimes I feel like a single mother all over again,” says Cat. Mary says she struggles with “mother’s guilt” constantly (apparently meaning the feeling that she’s not doing enough for her kids). Mary also talks about her struggles keeping daughter Lolly out of Mary’s closet, forcing Mary to put a biometric lock on the door (which only Mary’s fingerprint can open). Mary also discloses she’s been in therapy for seven years (no word on whether the therapy followed the closet lock or vice versa). Mary also reveals that she has a sister who is the exact same age as Mary’s daughter Lolly (23 years old).

At Stacie’s house, she receives a phone call from Michaele Salahi. Michaele says that she and husband Tareq want to buy a new home inside of DC, and so Michaele wants to talk to Stacie (who works in real estate) about houses. They resolve to meet at the Four Seasons, where Michaele says she’s staying in the Royal Suite.

Next we jump to Lynda’s apartment, where’s she with Dawn The Dog Trainer and William (a dog owner). Lynda is worried about her move to her new house, because the home won’t be as secure as her apartment is. She wants to look into getting a watchdog in the form of a German Shepherd puppie that Dawn could train. Dawn is said to have trained the Obamas dog, Bo.

At the Four Seasons, Stacie enters the very large Royal Suite (which is like a small house) to meet with the Salahis to talk about their desire to get a house within DC. Stacie comments off camera that she doesn’t know where the money is coming from for the Salahis (since Stacie has observed that their winery/vineyard is not really “operational” -- which is a new bit of info this episode!). Tareq says that since he and Michaele do a lot of entertaining, they need a joint that can accommodate parties of up to 200-250 people. Tareq claims they are willing to go up to $8 million for a property, and that he wants to fund the home through his Oasis winery business. Off camera, Stacie comments that she can’t believe what she’s hearing, since she believes the winery is basically “defunct” in terms of doing any present business. Stacie tells them she will need to get paperwork from their banker verifying assets before properties can be looked at. The Salahis agree.

Segment 2: We’re at Cat’s house, where Cat has received the very sad news that a good friend of hers named Phil has committed suicide. Cat breaks down when interviewed later about the entire situation and the fact that husband Charles isn’t around right now to support her. She talks to Mary on the phone, who tries to prop her up.

In perhaps the funniest scenes from this week's episode, Lynda is visiting her new house, which she comments is near Mary’s house. With Lynda are Mary and Deborah, Lynda’s designer. Already at the house is KC, Lynda’s assistant and the girlfriend to Lynda’s son. Lynda says she wants to consult with an astrologer concerning her move to his new house. Next she lights some sage on fire in the house, purportedly to clear the “past energy” of prior inhabitants of the home. Deborah comments that the burning sage smells like pot. “Project beautiful energy,” Lynda implores the others as they all go around waving their burning sage in the air. She directs Mary to go over and “bless” some French doors. Next Lynda tells some windows that she loves them (and therefore she gives them a good blessing). Off camera Lynda says she was raised Southern Baptist, but that she converted to Judaism at the age of 20. So the group heads outdoors in order to read a Jewish house blessing to the house (which was apparently so moved, it said not a word in response). Then, just for good measure, Lynda starts sprinkling holy water all over the place.

In DC, the Salahis arrive in a super-stretch limo to pick up Stacie at a shop. They are going to gander at some houses by driving by them as a first step towards possibly visiting them. The first house is in the Spring Valley area, where Stacie says a lot of politicians live (which I’d think would be huge negative for the property values). Stacie tells them again that she needs to pre-qualify the Salahis with their banker before she’ll be able to make appointments to actually visit the inside of any of these homes. Stacie comments off camera that the Salahis still haven’t provided that information.

THEN BOMBSHELL! Stacie comes right out and asks them, “what is going on with the vineyard” (since Stacie has observed that it’s not doing any business). But the Salahis don’t seem to really provide a straight answer, instead going on about how Tareq’s mom sued him over ownership of the vineyard. Off camera, Stacie worries that the Salahis don’t have the money or finances to purchase an expensive property (ya think, Stacie!). The threesome arrives back at the Four Seasons to drop off the Salahis.

Segment 3: We’re back at Mary’s house, where husband Rich is talking to Mary with his typical voice inflection reminiscent of Gary Cole’s Bill Lumbergh boss character from the motion picture Office Space. Again Mary starts going on and on about her closet. She makes the rather peculiar comment that it’s a place where she likes to “hang out.” Mary tells Rich that in the past few days, Mary forgot to close said closet, which gave daughter Lolly the opportunity to swoop in and borrow some clothes without asking. Rich reminds Mary, “prevention is 99% of the cure in this situation” (much like possession is 9/10’s the law, with Lolly currently possessing a bunch of Mary’s garments). Rich comments that maybe he needs to get an Internet site visit counter on his forehead for every time he’s going to have this same conversation about Mary forgetting to close and secure the closet door. Mary remarks off camera that she’s really doesn’t care for Rich’s sarcasm. It’s clear that Rich is sick and tired of Mary complaining after she forgets to close her closet.

Jump now to Stacie’s house, where’s she making spaghetti for dinner for husband Jason, who has just arrived home from work. Jason indicates that spaghetti is one of his favorites (same as me), which just further cements my connection to Jason on this show (truth be told, he and Rich both seem like very nice, fairly down-to-earth guys). Jason brings up the subject of Stacie’s birthmother, noting they first found out about and got in contact with her 2.5 years ago, but that they haven’t learned a whole lot of new information since. (If you don’t recall the backstory here, Stacie was given up for adoption as an infant by her Caucasian mother, who has told Stacie that her father is Nigerian; however, mama has so far refused to give Stacie information on daddy’s name and how to contact him).

Stacie and Jason discuss how mama appears to be a dead end in terms of finding daddy. Stacie comments off camera that this situation pisses off Jason because he knows how important it is to Stacie to learn the identity of, and to get in contact with, her birthfather. It’s revealed that Jason has found mama’s son (Stacie’s Caucasian half-brother) on Facebook, and Jason raises the possibility of contacting the son. Stacie is reluctant, because she knows mama thinks it will be an issue for mama’s family if they find out mama has a long lost child AND with a black man. [BTW, I get the whole long lost child shock thing, but the angle of it being an even bigger shock to the family because a black man was the dad seems completely abhorrent to me in this whole day and age. We really do all need to get past that sort of mindless silliness.]. But despite her reservations, Stacie then agrees to allow Jason to contact the half-brother on Facebook.

At Lynda’s apartment, KC is helping to dress Lynda for the charity Men Against Breast Cancer gala event, which Lynda’s sons will be attending with her. Lynda’s half-her-age (and twice-her-size) boyfriend Ebong is also going and shows up at the apartment. At the event, Mary and Rich are also there and sit down for dinner at the same roundtable with Lynda, Ebong and Cat (who has also shown up). Lynda has helped out the charity’s president, Marc Heyison, by organizing a men’s fashion show for the event. And so the male models start traipsing out, hearing the catcalls (no pun intended) of Cat and Mary. Celebrity hair stylist Paul Wharton, who has been featured on prior episodes, is one of the models. Off camera, Lynda notes that while Cat was having a good time, she seemed to also have her mind on her deceased friend.

Mary’s daughter Lolly is also at the event, and Lolly is sporting the clothes she lifted from Mary’s open closet! Mary gets a whiff of this: “OH MY GOD! My Clothes!” Mary then starts doing all of these very odd facial contortions (sort of like a wild jungle feline) as she looks in horror upon Lolly wearing one of Mary’s dresses. Cat notices this and starts making fun of Mary (outside of Mary’s hearing) to Lynda: “Mary should get a refund from her therapist and change her locks again,” whispers Cat to Lynda.

Then this zany-looking newcomer to the show – Christopher, Lynda’s ex-boyfriend – arrives. This dude looks like an oddball three-way cross between an NBA lottery hopeful, that millionaire dude from Gilligan’s Island, and one of the hipsters from that old fake pop music group from before I was born, The Monkees. But Cat tells Christopher that his look and eccentric dress remind her very much of her friend (the one who just committed suicide). Cat remarks off-camera that it was as if the spirit of her friend Phil had visited their table. Cat then loses her emotions at the table in front of everyone (i.e., she starts balling).

Segment 4: We’re at Lynda’s Georgetown apartment, where she’s sitting down to dinner with her kids. Daughter Jessica (age 24) talks about a petition being circulated to all the colleges and universities in the United States to change the drinking age to 18 so that college students aren’t “so clandestine” about their alcohol use, which she says results in more-abusive drinking behavior (which is likely true). Lynda is supportive: “It makes sense – if you can fight for your country, then you should be able to have a cocktail.” [To slightly change the old ‘60s mantra: You’re Old Enough to Kill, But Not For Drinkin’! And actually, I’m inclined to agree.]

Segment 5: At Cat’s house, she is telling daughter Jade about the experience of meeting Christopher the prior evening. Cat says she’s decided not to attend Phil’s funeral because she’s not ready to say goodbye to him yet. Jade is supportive, telling Cat to go with her “gut instinct.”

Next we move to Mary’s house, where Rich and Mary welcome an arriving Stacie and Jason. The four sit down for dinner and start talking about Tareq Sahahi’s recent allegations that Lolly was involved in the theft of his car and his beloved “polo gear.” Mary expresses her thanks to Jason for defending her as Tareq dropped the allegations (since Rich wasn’t in attendance at the Salahis’ event). Mary says she has a lot of friends who knew Tareq growing up. She indicates that Tareq’s always been a “punk.” She says that Tareq’s problematic behavior once got him shipped off by his parents to military school. Mary also talks about the Salahis' alleged track record in DC of “wronging people and not paying their bills.” However, Mary says that she believes that Michaele “means well.” [BTW, these descriptions comport with my general impressions from this series: I think Tareq is a head-case and a deadbeat, while Michaele is rather harmless.] Mary and Stacie do seem to disagree, however, on whether Michaele is happy being married to Tareq, with Mary thinking not and Stacie appearing to think so.

Out at the Salahis’ Oasis winery/vineyard, Tareq basically confirms what Stacie said earlier – the winery is not currently doing any business (no wonder the Salahis were serving beer instead of wine at the winery on that earlier episode!). He says that the winery has clearly gone through some hard times and financial issues, but he brags that it’s going to make a comeback and reopen soon. [BTW, I officially now have NO desire to see Michaele’s upcoming Playboy nude spread – gal has no breasts whatsoever. Looks like a dead beanpole trying to grow on the wrong side of an Alabama $hithouse.]

THEN NEXT BOMBSHELL! As the Salahis engage in a conversation at the winery about the joint’s imminent comeback to its prior glory, the sounds of cop car sirens start swirling around outside! Several cars and a paddy wagon from the local sheriff’s department have arrived at the Oasis winery!

Segment 6: Turns out that Tareq’s mama is at it again, having called the police to try to get Tareq removed from the Oasis property. [The legal basis for this is unclear, but there certainly must be some facially credible basis if the cops sent out the troops in full force to follow up on mama’s request]. Michaele then becomes emotional as she talks about how mama’s constant grudge match with sonny boy has really taken a toll on her better mental health. In this very weird situation, Tareq talks to the cops out of the microphone’s hearing, and whatever he says satisfies them, as they depart without slappin’ the ole cuffs on him. But as noted above, why were these cops so willing to arrive en masse like that following mama’s phone call? For certain: We’re not being told anywhere close to the full story of what’s going on here, which is rather pathetic on the part of the Bravo Network producers. At any rate, END OF EPISODE.

Preview of upcoming episodes (I believe there are only 2 left this season): Just a lot of drama, something about Michaele faking being a Washington Redskins cheerleader, more problems between Cat and black people, and Tareq visits his lawyer. Be sure to return next week for my next insightful yet largely irrelevant recap of this [INSERT DEROGATORY ADJECTIVE] show!!!

Never Trust a Frenchman. Or a French Lady, As the Case May Be. Carla Bruni Rats Out Michelle Obama For Saying That Being 1st Lady Is a "Hellish" Job!

I've heard of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." But "Don't Ask! It's Hell!"? That's what Michelle Obama reportedly told French first lady Carla Bruni (pictured above) in March when Bruni asked Obama how it's been to be the American first lady. Just for good measure, Michelle Obama threw in a gratuitous, "I Can't Stand It!" This bombshell will purportedly be revealed in an upcoming book by Bruni entitled, Carla and The Ambitious (link to full story, which just came out tonight, at bottom).

Michelle should have known better than to trust a French person. After all, when those stinky snobs aren't out there somewhere surrending to someone, they're rattin' out private conversations faster than Sammy "The Bull" Gravano in a cheese factory.

But ultimately I don't think we should exactly shoot the messenger here, and Michelle should answer for those comments if she made them. I think it likely they'll just run out Karl Rove's illegitimate son, Robert Gibbs, tomorrow to deny that Michelle ever made the comments. Yeah, like that'll be real believable! (If Gibbs claimed Michelle did make the comments, then I might believe that she didn't).

If Michelle did make the comments (and I think it probable that she did), I have the following reaction to her: She's the one out there constantly foisting herself into the public eye, taking lavish vacations and preaching to us all the time about what to eat and how to live (while her husband never met a fat-drenched cheeseburger he didn't like and is known to be a regular cigarette smoker).

To paraphrase the famous words of a well-known Missouri democrat (and a type of democrat we don't see anymore) from Kansas City: "If you can't take the heat, get the hell out the damn kitchen," First Lady. After all, far more-accomplished folks than yourself have served gracefully and honorably as the American first lady without taking a $hit all over the position.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1312462/Michelle-Obama-thinks-First-Lady-hell-says-Carla-Bruni.html

I Bet You Won't Be Seeing These Stupid Grins Come November. Meantime Far Left Dems Must Be Laughing Around the Block Tonight Over O'Donnell's Win.

The Christine O'Donnell (pictured above)/Mike Castle saga in Delaware may be the best evidence that I've seen yet of how the far right base of the republican party is far more interested in so-called ideological "purity" than victory in November. In case you haven't followed the Delaware GOP Senate primary, O'Donnell -- a favorite of the tea party, Sarah Palin and Rush Slimebaugh -- defeated Rep. Mike Castle (the republican candidate supported by the so-called GOP "establishment") tonight.

In the paraphrased words of conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer last night (link at bottom): O'Donnell's endorsement and support by the likes of Palin, Slimebaugh and the tea party is politically moronic since Castle (viewed by conservative ideologues to be "too moderate") likely wins in the general election, while O'Donnell probably loses given the voter makeup and political culture of Delaware (which is very democrat party-oriented). Krauthammer further notes: The Delaware result could be the difference between the GOP gaining control of the Senate in November versus the democrat party retaining majority control.

So what you have here is the intolerant, ideologically-blinded far right base of the GOP (reflected by the tea party and your Palins and Slimebaughs of the world) caring more about running candidates exactly like them than actually winning elections. It's frankly not much different from what we often see in the democrat party -- an equally small-tent party in which the far leftist base often spends inordinate amounts of money to try to defeat dem officeholders and candidates similarly viewed as being "too moderate." And people wonder why I would never consider affiliating myself with either of these parties.

But truth be told, I couldn't give a rat's behind about any of this. Rather, I'm just observing the interesting politics of it all. I'm on record last spring predicting that the GOP likely doesn't take the Senate in November but probably takes the House. You'll also know if you read this space that I actually want the GOP to take the House so that we can restore an ounce of much needed power balance to DC between these two out-of-touch, extreme-controlled parties. Further, the GOP will certainly make gains in the Senate, making it much more difficult for the far left to ram-rod disgusting pieces of legislation (such as the "health care" bill on Black Christmas) through the Senate.

Meanwhile, and to get back to a point I mentioned at the top, the far left has to be having a good time tonight with O'Donnell's victory. To that I say enjoy the small victories, leftists. Because that's the only type of victory your ilk is going to be enjoying for the foreseeable future.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42133.html

This Was a Coming Out Party! Kansas City Chiefs Whip Superbowl Contender San Diego Chargers on Week 1 Monday Night Football,21-14!

As a long-suffering fan of the Missouri Tigers, Kansas City Royals and Kansas City Chiefs, I have to say that tonight's MNF (the Chiefs' first appearance therein in years) was a fair amount of fun! It reminded me (particularly in the first half) of the fun of watching the Chiefs on MNF year-in, year-out during some of those very good teams of the 1990s.

But let me say that I'm under no illusions. This is a fundamentally flawed Chiefs team. If at the end of 16 games, their defense is anywhere near even middle of the pack amongst the 32 teams, I will be shocked. That will be a team weakness. And they will have a mediocre-at-best passing game (as exhibited tonight), with the running game (along with special teams) being the strength of this team. I think we get 8 wins at most from this team (9 on the outside realm of probability), with my prediction going into the season being 7 wins. But the 4, 2, 4 win seasons are officially over.

And that negativity aside, this season isn't very important. The important thing is that the Chiefs are a team on the rise. They had an outstanding offseason, through what appears to be a very good draft, through some nice free agents signings, and through bringing in Weis and Crennel as new coordinators. Put another way, this season, I believe, is just a building block, and the future's so bright, I might have to even put on some shades (and I've never been much of a shades dude, much to the general detriment of my eyesight, no doubt).

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/13/2221464/chiefs-splash-their-way-to-21.html

Now Why Would She Wanna Go & Do Something Like That? "Woman Has World's Largest Breast Implants -- Removed"!

If you got 'em, flaunt 'em, I say. But Houston's Sheyla Hershey (pictured at left and, for all I know, perhaps even above) apparently had a recent change of chest (errrr, heart) on the whole issue of her M-cup honkers. Once motivated by the desire "to achieve fame for having the largest breasts in the world," problems with infections in her monstrous fake boobs led Sheyla late last week to have a dramatic downsizing surgery (a literal change of chest) (link to full story at bottom).

And Sheyla has really changed her tune about her t***: "I just want a normal size like a normal housewife has. Even though I love to have huge breasts, I'm going to try to live with it," she says. Her M-cups were actually the result of four total implants (now removed), two per can. The linked story says that operations to receive such huge implants are illegal in the U.S. (and apparently in much of the civilized world). For example, Sheyla had to travel to Brazil for her "enhancement" surgery earlier this summer. And now all for naught?

Well, I'm guessing that Sheyla at some point will get the itch to tool those babies back up. After all, she's had 30 prior plastic surgeries, which makes Heidi Montag look like small potatoes (and in more ways than one prior to Sheyla's reduction surgery last week). I think that previously burning desire to have the title of "largest breasts in the world" will be rekindled before too long. I just can't see this lady settling for the "normal housewife" look for more than, what, a week or two? [BTW, I was never aware that "normal housewives" all have smallish breasts. Learn something new every day.]

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/offbeat/woman-has-worlds-largest-breast-implants-removed-newscore20100909

"Doomsday Warnings of US Apocalypse Gain Ground." But I Quote Granny Hawkins From The Outlaw Josey Wales: All That Talk Don't Mean Diddly Squat!

Sure enough, things are real bad in the country right now. And if we don't get our national debt and annual deficits under control, things are going to get a whole lot worse. But the "apocalypse"? Please. As much as so many people worldwide and within this country would like to see that occur, it won't. This is the greatest, most free country in the history of the civilized world, despite whatever past transgressions and overbearing foreign policies (and there have been plenty) that the far left may want to harp on for the 10 trillionth time (yawn). We will endure. Things may get a lot worse before they ever get better, but America ain't goin' away anytime soon, boys and girls. And if you have a problem with that, go **** yourself.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.a64b6fa820c23d9ef2058a22276ce3a1.2c1&show_article=1

Ugliness on 9-11.

I see people burning Korans and burning flags and wanting to get in fistfights over mosques at Ground Zero. My reaction? What a bunch of absolute ugliness and mindlessness from out-of-touch, out-of-mainstream freaks on both the far right and far left. Same as it ever was. Never changes. Makes me glad I was basically holed up in a cave all day reading a boring-ass trial transcript in connection with a brief that I'm working on. Sometimes work is the best escape from the awful state of affairs that has come to represent the United States these days, as well as the rest of the world.

Here's a Bizarro Blast: Thank You My Wonderful Work For Providing Me With Such a Wonderful Distraction From The World Around Me At Large! It's pretty pathetic when things are SO BAD that working all day on a weekend provides a welcome distraction from how bad things have become. But that's where 10 Plus years of Bush and Obama (the 2 worst presidents of my lifetime) have gotten us. At least I NEVER voted for either of their sorry asses. What's your excuse?

Sarah v. Arnold! It's Hilarious When Members Of Our Two Destructive, Out-of-Touch Political Parties Fight Amongst Themselves & Eat Their Own!

And so it was today that Arnold took a page from the far-left playbook and made fun of Palin for a quote she never even uttered (rather the fake Palin, Tina Fey's SNL character, said it). The fake quote: "I can see Russia from my house." So Arnold posts on Twitter a pic of him looking out the airplane window at an Alaska mountain, and the text of the tweet says, "looking everywhere but can't see Russia from here." I actually don't place a huge amount of blame on Arnold for his dumbass blast (rather I blame Bush), since dude has never exactly been known to be too overly quick on the uptake.

So anyway, Palin's Twitter retort? Here it is: "Arnold should have landed [in Alaska]. I could have explained our multi-billion dollar state surplus & US energy security efforts. What's he been up to?" OUCH! Matter of fact, Quadruple Ouch! I doubt Palin (who strikes me as being on about the same intellectual plane as the Governator himself) drafted that blast, but she obviously has some pretty decent writers on staff.

So who won this faceoff between the (1) deranged right-winger & apparent breast augmenter (not that there's anything wrong with that) and (2) the most left-of-me dude in the history of the world who actually calls himself a republican (which is saying something, since I eschew right-wingers and the repub party)? Well, Sarah definitely got the upper hand and victory on this one. Methinks the intellectually challenged hollywood star needs to stop writing his own tweets and enlist some writing talent as Palin obviously has. Just some friendly political advice.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/10/palin-blasts-schwarzenegger-for-tweet/

Episode 5 Recap of the Real Housewives of DC!"Special Interests"

Episode Synopsis: The Real Housewives of DC returns from 2-week hiatus with a BANG, as Tareq Salahi drops a BOMB on Mary's family and Cat pulls the biggest and most hilarious stunt yet seen on this series!

Segment 1: The episode begins by picking up right where the last one left off – everyone (except Cat and Lynda) is at the Salahis’ Oasis vineyard having dinner, and Tareq Salahi has something to say pertaining to Mary. He says that he and Michaele had a $90K car stolen from them at the Americas Polo Cup event. He says he was told by people from the FBI that Mary’s daughter, Lolly, was on Facebook bragging about having taken a “joyride” in the car while she and/or her friends were wearing the polo garb that Tareq had left in the car (which is actually pretty funny, although Tareq seems very upset at the prospect).

Stacie’s husband, Jason, finds it hard to believe that the FBI is monitoring “polo theft.” Stacie and Jason start becoming visibly upset with the Salahis (while Mary’s said nothing so far) and the fact they seem to care more about Tareq’s polo gear (and the alleged impact on their “charity”) than pinning down whether or not Mary’s daughter was actually involved in the theft. Jason is hilarious! He says that if Tareq was talking about his daughter, “I’d be over the top of this table and on your ass so quick!” Then Mary starts to cry after an angry Tareq proclaims, “there’s a federal investigation going on and EVERYBODY’S goin’ to jail!” At that, dinner’s over and everyone makes a beeline for the exits.

Mary, Stacie and Jason are then in the limo heading back to town. They talk about how Tareq brought his accusation out of “left field” at the very end of what had been a “beautiful day.” Mary criticizes Tareq for even bringing this up without being able to substantiate his accusations with anything more than what he had (i.e. alleged hearsay statements from purported "FBI agents").

Segment 2: We’re with Lynda, Cat and Stacie at the Red Door Spa in DC, and they immediately talk about the grape stomping event and dinner at the Salahis’ vineyard. (Cat was at the event, but left before dinner, while Lynda did not attend). Stacie tells Lynda about Tareq’s accusations with respect to Mary’s daughter, Lolly. Lynda remarks that it was awful for Tareq (even if his accusations are true) to bring that up at a dinner party he was hosting. But Lynda indicates she’s not surprised, calling Tareq “a total whack job.” Lynda thinks the Salahis (or at least Tareq) are probably making up the whole story. Cat expresses that she’s sorry she wasn’t there to defend Mary.

At Mary’s house, she is discussing Tareq’s accusations with Lolly. Lolly denies the accusations, although Mary cryptically says that “Lolly posted something on Facebook,” but that such posting in no way implicates her in an FBI investigation (so what the hell did she post?!). Mary’s husband Rich expresses his anger that Tareq made these accusations at the dinner party when Rich was not there. Mary asks Rich how he plans to handle it the next time he’s around Tareq. He says, “it depends how much alcohol I’ve had.” [Nice response!] Lolly advises her parents not to confront nor give the time of day to the Salahis over these accusations. But Mary seems determined to confront the Salahis. She says first, however, that she and Rich are going to make some calls to law enforcement and do their “homework” to make sure Tareq’s claims are false.

Next Michaele Salahi is out to dinner with her assistant, Jen, at the Palette restaurant in DC. They also talk about the grape stomp/dinner event at the vineyard. Michaele thanks Jen for helping that day and event be “perfect” (Perfect?!). They say they think that Cat was rude, cynical and mean throughout the event until she finally departed early. Jen, BTW, was the one who made the comment implying that Cat was acting like a "bitch" at the grape stomp (which Cat heard -- this plays out more fully later in this episode -- read on...).

Michaele says that Cat was not acting like a “Washingtonian lady” at the event. She compares Lynda, Mary and Cat to the wicked stepmother and stepsisters from Cinderella, and then says that she (Michaele) feels like Cinderella. [I can’t recall whether Cinderella ever posed for a nude Playboy spread (?), but I digress.] Michaele actually blames Mary for “pushing” Tareq to spout his accusations at the dinner. The comments that ensue between Michaele and Jen make clear that they both believe there’s no question that Mary’s daughter was involved in the alleged car and polo gear theft.

Segment 3: Now we’re back again at Mary’s house. Mary says that apparently all “they” (apparently referring to the Salahis) have is a comment that daughter Lolly posted in Facebook concerning a picture posted there by one of Lolly’s friends. Rich says he’s contacted the FBI and every police jurisdiction within 100 miles, and that no one has been able to tell him that Lolly has been implicated or suspected in any current criminal investigation. Mary and Rich conclude that the Salahis are making the whole thing up [Wouldn't surprise me, but I bet that if this thing is false, it's Tareq making it up, not Michaele]. Mary says that the Salahis like to make things up in order to deflect attention away from their own problems.

At Lynda’s apartment, she is on the phone with Stacie. Lynda wants to talk to Stacie (who works in real estate) about Lynda’s ongoing house-hunting effort. Lynda says that she’s on the verge of buying a certain house in McLean, Virginia, and that Lynda has already made two offers. Stacie has a few reservations, thinking DC is a better location to buy a house (although she’s not totally opposed the suburb of McLean either).

Cat is at The Mayflower hotel having lunch with republican lobbyist Edwina Rogers (to whom we were first introduced in Episode 1). Cat first met Edwina on that episode. Cat describes Edwina as “one of the most powerful lobbyists in DC.” Edwina mentions that she’s now working on “health care reform” (this episode was shot in fall of 2009). Cat tells her, “I heard that you were a republican lobbyist for health care, and I thought that sounded like a bit of an oxymoron.” Edwina is clearly annoyed by that little comment!

Cat makes clear that she favors the British system of health care, under which the government pays for the health care of the citizens (“It’s ‘verging’ on criminal that people should have to pay to have health care,” Cat says). Cat then starts ranting about tens of thousands of Americans dying every year because they don’t have health insurance (I’d like to get a cite from her on that one, but oh well). Edwina obviously doesn’t agree with anything Cat’s saying, but seems unwilling to engage in debates with Cat. [And I don’t blame her: It long ago became apparent to me that trying to engage in private debates with ideologues on either side of things is a complete waste of time, but again I digress]. Instead, Edwina nicely tries to change the subject.

But Cat persists and starts breakin’ Edwina’s balls about voting for McCain when Sarah Palin was on the ticket (for the record, I voted 3rd party and did not vote for either Obama or McCain)! [I do have to hand it to Cat – she is MASTERFUL at pushing others’ buttons, although oftentimes it’s not even intentional!] Cat seems appalled when Edwina says that she thinks that Palin would have made a “fine” VP [I have to side with Cat on that one!]. Edwina sees this whole conversation really starting to die on the vine, and she tries to switch the topic back to health care, inviting Cat and her husband (and any friends that Cat wants to invite) to an upcoming party (that Edwina’s throwing) that will have both democrat and republican powerbrokers in attendance.

Edwina then jokes that maybe Cat will consider becoming a republican. Cat says “not in a million years – you guys are a dying breed,” which Edwina laughs off. [Cat, if only it was so! If only the deranged republicans and the loony dems such as yourself were ever a “dying breed” – but alas, you fools on both extremes NEVER go away. But I digress for the third time!]

Lynda is at The Madison hotel and sitting down for dinner with her half-her-age boyfriend, Ebong. She makes a weird reference to “hot flashes,” and Ebong laughs. [Yeah, a much older girlfriend talking about hot flashes – a regular barrel of laughs.] Then Stacie and Jason show up to sit down for dinner with Lynda and Ebong. They talk about how Lynda is planning to leave her Georgetown apartment in DC and move to a new house “across the river” in McLean, VA. Stacie remarks off-camera that Lynda should stay in DC, which Stacie thinks is the much cooler and “hipper” place to be. But Lynda says that she does plan to move back to DC within a few years.

Then Stacie starts talking about her birthmother and birthfather. [Back story: Her white birthmother, whom Stacie has only recently been in contact with for the first time, gave Stacie up for adoption after her birth and has been hesitant to put Stacie in contact with her Nigerian birthfather.] Ebong is also originally from Nigeria, a fact with which Stacie very much connects. Stacie thinks that Ebong might be helpful to her in finding her birthfather.

Out of nowhere, Lynda drops a bomb about having “experienced reverse racism” in her south Georgia background. The look on the faces of Ebong, Jason and Stacie (all African-Americans) is priceless! Lynda claims she was not served at some restaurant because she’s white, which the other 3 folks find hard to believe. Then Lynda (in very nonsensical fashion) tries to link this to Stacie’s birthmother, claiming that such birthmother failed to embrace Stacie out of fear of being “ex-communicated out of her life as she knew it.” I really don't get the connection, but anyway...

Jason changes the subject and comments how he’s impressed by Lynda and Ebong being a bi-racial couple (I like Jason a lot, but I’m not sure why he made that comment – who gives a rat’s behind what their races are?). Lynda responds with some blather about being “color blind.”
Segment 4: After the Segment 3 marathon, this was the shortest segment I have ever witnessed on a reality show, clocking in at about 1 minute! We return again to Mary’s house. Mary is with her 14-year-old daughter, Meghan. They talk briefly about Meghan eating a Ho-Ho the previous night, but not finishing it and letting the uneaten portion stain the carpet. Talk about your compelling television! THIS is why I stay up late on Thursday nights to recap this wonderful show! [Obviously, I do it for the resulting page views – I make no bones.]

Segment 5: Lynda and her kids are visiting the house that Lynda just bought in McLean, VA (only Lynda has seen the house previously). This joint is MUCH MUCH bigger than their current apartment, and everyone seems to be pretty happy with enormous size of all the rooms. The only concern is that they think that the backyard is not overly secure, and so Lynda says she wants to get a dog that everyone will be afraid of to roam the backyard.

At Stacie’s house, it seems that Cat has seized upon the invitation of republican lobbyist Edwina Rogers and has invited Stacie and Jason to Edwina’s “health care reform” party. Stacie remarks, “we’re democrats, but we’re open-minded, and I want to hear Edwina’s platform.” [BTW, I very much credit Stacie for that sentiment.] Stacie also remarks that the Salahis will be in attendance. She and Jason resolve to try to stay above the Salahis’ drama at this event.

Cat is also getting ready for this party, talking to her two young daughters about the event. And Cat says that she should dress “inappropriately” since they are attending a “republican party” with “all the dregs [of society].” Off-camera, Cat reveals her real agenda: She hopes to dress so inappropriately that she will be banned from getting invited to any other “republican party” every again in DC!

“Edwina’s Healthcare Party”: The party is starting at Loews’ The Madison hotel in DC. Edwina arrives early. Then the Salahis arrive. Then Stacie and Jason arrive, but they keep their distance initially from the Salahis. However, Stacie and Jason eventually meet up and engage in small talk with the Salahis. Next David Catania, “DC Councilmember At-Large” (whatever the hell that means), shows up. It appears that Catania is a local democrat pol, and Stacie is very impressed by his appearance, especially since Catania is a big advocate of gay marriage rights.

Then BOMBSHELL! OH MY FREAKIN’ GOD! THIS was the Biggest Surprise and Shocker (by far) that has occurred so far on this series: Recall how Cat wanted to dress very inappropriately for this event, and recall how much she despises Sarah Palin? Well, Cat shows up at this party in a Sarah Palin get-up, wig and glasses and all (at first, I was even wondering whether it was actually Palin)! I do have to credit Cat very strongly: For better or for worse, THAT $HIT’S OVER THE TOP AND EXTREME! I’m serious, Cat has me at hello right there. That is so ballsy, so crazy, so extreme, and so disregarding what anyone else thinks! Genius! MAN I’M IMPRESSED BY THAT $HIT! [But I digress for the 4th or 16th time.]

Almost as hilarious is how Cat’s hubbie Charles (a White House photographer) plays along and tells people in attendance that Cat is really Sarah Palin! If only Cat had Palin’s crazy accent down, but instead she talks with her Brit accent, remarking that Michaele looks “like Barbie doll in a pink dress with artificial everything.” [Hey Cat: Michaele's actually not "artificial everything" – if there’s actually one babe on the planet left who could use a boob job, it would be Michaele, but to her credit she has not yet enhanced. Although we’ll see how that goes now that she’s going to be in Playboy!]

Segment 6: Breaking (Weird-Ass) News! – Someone is shown being rolled out to an ambulance, and then some dude named Jack marches into the party and says that Edwina Rogers (who’s yet to be shown even making an appearance at her own party) had to leave for an unexpected emergency. Cat, Charles and the others laugh about the intrigue of this whole announcement. Point of Order here: Why would the show not reveal what that was all about? I can only suspect that it must play into some future storyline. That was VERY awkward.

THEN SEPARATE FIREWORKS! Cat runs across Michaele’s assistant, Jen, who said at the grape stomp that Cat was being “bitchy.” Cat confronts Jen about that blast. Jen stands beside her comment, and Cat gets confrontational: “I don’t believe you really know what you’re talking about.” Michaele, almost sensing with ESP that Jen is in trouble here, comes marching in from across the room to stick her snout into this situation. Jen tells Cat, “you’re really taking this way too seriously.” Cat and Michaele then start a smack-off contest against each other, with Cat commenting on Michaele’s pink dress and Michaele commenting on Cat’s Palin wig. This is some good stuff!!!

But Stacie the Party-Pooper then breaks up the fun, interceding and drawing Cat away from Michaele and Jen (just when things were getting good! -- BOOOO!). I think what we really need here is a Hardcore Match between Michaele & Jen on one side and Cat & Lynda on the other, with Mary & Stacie as dueling special guest referees!

Anyway, now on the party’s sidelines, Cat loathes Michaele as she watches Michaele work the room. Stacie implores Cat to ignore Michaele. END OF EPISODE.

Preview of upcoming episodes: Something happens in Cat’s life that is devastating to her (which I’m very sorry to hear), although nothing is revealed about the nature of what’s happened. So stay tuned.

Talk About a Napoleon Complex: Fake Imposter Marine General Allowed to Do Volunteer Work at VA Hospital! Where's Clint When We Need Him?

Only in California! (Link to the LA Times' full story at bottom). 69-year-old David Weber (first picture above) of southern California was once a Marine. And so he showed up last fall at an event in Ramona, CA that celebrated the anniversary of the founding of the Marine Corps. There, he traipsed around sporting the fancy dress blues of a two-star Marine general with a gaggle of impressive battlefield medals, entertaining attendees with stories of his cloak-and-dagger intelligence missions and ascendancy to the rank of general.

The only problem? Not only was Weber never a general, he wasn't even an officer! This pathetic phony balonie actually "worked for a living" during his time in the Corps, leaving the Marines in 1967 as a staff sergeant. His sham cover eventually blown, this Fraud was busted and convicted earlier this year under the Stolen Valor Act, which criminalizes the fraudulent donning of fake military medals and uniforms. But Weber escaped any time in the hoosegow, being sentenced to three years probation and 240 hours of community service.

And what precisely is his plan for filling those 240 hours? Well, doing volunteer work at a VA hospital, of course! What else? But perhaps the weirdest part of this saga is that VA hospital in La Jolla, CA actually agreed to allow this bogus buttmunch to work at the hospital as a Walmart-style "greeter."

The veterans group American Combat Veterans of War is making a lot of noise about the decision to allow this Big Fake to work at the hospital. Good for them. And wouldn't ya just love to see Clint Eastwood's Gunnery Sergeant Highway character from Heartbreak Ridge get just five minutes alone with this Weber phony? Somehow I think Weber The Fraud would have a bit tougher time with that than even Mario Van Peebles' character did (second picture above) when Gunny Highway ripped the earring right out of his ear.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/veterans-protest-stolen-valor-defendant-allowed-to-volunteer-at-va-hospital.html

I'm Sure You've Seen It: Evangelical Church in Florida to Hold Koran Burning Event on 9-Year Anniversary of 9-11. Tonight I Weigh In...

I actually think this one is very straightforward. A very easy and black-and-white issue. Saturday's Koran Burning event in Gainesville, Florida -- to be held by pastor Terry Jones and his small Dove World Outreach church -- is pure ugliness. Obama's AG, Eric Holder, today described the event as "idiotic and dangerous." Likely for the first time ever, I agree with Holder on something (it's the "broken watch is right twice a day" syndrome). But don't you feel the "BUT" coming on???

Well here it is: I think Jones and his "flock" have every right under my beloved First Amendment to burn Korans as a form of political speech (their stated intention is to protest radical Islam). To me, there's very little if any distinction between burning Korans and burning American flags, the latter of which the U.S. Supreme Court has previously found to be "symbolic speech" protected by the First Amendment.

Now, I do also believe that such acts as burning Korans and flags represent perhaps the lowest form of political speech of which I can imagine. The mentality behind such acts is basically this: I disagree with what a symbolic inanimate object represents to some or many people, and so I'm going to violently attack the object and destroy it rather than try to address the substance of that with which I disagree. Put another way, this is the political speech of the ignorant, unenlightened moron. (If the shoes fits, "pastor" Jones).

But the First Amendment (and correctly so, obviously) draws no distinctions between dumb and intelligent speech, nor between moronic and more-intelligent speakers. After all, one man's viewpoint is often to another man a perverted idea. And it's precisely that unfettered and free marketplace of ideas that our First Amendment is designed to protect. So pastor Jones gets to hold his little party Saturday, and if the cops try to shut it down, they will be violating the church members' Constitutional rights -- rights that I would gladly give my life to preserve and protect, if even for the benefit of mindless Koran or American flag burners.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-koran-burning-20100908,0,230085.story

Bow Wow Wow: Obama Goes to the Dogs This Weekend, Makes Another Unwise (To Be Kind) Political Statement.

When I started this blog in April 2009, I can still recall my impression at that time of Obama. I knew who he was during the 2008 campaign (one had only to glance at his Senate voting record), and I certainly did not vote for him (nor for the tired old John McCain). But I also very much respected the political skill that Obama showed during the 2008 campaign -- where he virtually never made a political mistake. I was ready to place him right up there with Clinton and Reagan as the best politicians of my lifetime (which, yes, is pretty much a backhanded slap and insult).

Flash forward to everything we've seen since, starting with Obama's off-the-cuff pronouncements, without knowing any of the facts, concerning the arrest of the Cambridge professor in 2009. What's been on display starting with that event is a very fickle, standoffish, thin-skinned man prone to wandering "off-prompter" at the drop of the hat and making incredibly foolish political statements. Put another way, Obama ain't no Clinton or Reagan. Not on your life. (Not that I view either one of them as being great presidents, because I don't -- but they sure were very skilled politicians).

And so it is today that we see Obama again straying off-script yet again and accusing political opponents of "talking about me like I'm a dog." Frankly, I have no earthly idea what Obama even means by that, precisely. But what does it matter? When the President of the United States is whining about opponents treating him like a canine, it's simply comes across as very sophomoric and non-presidential regardless of whatever the hell he's even driving at in making the statement.

And for the record, while I may think most of Obama's policies, such as the health care monstrosity and the Cap'n trade fright are examples of "dogs with fleas" (to quote the immortal words of Gordon Gekko), I don't get nor understand how any of the very legitimate criticisms of Obama's policies are the equivalent of equating Obama to some sort of domesticated house pet. I'll need some further explanation from Obama before I can even hope to address that one.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/06/obama-they-talk-about-me-like-a-dog/

O-H M-Y G-O-D! White House Party Crasher & Real Housewife of DC Michaele Salahi to Pose Nude for Playboy?!Do We REALLY Need to See That?

I don't think so. I was shocked when I read this story tonight (link to full story at bottom). Playboy knows its audience and what sells, which means I'm truly frightened to realize that there are actually a mass of dudes out there itchin' to see Michaele in the buff! I've watched and blogged about every single episode of The Real Housewives of DC, and I must say, while those 5 ladies are fairly entertaining to me, there's really not a one of them that I'd pay to see in her birthday suit (although the brash Brit, Cat, does have a very hot bod, but probably still not Playboy material).

I mean, Michaele's "sexiness" is truly in the eye of the beholder. Yeah, she's in great shape (despite Lynda's constant "too skinny" blasts -- methinks that's Lynda's way of covering up for her own hangups over her smallish stature and skinny body). And yeah, Michaele's not unattractive. But she's a complete airhead and a very annoying personality. I think she's very harmless and likely a decent person at heart, but why would there be a market out there to see her nude? Sorry, but I just don't get it. But more power to her: She and hubbie Tareq always seem to be short on money, and if she can bring in some bucks through a harmless nudie shoot, I'm not going to criticize. Instead, my criticisms are saved for the dudes actually clamoring to buck up to see it! ;)

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/slideshow/playboy-covers-years-7566784

It Gets No Better: College Football Season's ON; Missouri Takes Care of Business; & Kansas EMBARRASSES Itself by Losing to IAA/FCS North Dakota State!

After stinking up the joint in the first half against non-conference rival Illinois, the Missouri Tigers today impressively came out and completely dominated the second half to beat the Illini 23-13. Meantime, the Tigers' bitter, hated rival -- the jayhawkers of Kansas -- accomplished one of the most difficult things for a Division I football team to ever pull off: The beakers lost to the IAA/FCS North Dakota State Bison by the score of 6-3 (yes, a baseball game broke out)!!! HA HA!

This was the headcoaching debut at Kansas for former Nebraska Bugeater, Turner Gill. He is likely the first head coach ever to lose to a IAA/FCS team in his coaching debut at a Division I school, and it's also likely the beakers' first ever loss to a IAA/FCS team period.

I say those things, even without knowing, because Division I teams losing to IAA/FCS teams is very rare. There are probably dozens and dozens of such games every season, and it seems to me that typically a Division I team loses one of those games maybe (at most) once every couple of seasons. Put another way, there is nothing more embarrassing for a Division I team.

And when it does happen, it's typically a top tier IAA/FCS team that pulls off the upset. That ain't North Dakota State, who (despite some past success) had something like a 3-8 record last year! Two words: OU-CH!

And perhaps the funniest thing is that the North Dakota State mascot is the Bison -- the same name that still sticks in the craw of jayhawkers everywhere after the Bucknell Bison delivered the Death-Nell to the Kansas basketball team in the first round of the 2005 NCAA Tournament. Again, two words: Fit-ting!

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/25993/jayhawks-drop-opener-against-fcs-bison
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/09/04/2199093/mu-trails-illinois-in-st-louis.html

We're Gonna Party Like It's 1799! Now This Could Be a REAL Tea Party!

CNN reports today that the "world's oldest beer has been found in a shipwreck" at the bottom of the Baltic Sea (north of Finland). Salvage divers found the cache of 1800-era beer and drug it to the surface for further investigation (a picture of the bottle is above, right before Napoleon and the HBO depiction of President John Adams and his famous lovely wife, Abigail).

The "old style" brew just discovered is actually believed to be drinkable, having aged at a constant temperature of around 32 degrees Fahrenheit and with no light exposure to spoil it. "The culture in the beer is still living," they say, although it's reportedly not known if the old beer has now gone flat. A local beer brewer is actually looking looking to tap into the old beer's chemical contents and recipe in order to see if it can be replicated in the modern day!

And wouldn't ya just love to get a sip (or many) of this strange old brew? Well, be prepared to buck up. Champagne bottles found on the same shipwreck have already been valued in the tens of thousands of dollars per bottle, and the beer bottles will undoubtedly fetch a similar price. I figure that amounts to about $5K a drink! Sorry, but as much as I might like to sample those old spirits, do you have any freakin' idea how much Keystone Ice that I could buy with $5000? Enough for at least 3-4 weeks, that's how much. But I digress.

Anyway, the ship itself is believed to have been heading from Copenhagen, Denmark to St. Petersburg, Russia -- possibly sent to carry gifts from the French regime to the Russian royal family. Which got me thinking and trying to recall: What the hell was going on in the world around 1799? Well, quite a damn bit. Check it:

-1799 was just 10 years removed from the ratification of our beloved American Constitution in 1789 and 8 years following the ratification of our Bill of Rights (i.e. the first 10 Amendments to our Constitution) in 1791.

-1799 saw the death of George Washington, while the second American President, John Adams, sat in the Oval Office (the same legendary John Adams who was a part of the drafting committee for the Declaration of Independence, an incredible historical document primarily drafted by Adams' sometimes friend and sometimes rival, Thomas Jefferson, the great American political philosopher who died on the same day as Adams -- July 4, 1826 -- precisely 50 years to the day from the adoption of said Declaration of Independence).

-1799 also saw the end of the French Revolution and the ascension of Napoleon Bonaparte to the ruler (and eventual Emperor) of France, overthrowing the French government that had been installed as a result of the bloody revolution that had started in 1789 ("Off With Their Heads!"/A Tale of Two Cities). A mere 13 years later saw Napoleon's infamous and ill-advised invasion of Russia and the fatal retreat of the French army through the brutal Russian winter -- an historical scene that repeated itself 130 years later as the Russian Red Army of the Soviet Union drove Hitler's minions from Russia across an identical bitter winter.

-A few years later, 1803, saw the United States Supreme Court's historical landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), which represented the first recognition of the power of federal courts to review the constitutionality of statutes and other laws.

So there was a lot goin' on around 1799! I sometimes wish I could've been there to share one of those old brewskies (as found on the shipwreck) with the likes of Adams and Jefferson (you can keep Napoleon -- I have a feeling he was a real piece of work!). Yes, would have been cool to have been there. But as General George S. Patton, Jr. (not to mention Shirley MacLaine) might say: Perhaps I was.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/09/03/baltic.sea.beer/index.html?hpt=T2

Maybe Sarah's Watched "Nailin Palin" One Too Many Times? She Seems Obsessed with Male Genitals & Third Grade Style Penis Blasts.

First we had Palin last month suggesting to Fox News that Obama lacks the "cojones" to take on illegal immigration. Then today we have Palin on Sean Hannity's radio show accusing some reporters of being "impotent and limp." This latest blast was in reference to reporters who cite anonymous sources criticizing her (link to full story at bottom).

Palin today did not specifically name any reporter by name, but Politico.com reports that "she seemed to be referencing a new Vanity Fair story on her that relies heavily on anonymous sources and contains several unflattering anecdotes about her temper." As a further example of just plain oddball and seemingly misplaced word-choice, Palin told Hannity today that this kind of stuff (reporters quoting anonymous sources) "just slays me." OK.

I fully expect that the next Palin headline is going to be her telling Joe Biden to "get a sack" or admonishing Nancy Pelosi to "grow some balls." Eventually, we may even hear a "can't get it up" jab, followed perhaps by further progression to a "pencil d*ck" bomb. All the while, sister Sarah would seem to be augmenting her own assets in anticipation of a presidential run. There certainly does appear to be a distinct "private parts" component to her whole shtick.

I suppose all this silliness is just a slight bit entertaining, but it's also rather sad. The low levels to which so much of the discourse has bottomed between members of these two extreme-controlled parties is, at best, mindless and, at worst, frightening. But oh well. None of them is my people, after all. I just keep on laughin' at the whole lot of 'em on a daily basis.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/41715.html

Gen X Trainwreck: Big Apple Man Goes Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka, Leaps From 40-Story Tower, Lands on The General Lee, & SURVIVES (By the Grace of God)!

So goes the maniacal story out of Manhattan today: The young man, Thomas Magill, sees fit to leap off a 40-story high-rise apartment building. While such a course of action would oftentimes spell disaster for many human beings, the dude's fall was reportedly broken by the notoriously soft windshield of the Dodge Charger that was parked below. The man has a couple of broken legs, and is otherwise in critical condition tonight, but it does appear that he will live and make a full recovery (link to full story at bottom).

The Charger's owner, allegedly named "Guy McCormack" of New Jersey (an obvious subterfuge by the Duke Boys to hide an asset from the long arm of Boss Hogg's judgment execution seizure agents), credits the rosary beads in the car for saving Magill's crazy hide.

Meantime, NYC's Finest are looking into the incident, "investigating why Magill jumped from the building." Puh-lease!!! I think that's very obvious: Dude thought he spotted "Rowdy" Roddy Piper down on the street and instantaneously look the big leap. Gettin' waylaid across the melon with a pineapple will do that to a dude, after all.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/01/national/main6825537.shtml?tag=stack

"Democrats Seek Separation from Nancy Pelosi": Reminds Me of John Lennon's Famous Line, "It Feels Good. It Feels Like a Divorce."

The "separation" headline is from today's Politico.com (link to full story bottom), which details how many House dems are running from Creature of the House, Nancy Pelosi, as fast as they possibly can as they gear up for their re-election campaigns for the November midterm elections. The Lennon quote came following the Beatles' breakup in the early 1970's, and I think that for many of those House dems, it must also be a "good" feeling to toss a few jabs at Pelosi in their current radio and TV ads. Pelosi, after all, may be the most unpopular political figure in the country these days -- certainly much more unpopular than Obama.

But as "good" of a feeling as it might be for some of these dems to distance themselves from Pelosi this fall, I do hope their constituents take this stuff for what it is (a purely political campaign ploy) and see right through it. Because none of the dems in the House, for whatever claims they make to the contrary, is in any way "independent" of Pelosi or has ever stood up to her in any meaningful fashion.

I can still recall the pathetic sight of House dems during the House's passage last year of the massive Cap'n Trade monstrosity without anyone reading it first (recall Pigsnout Waxman introducing hundreds of pages of new amendments on the morning the House voted on the bill). That day, a whole host of House dems were lined up desperately hoping that their vote would not be needed to pass the bill so that they could ultimately vote "no" on the unpopular legislation. Things were little different with the awful and equally massive health care bill. Gee whiz, that's showing some real "independence from Pelosi". Not!

My bottom line to dem House member constituents everywhere: Despite the fun that your dem congressperson may be having trying to claim independence from Pelosi this fall, don't buy it. It's a falsehood. And the fact that they are trying to convince you of it should be insulting to your intelligence.

[And be sure to check out the very crazy ass YouTube video linked at the VERY bottom below -- a special added attraction! He's just a product of his environment, after all!]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41608.html

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

Ultra-Far Left Outrage: New HBO Show "The Fence (La Barda)" Insinuates That No Al Qaeda Members Have Crossed the Porous US-Mexican Border. Unreal.

I tonight watched a preview of this soon-to-debut HBO show, which appears to be dedicated to advocacy of an ultra-far left "open borders" policy. That is, the argument, based on little more than an intention to enroll as many new dem voters as possible, but disingenuously purporting to claim to the world that it's really based upon the bona fide belief that it's actually a good thing for the American economy and condition for anyone and everyone to pour over the US-Mexican border completely unfettered.

From watching the preview, and to be fair, there is at least an ounce of merit to one point the show intends to make. That one such point being: The US has spent billions and billions building a partial wall along the border that, without being complete, is an utter joke. Couldn't agree more. To me, either spend the money the secure the border at all locations, or don't throw an ounce of the taxpayers' money at building partial walls. What a complete waste (although undoubtedly, the waste of money on the partial wall is something the creators of this show couldn't care less about; instead, it just plays into their little ultra-far left agenda, as outlined above).

After the meritorious "wall spending" point, however, I heard some monotone young lady mindlessly spouting words to this effect: "One purpose of the wall was to prevent terrorists from crossing into the US, but yet to this day the number of terrorist acts that have been committed in the US from terrorists crossing the US-Mexican border is zero." Oh my freakin' God! To the obviously brainwashed young lady who spewed those words: Do you really think for one moment of your life that at least dozens if not a whole lot more of Al Qaeda operatives haven't poured over our wide-open border in the last several years, or that it's not just a matter of time before those same operatives start perpetrating heinous terrorist domestic acts?

I'll actually answer that question for ya, sweetie: I think you know full well that the propaganda which you spew is no more than that -- pure propaganda. But I also don't think you could care less about Al Qaeda people flowing into the U.S. And some of your far-left ilk even think such is a good thing so that those wonderful "man-made disasters" can continue to punish the terrible Americans for their so many evil transgressions on the world stage throughout time (your viewpoint, not mine).

I do know the far left, after all. A lifetime of having to live amongst some of them does impart a certain wisdom. So please excuse me if I pass on viewing "The Fence (La Barda)" come September. Throw that piece of crap film in the same dumpster inhabited by the ashes of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda films, as far as I'm concerned.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/08/30/rory-kennedys-documentary-the-fence-la-barda/61507

Welcome Back, Carter: As Obama Returns From Yet Another Vacation, I Reflect on the Awful Examples Set By Our Last Two Presidents.

It's a real character lesson for our nation's young people: When times are bad in the country or in your life, take just as many vacations as you can possibly get away with and behave just as much like a monarch as you can possibly muster up. Yep, that be the glorious Barack Obama and his neo-con partner in crime, George W. Bush -- easily the two worst presidents of my lifetime, even including the aforementioned Carter as well as Nixon.

And just to add insult to injury, dems and repubs in Congress just took a nice cushy August vacation even despite the terrible state of things in the country at the moment. But alas, maybe I'm complaining a bit too much based on principle and should instead endeavor to see the proverbial "forest through the trees." After all, on the rare occasions when this president and this ultra-left-wing Congress actually do act on something, it's inevitably a rotten course of action that goes against the will of the American people. So maybe I am barking up the wrong tree. I think there's some real merit there.

I see also today that the GOP has taken a 10 point lead in the generic ballot. Am I supposed to view that as some kind of positive? Well, I don't. In a perfect world, there would be completely equal 50% parity in congress between the members of these two extreme-controlled, destructive, out-of-touch parties. Parity and balance-of-power is demonstrably (just look at the last 18 months) the only way to keep these two terrible parties from doing too much damage.

Which circles back to my point above: Perhaps I should be thanking my lucky stars when ill-qualified presidents like Obama and W take a ton of vacations, and Congress too for that matter. Making too much noise about them keeping their noses to the grindstone very much implicates the cliched old line, "be careful what you wish for."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/30/obama.message/index.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41603.html

I'm All About Equal Opportunity: Speaking of Fat Cat Career Politicians Like Roy Blunt Who Need to Go - Next in Line Should Be MO Dem Rep. Ike Skelton

I grew up in Skelton's Missouri 4th congressional district, BTW, and I recall a relative who used to sport an "I Like Ike" button (highly original) back in the early '80s (yes, Skelton has been in Congress that long). To this day, I have no idea why anyone would purport to Like Ike, since what's to like about him? He's been in the U.S. House since 1976 (34 years) and therefore has long been a part of a broken DC political system that no longer represents a majority of the American population in any way, shape or form.

The linked story talks about how Skelton is trying to scurry away from his voting record like a rat in a Missouri farm field, instead focusing his 2010 campaign on the fact that he supports the 'ol troops! BTW, don't we all, Ike? Mindlessness. And what he's disingenuously trying to cover up is his 95% voting record with the ultra-far-left Creature of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Sorry Ike, but that voting record sure as hell ain't mainstream, and sure as hell ain't Missouri. Hopefully, the voters of your district will extend you a nice retirement gift sometime soon.

Now, these sentiments should not be construed in any way as an endorsement to vote for Skelton's repub opponent Vicky Hartzler. Honesty, I know absolutely nothing about her. To the extent that she's just another deranged right-winger and/or professed "real conservative" Tea Party creation, there's a very good chance I wouldn't vote for her either (although, as oft-stated in this space, I do plan to vote GOP at the federal level in my own House & Senate races in November because I think some measure of power balance must be restored to DC between these 2 very dangerous, extreme-controlled parties). So I guess my bottom line: I'm not necessarily saying to vote for Skelton's opponent (I'd need to know more about Hartzler), but I'm definitely recommending that you do not vote for Skelton's sorry behind. I see absolutely nothing that would indicate that he's in any way deservant of that honor.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_c85b2844-b3cb-11df-a65b-00127992bc8b.html

I Feel Sorry For My Beloved Show-Me State: They Have a Rotten "Choice" Between Two Political Slimeballs For the U.S. Senate This Fall.

First, don't even get me started on republican Roy Blunt. He's the consummate DC insider -- dude loves DC and being a part of the action and social scene there. He belongs on The Real Housewives of DC. He's also a career politician and the ultimate political fat cat. He needs to retire, or be retired by the voters. I could never vote for him for any office.

But that brings me to the democrat party's candidate, Robin Carnahan. [BTW, I love saying "democrat party" -- they hate that!] A part of Missouri's Carnahan political dynasty, Carnahan's little different from Blunt and certainly no better. Just look at some of the utterly outrageous things her campaign has been doing recently. From today's CNN Political Ticker (link to full story at bottom):

Carnahan has the democrat party's (there I go again) senatorial campaign committee out there running ads attacking Blunt for voting for the 2008 bailout of the financial industry. So what, you might ask? Well, the nerve and hypocrisy of any democrat criticizing someone for voting for the 2008 bailout (or any of the subsequent bailouts) is absolutely sickening. It was democrat party votes that were largely responsible for passing the 2008 legislation.

And Carnahan's sliminess and insults to the intelligence of Missouri voters get even worse: Turns out, as included in the CNN piece, that Carnahan is on public record expressing her own support for the 2008 bailout! Specifically, Blunt's minions have produced a video clip on which Carnahan said the 2008 bailout was "absolutely" a good piece of legislation necessary to preventing a worsening of the economic situation in late 2008.

But alas! Carnahan, the Missouri Secretary of State, never had to vote on the 2008 bailout because she wasn't in Congress! So apparently she feels it's fair game to criticize someone for voting for it even though she clearly would have voted for it herself if she'd been in Congress at the time! Slimy, scuzwad stuff, folks.

I no longer live within the borders of Missouri, rather only work there. So I have no vote in the Missouri race for Senate. But I'll tell ya one thing: I could never, ever, vote for either of the two a$$clowns that our two illustrious political parties have seen fit to plaster on the November ballot. Never. Instead, I would do what I most typically do: Refuse to make a choice between the lesser of two evils, and just vote for a third party candidate (there's always at least one) as a protest vote. It's a matter of principle with me.

I'm often told by conservatives and liberals that there's no place for people like me. I'm an anomaly, a relic, a weirdo, a freak and a mealy-mouth! [Who are they calling a mealy-mouth, BTW?!] I have to pick a side one of these days, they always tell me. Well, Nuts to that $hit! That's just not the way I roll. It's called freedom of mind and spirit, and I'll never throw that away in order to join either of these two extremist-controlled, out-of-touch BS parties.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/28/dscc-blasts-senior-republican-for-bailout-vote/