They Have No Shame: American Leftist and Right-Wing Slimeballs Try to Politicize the Chilean Miners Story.

I've heard and seen it all over the place in recent days: Deranged right-wingers such as Rush Slimebaugh trying to credit the good ol' American capitalist system for rescuing the trapped miners, while loony left-wingers such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews dispute that point and claim that if we had a "Tea Party America," the miners would now all be dead (the linked column is one example of some of the back-and-forth).

Enough already! Can there ever be even one natural disaster or tragic (or near-tragic) event domestically or worldwide that the two American political extremes will not try to politicize, take credit for and/or assign blame to the other extreme? It's pure mindlessness. I have little doubt that I could go do a Google search right now and probably find whackjobs trying to blame Bush for the Chiliean miners being trapped or trying credit Bush or some right-wing policy for saving the miners.

And these partisans actually sit around wondering why so much of the electorate (including many Independents) distrusts and is thoroughly fed up with both parties these days and is ready to kick the leftists dems to the curb in a few weeks just two years after kicking a rather pathetic republican party to the same location. They just don't get it. Well, we Independents (the ones who control your election outcomes) are going to be more than happy to keep showing your slimy partisan asses that very same curb, election cycle after election cycle, until you finally stop representing only the minority slivers of the population that constitute your so-called "bases."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/capitalism-would-have-kil_b_764948.html

Add a New Title To House Creature Nancy Pelosi's Resume: COWARD.

As shown in the linked YouTube video, today Creature Feature indicates that she will not debate her November GOP opponent, John Dennis. The highly pathetic excuse she gives is that her "time is money" and that she needs to spend her time jetsetting around the country helping her fellow democrat party candidates win their races and retain control of the House -- as if any democrat candidate in the country wants Creature Pelosi anywhere near their race! Really though, she's about as popular across the country as room service in a Mississippi $hithouse.

Which leads me to only one conclusion: She's an arrogant (we knew that), out-of-touch (knew that too), egomaniacal (old news) political coward (not a term I've used previously to describe her). And this far leftist creature -- afraid to engage in the even the most rudimentary activity of a political race (i.e. a debate) -- is actually second in the line of succession to the presidency! Truly frightening, as I've stated before. Hell, even slimeball Senate majority leader Harry Reid debated his opponent this week (albeit giving the sort of listless, rotten performance that must have Lincoln and Douglas rolling over in their graves).

[Postscript: We'll see how a few days of publicity on this story change or don't change the Creature's tune on the debate issue. For now, she says she has better things to do with her time. I doubt that will change, but these slimeball politicians (in both parties) constantly change their tune at the drop of a hat in the face of bad pub -- although that only rarely occurs when it comes to the upper echelon of the politically powerful, such as the Creature of the House.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC4xMOwldSk

WTF? And the Concerning Part Is That You Know Plenty of People Are Going to Watch This!

The first picture above is a scene from Sarah Palin's new TLC reality show ("Sarah Palin's Alaska"), which is set to debut on November 14. A new trailer from the show purports to give a flavor for what the show's all about. That basically comes down to two things, as best as I can tell: (1) Sarah hanging around outdoors; and (2) Sarah hanging around indoors. Exciting stuff, no?

According to the trailer and linked article, if you've ever wondered what it would be like to see Sarah Palin boating, hiking and riding on a dog sled, then this show's for you. And if you are in need some motherly wisdom and advice to pass along to your own kids, then Sarah offers little gems like this: "No boys upstairs," she tells the youngest daughter.

Palin sums up the show by crowing, "This is flippin' fun!" And I do suppose that's one way of putting it, much in the same way that activities like sleeping and yawning can be described as "fun" if you happen to be tired.

But alas, I have no doubt that plenty of fools across the country will watch this silliness (including plenty of hateful liberals looking for new Palin material). As a result, it's definitely a candidate to become the next reality series that I cover/recap on this blog. After recently enduring nine long episodes of The Real Housewives of DC, I guess you might say that I'm just a glutton for punishment.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/15/shots-of-palin-reality-show-revealed/#more-128867

That Son of a Gun: After 5 Years, You’d Think Darth Vader Could Offer Up So Much as a Lousy Apology for Shooting & Seriously Injuring a Fellow Hunter.

A story in today’s Washington Post is shedding new light on the February 2006 incident in which then-vice president Dick Cheney shot another hunter on a South Texas ranch. The Post reports that Cheney has never bothered to apologize to the shooting victim, 82-year-old Harry Whittington (pictured immediately above), which sounds like an emotional issue for Whittington. Indeed, new facts disclosed in the Post’s story make it clear that a simple apology is the least that Cheney could do.

First, the Post debunks the prior claims of Cheney and his defenders that Whittington was an “old friend” and “hunting buddy” of Cheney’s. Whittington tells the post that in reality, the two “barely knew each other and had met briefly just three times since the mid-1970s.”

Next, the Post reports that Whittington’s injuries were “more dire than previously disclosed” by Cheney and the Bush administration. As a result of the shooting, Whittington reportedly still has approximately 30 pieces of birdshot inside his body. It’s also reported that some of that birdshot is near his heart, which caused him to suffer a mild heart attack (sending him to the local intensive care unit) in the days that followed the shooting.

The Post also reports that Whittington suffered a collapsed lung and had to have invasive exploratory surgery “to check his vital organs for damage.” Moreover, says the Post, the shooting was very nearly fatal, as “the load from Cheney’s gun came close to, but didn’t damage, the carotid artery in [Whittington’s] neck.”

As the media has reported previously, Cheney did his best Ted Kennedy Chappaquiddick impersonation following the shooting. As the linked story details, Cheney didn’t speak to police investigators until the morning following the shooting, and he didn’t inform the media about the shooting until a local Texas newspaper reported it. Just for good measure, Cheney refused to speak to the media about the shooting for days. The only thing missing from that equation was Mary Jo Kopechne and a dead body.

And apparently all of that delay with the police and the media was so that Cheney could get his story straight and, possibly, so that he could fully sober up. In short, the Post’s story raises new questions about Cheney’s conduct on the day of the shooting. The Post questions “whether the circumstances of the accident ‘may have pushed the limits of safety,’ because the group was hunting at dusk and visibility may have been poor; Cheney may not have had a clear line of fire before shooting, and there may have been alcohol involved.”

Of course! We can’t have a Chappaquiddick without some boozin’, now can we? And Cheney’s never denied that he drank that day, instead giving the classic drunk driver response in the days that followed the shooting and claiming that he only “had one beer at lunch” that day. That from a deranged Neo-con whose administration had no trouble deceiving us about the pretext (WMDs) for entering a costly and bloody war in Iraq.

So are you really going to believe the ol’ “I just had one beer, officer” routine? I sure as hell don’t. That story’s about as probable as the chances of Cheney acting like a man one of these days and apologizing to an individual whom Cheney seriously injured and almost killed.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/texas-man-shot-by-vice-president-cheney-in-2006-still-waiting-for-apology.html

Before She Was Weird, Famous & Filthy Rich, She Had a Future as a Potential Gumar & Gun Moll to the Sopranos and Crazy Willie Beano (Rhymes w/ Dino)!

Who'da thunk? I never before realized that Lady Gaga once appeared on The Sopranos, and apparently no one else did either, as the YouTube video of her appearance has only gone viral on the Net over the past few days (the first link below connects to the video). Gaga, then age 15, appeared in the 2001 episode entitled, "The Telltale Moozadell," from Season 3 (as pictured immediately above). ("Moozadell," BTW, is Italian slang for mozzarella cheese).

In the episode, Gaga had very limited dialogue but took part in a scene (which I can actually vaguely recall) in which A.J. Soprano and his friends (Gaga among them) participate in trashing the school pool by tossing various forms of debris therein. Someone's gonna have to pull out his old VHS tapes tonight! (since I'd want to see the entire episode in context and also see how she's named in the closing credits)

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/video/teen-gaga-sopranos-11852564

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2010/10/11/2010-10-11_lady_gaga_sopranos_appearance_at_age_15_in_2001_shows_singer_as_one_of_ajs_class.html?r=entertainment

"The Next Sarah Palin"? Before We Go THAT Far, Can We See Her in a Tight T-Shirt, Please?

She's republican Kristi Noem and she's running for Congress in South Dakota as she looks to unseat incumbent democrat Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin. And some of the similarities to Palin are rather striking: Attractive, late 30's; mother of three; rancher; "avid hunter known to hunt elk with a bow and arrow"; highly successful fundraiser; and staunchly conservative (what else?).

But Noem reportedly "wants no part" of being compared to Palin and has "balked" at the idea of Palin campaigning for her in South Dakota. (As a result, I wonder if Todd Palin will be firing off some nasty e-mails at Noem referring to Sarah's "ass" like he was doing last week to Joe Miller?)

And while this may be the thinly populated and fairly conservative state of South Dakota, it's additionally striking how much Noem's congressional race looks like most of the other ones nationwide. For example, incumbent opponent Herseth-Sandlin is out there (like so many dems right now) disingenuously trying to hide from voters what she really is through claims of being "independent" and boasts of voting against her own party and with the republicans (while Noem claims that Herseth-Sandlin actually voted with Nancy Pelosi 90% of the time).

Another similarity is the democrat party's 2010 tactic of focusing almost exclusively upon any bit of dirt that can be dredged from the candidate's past so that there need not be word one spoken as to the democrat party's awful and destructive policies and legislative agenda of the past two years. Herseth-Sandlin seems to be taking this tactic to the extreme, running ads that attempt to take Noem to task for past speeding tickets, of all things! Hell, I think all the tickets are cool. Gal likes her speed! Lady likes it fast!

Maybe next, the democrat party can expend resources trying to uncover whether Noem has ever let her dog run around in public without any tags? And I bet there are some long, lost parking tickets in this woman's closet! And I imagine that someone's surely heard her use curse words a time or two as well!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/elections-2010-south-dakota-sarah-palin/story?id=11860378

They Get My Vote For Slimeballs of the Year: Michigan Couple Taunts Dying Little Girl Next Door with Grim Reapers, Crossbones & Coffins.

What a couple of sick scumwads. The linked story reports on the heartbreaking story of 7-year-old Kathleen Edward (pictured on the left) of Trenton, Michigan. She's in the final stages of what's described as Huntington's Disease, a degenerative brain disorder. The same condition killed Kathleen's mother, Laura, when she was 24 years old.

How can things get any more tragic than that for one family? Well, one way is when you have a couple of sleazebucket neighbors named Jennifer and Scott Petkov. It's reported that the Petkovs have been peeved at Kathleen's family ever since a birthday party at Kathleen's house two years ago. It seems that Jennifer Petkov's kids were not invited, but (after the party had started) she texted Kathleen's family and asked if the Petkov kids could come on over. As one of the linked stories reports, "a response to the text did not come quickly enough and it angered Jennifer." Kathleen's family says that Jennifer Petkov has "been harassing them ever since" (with husband Scott also getting in on the act).

"Harassment" is putting it mildly. As Kathleen's terminal condition worsened, the Petkovs saw fit to start taunting the dying little girl: The Petkovs "have . . . admitted to posting grim depictions of Laura and Kathleen on Facebook. One photo depicts Laura in the arms of the grim reaper, while the other features Kathleen's face above a set of crossbones." When Jennifer Petkov was asked why she and her husband posted the vile photos on Facebook, Jennifer said it was for her own "personal satisfaction" and because she knew it would upset the family. Nice lady.

And just for good measure, it's reported that the Petkovs also built and hitched up a coffin to their pick-up truck in their front yard. But apparently even that wasn't enough for these two bullying slimes. They then took to driving the coffin past Kathleen's house and honking the horn so that Kathleen would be sure to see the morbid sight.

All this over sour grapes because little sonny and sweet baby jane didn't get invited over to Kathleen's for the birthday party! I just hope there's a special Coffin Corner section of Hell for the Petkovs and people like them. They deserve their own "Special Section," as they say.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/the_edge/dying-girl-taunted-by-neighbors-in-trenton

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/terminally-ill-year-olds-family-bullied-neighbors/story?id=11851233

Far Left Dem Money Man George Soros Officially Deposes Pope Benedict For the Title of "Most Striking Resemblance to Evil Star Wars Emperor Palpatine"!

Yep, it's official. Wish I could say the same for Soros' disingenuous proclamation today that he's not funding the democrat party this election cycle because he "can't stop an avalanche." Yeah, like I believe for one second that his cash stream to the democrat party has been cut off or dried up, especially as Obama & The Dems complain roundly about campaign funding deficiencies allegedly created by unfounded, McCarthy-esque accusations of illegal foreign money pouring into the Chamber of Commerce. Prove It Isn't True, Says the Obama Administration! (...In true Joe "Have You No Shame" McCarthy form -- hardly a surprise from the same party who tries to convince us on a daily basis that there's a racist under every American bed).

10/12/10 Update: Politico.com reports that White House press secretary Robert Gibbs today "said 'it doesn’t bother me at all' that the fact-checking site PolitiFact has debunked the White House's claim that the Chamber uses foreign donations to fund its political attacks." And why would it bother them? The facts only get in the way when you're an administration more devoted to Nixonian and McCarthy-inspired tactics than to actually ever acting with any common decency.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/10/democrats_hit_new_low_with_tho.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/soros-i-cant-stop-a-republican-avalanche/?hp

So You Think You're Talking Online to the Hot Mama Below, But It Turns Out You're REALLY Talking To...

<------THIS

That's the bizarre true story which is the subject of a new motion picture (docudrama) called Catfish concerning the world of online dating and romance. The film centers upon the woman pictured immediately above -- Angela Wesselman-Pierce -- "a depressed 40-year-old stepmom of two developmentally handicapped kids in rural Michigan" (you can still say "handicapped," BTW?).

For some odd reason, Pierce didn't think she'd be able to attract males online using her actual photo and identity. So she assumed the identity of a fictitious 19-year-old named Megan Faccio (as in Big Fake-O). And just for good measure, Pierce used pictures which were actually those of 30-year-old Aimee Gonzales (first picture above), "a happily married mother of two with a side business as a model and photographer."

The gorgeous Gonzales didn't know about all of this until filmmakers told her. She seems largely to be a good sport about it and is hopeful that attention from the film will boost her photography and modeling career. As for Pierce, she's also trying to get in on the act. It's reported that she's a painter and (due to her appearance in the film) has raised the commissions on her paintings from $1500 to $1750! Maybe next she can paint a picture of Gonzales and use the work as her new fake online photo?

Perhaps the strangest thing about this story is the account of how Pierce used her "Faccio" alter ego to meet a 24-year-old New York man online and then reportedly actually engaged in a "romance" and "relationship" with the man. Assuming (from those descriptions) that the two met in person at some point and then embarked upon a "relationship," was this dude blind or just plain crazy? Think about it: Expecting to meet a hottie looking like Gonzales, he instead met Pierce, but he still carried on with things!? Maybe she bribed him with promises of free paintings or something.

http://www.newyorkpost.com/p/news/national/bizarre_photo_op_in_new_film_CJRWa5j1lHoZ1OHwo4JpsN

Karl Rove Accuses Obama Administration of Having a Nixon-Style "Enemies List." NO WAY!

That was the accusation from Rove this weekend (link at bottom). An "Enemies List," BTW, as utilized by the Richard Nixon administration, was basically a list of people who are seen as dangerous because they disagree too vehemently and consistently with the administration, and thus such people are targeted for federal government harassment, monitoring and ridicule to the fullest extent possible.

Here's what I say to Rove's allegation: C'mon! I mean, how could you possibly make an "Enemies List" accusation aimed at an administration that once encouraged American citizens to report to the government the identity of any person having a "fishy" opinion in the health care debate? Does that really sound like the kind of administration that would maintain an "Enemies List"? Well, actually, it certainly does. And that's why it wouldn't surprise me at all if Rove's allegation is completely true.

Frankly, it would come as no shock. As often noted in this space, Obama and his administration are very Nixonian in a lot of ways -- from being completely thin-skinned and seemingly paranoid, to having absolutely no tolerance whatsoever for anyone who ever disagrees with them. Matter of fact, those traits are pretty much inherent to the leftist-controlled democrat party these days. And Obama is just one part of that machine.

Final thought: I wonder if I'm on that "Enemies List" somewhere? After all, in response to Obama's previous call for citizens to rat out anyone having a "fishy" opinion on the health care issue, I sent an e-mail to White House turning myself in (as previously documented in this space). So do you think I've made the big list? The way I look at it, I can't think of a bigger badge of honor.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43371.html

Why You, I Oughta: Kim Kardashian Involved in Bar Fight This Weekend in the Big Apple!

As covered in this space, Kim earlier this week proclaimed -- as she arrived in New York City to open a new business with her sister Kourtney -- that Kim's ready to hit the local singles scene and is "ready for some hookups!" Well apparently, the Big Apple isn't quite "ready" for Kim:

It's being reported that Kim was involved in a wild brewhaha this weekend after some dude approached her in a bar. It seems dude's lady didn't care too much for that and -- yadda, yadda, yadda -- bar fight and lady's drink all over Kim's mug.

According to the linked stories, Kim isn't very much the fighter, as the story indicates that Kim needed to dispatch sister Khloe and a male friend to take care of the angry lady who was accosting Kim (allegedly). BTW, Kim reports that she's "totally fine" following the melee, in case you were interested.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20433215,00.html?hpt=T2
http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/TV/2010/10/09/Kardashian-OK-after-bar-fight-in-NYC/UPI-77781286646137/

Holy Merde! One of the Wildest Columns I've Ever Seen: "Savage Love"

I'm just stumbling across this one. It's authored by Seattle-based sex advice columnist Dan Savage. The column is basically "Dear Abby" meets the Penthouse Forum, with all of the letters/e-mails to Savage containing some wild-ass sexual story or behavior by the writer. Just a few of the recent topics: "Married Threesomes"; "Cuckold Fetishes" (learn a new word every day); Screaming Lesbians; "Drunken Orgies"; "Ass Man" (Kramer from Seinfeld?); and "Some Stuff That Is Potentially Dangerous." BTW, how do you have a "no-sex threesome" (a phrase used by one of the anonymous letter writers to the column)? Good Grief.

http://www.pitch.com/advice/savage-love-411/2010-10-07/

Report from New Jersey: Democrat Party Conspires to Place Fake Tea Party Imposter on the Ballot to Help Dem Congressman GetRe-Elected.

This report doesn't come from Fox News or Breitbart, either. Instead, it comes from a local New Jersey newspaper (link to full story at bottom). The reported imposter's name is Peter DeStefano. The goal of sticking him on the ballot would be to take votes from the republican candidate so that the democrat party incumbent (John Adler) can win. And the democrat party has reportedly pulled it off, through a slew of dem volunteers (it's not like we're talking about one person acting alone), such that the imposter will appear on the ballot on November 2.

But here's the funny thing: There was a time when this type of almost subhuman political behavior would have shocked me. But it doesn't anymore, and particularly not from the democrat party. What I've noticed this election year is a growing mentality from the far left that the ends always justify the means. Put another way, it doesn't matter how slimy or disingenuous or outright fraudulent the tactic might be -- as long as the democrat ultimately wins, that's all that matters.

We've seen this mentality in other instances where dems have been accused of placing fake tea party candidates on the ballot. We've seen it from the directly fraudulent campaign ads of dem politicians like Alan Grayson (whom I actually think could not care less that his ads are fraudulent). We've seen it when the democrat party continued to cling to a senatorial candidate in Connecticut (Richard Blumenthol) even after it was exposed that he repeatedly lied in speeches about having served in Vietnam. We've seen it from senatorial candidates like Robin Carnahan in Missouri, who had the democrats running ads attacking her opponent for voting in the same fashion that Carnahan had previously said she would vote herself if she was in Congress.

Not that I give republicans a pass when it comes to slimy campaign tactics -- but I must say that I also have not witnessed from the republicans this same sort of "win at all costs" mentality that I see from the far left. It's rather frightening, but at the same time not overly shocking, at least not anymore.

http://www.courierpostonline.com/article/20101008/NEWS01/10080330/Dems-picked-spoiler-candidate

Episode 9 Recap of The Real Housewives of DC!Season 1 Finale: The Salahis Crash the White House (Allegedly)!

Episode Synopsis: Season 1 concludes with Michaele and Tareq Salahi officially crashing a White House State Dinner (allegedly) in late 2009, while the other cast members react (very negatively) throughout the rest of the episode, culminating with plenty of blowups and childish drama!

Segment 1: It’s Tuesday, November 24, 2009. Michaele and Tareq Salahi are in a stretch limo (what else?) on their way to crash (errrr, attend) an Indian State Dinner at the White House. Michaele is on the blower with Stacie and brags about where she and Tareq are headed. Stacie invites them to dinner at her house in the next few weeks and also asks them how they managed to get an invite to the State Dinner. Michaele totally dodges the question. Then off the phone with Stacie, the Salahis continue their ride to the White House and both seem very anxious (geez, I wonder why?).

Arriving at the White House, the Salahis aren’t sure where to direct the limo driver to park (wouldn’t ya think they might just know that information if they’d actually been invited (allegedly)?). Finally, the limo just pulls over and lets the Salahis out right on the street (them being VIP guests at the White House and all)! Then the cops start telling the limo driver that he needs to get the hell out of there (since he’s illegally parked)! From there, the Salahis walk for Lord knows how long towards the White House.

At the first White House security gate, the Salahis are told that their name is not on the guest list (no way!). The lady checking the names inexplicably then tells them that they can proceed to the next security station, and that someone there can “sort this out” (security at its finest on full exhibition!).

Segment 2: This segment abruptly flashes forward to the next day – Wednesday, November 25, 2009. I’m guessing that the reality show cameras were not allowed to accompany the Salahis past that first security checkpoint, and thus we’ve seen all we’re going to see from Bravo with respect to the night of the State Dinner (a fact confirmed after having now watched the entire episode).

On November 25, it’s the daytime, and the Salahis are at a DC hotel looking at the pictures they snapped at the prior night’s State Dinner at the White House. One picture is with vice president Joe Biden, another is with Rahm Emanuel, and still another is with CBS partisan advocate (errr, news anchor) Katie Couric. Then Tareq gets a text message from a friend saying that the Washington Post’s gossip columnist is already writing about how the Salahis crashed the prior night’s State Dinner. The two of them just laugh at this. Then the show runs one of the television news reports from that day saying that the Salahis had crashed the dinner in a major breach of White House security. The story hilariously shows a picture of the Salahis, and the reporters asks, “Who ARE These People?”

Now flash forward another day, to Thursday, November 26. At Stacie’s house, she and husband Jason are startled to see a story in the morning newspaper reporting that the Salahis had crashed the State Dinner. The story reports that “this is the first time in modern history that someone has crashed a White House State Dinner.” Stacie asks, “who would have the balls to do that?” She also reads how the Salahis posted their dinner pictures on Facebook, including one where Michaele has her hand all over Joe Biden’s chest as if he was her husband!! Stacie calls Cat, who has the same feeling of disbelief that the Salahis tried (and did) pull this off. Remarks Cat: “They are so full of $hit, but they are so plastic, not fantastic.” [You know, Cat has a real gift for spontaneous rhyming phrases!]

Segment 3: Next we move forward to Saturday, November 28, 2009. At Stacie’s house, she and Lynda and Mary have gotten together and are drinking wine. They express to each other their shock that the Salahis had the gall to crash (allegedly) a White House State Dinner. Stacie is also upset that the Salahis’ actions (allegedly) “tarnished the First Dinner.” Lynda describes the Salahis as “Bonnie & Clyde in overdrive . . . they are screwing around with our president!” She also asks “why aren’t they in jail?” Mary predicts that “there is no way that they will ever be able to recover from this.” She says that “they will have to create a new identity in a new country." [BTW: This turned out to be a bad prediction on Mary's part, but a later prediction of hers in this episode turns out to be very prophetic -- as KC's Greg Hall would say, Read On...]

Next the three ladies, still sipping on the wine, resolve to get Michaele on the horn to get her side of this story. But alas, they are only able to reach Michaele’s voice mail and leave a message. Stacie leaves a very nice message aimed at getting a return call from Michaele.

On December 1, 2009, we see NBC partisan advocate (errrr, news personality) Brian Williams talking about the Salahis on the evening news, and he’s not taking any bows this time around (Shocker)! Next we see footage of the Salahis’ on that day’s Today Show with Williams’ partisan advocate-in-arms (errrr, colleague), Matt Lauer. On that show, the Salahis maintain that they were invited to the State Dinner and were not crashers. They also claim that “our lives have been destroyed” (in the short span of one week) by those who say that they crashed the dinner.

Segment 4: On Thursday, December 3, 2009, we’re next at Mary’s house. Cat shows up and breaks the amazing news that while she and her husband Charles (a White House photographer) had been invited to the White House Christmas party on December 15, she is now UN-invited simply because she knows the Salahis (and trust me, she doesn’t even like them)! Cat seems furious that this un-invitation has occurred due to the actions of “Miss Plastic, Not Fantastic.”

Next we see video from CNN partisan advocate (errr, talking head) Anderson Cooper talking about the Salahis' crashing (allegedly) of the State Dinner, followed by the reaction of White House press secretary and son of Karl Rove, Robert Gibbs. It’s noted that the Salahis are potentially facing felony criminal charges as a result of the incident.

On the evening of Wednesday, January 13, 2010, we’re now at Cat’s house, where she talks to husband Charles about the stress that the Salahis’ have caused in her life. And there’s tension between Cat and Charles (probably as a result of the stress from the Salahis’ (alleged) actions), as Cat complains to him about failing to sharpen any of the house’s knives recently (she remarks that the dull knives “just aren’t cutting it” for her). Then more TV news footage is shown and it’s revealed that the House Homeland Security Committee wants the Salahis to come in for a congressional hearing -- MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow (also a partisan advocate, although at least she, to her credit, never pretends to be anything else) jokingly comments that “everyone’s suggesting that they [the Salahis] RSVP yes” to the House Committee’s request.

At Lynda’s apartment, Cat, Mary, Lynda and Paul Wharton are watching coverage of the Salahis’ testimony before the House Committee. Upon the very first question from the Committee, Tareq takes the Fifth (invoking his constitutional right not to testify in a way that may be incriminating towards himself)! He continues to take the Fifth upon further questioning. The Committee scolds them fairly harshly after that (although the Salahis do have a right to take the Fifth and say nothing).

One grandstanding fool Congressman (Lundgren, whomever that is) starts ranting about the “Constitution protects fools, it protects stupidity” – STFU already, politician. Who’s the more slimy in this picture? The (1) grandstanding politicians who preside over these BS congressional “hearings” with their incessant speech-making or (2) the Salahis themselves? It’s a very close question that I’ll leave you to decide. Then some congresswoman named Cuellar launches into her speech sticking it to the Salahis, although she actually makes some good, rational criticisms of the Salahis’ conduct and therefore gets a pass from me. Yet another congressman calls the Salahis “egomaniacal,” which is a comment very much adored by the spectating Lynda, Mary, Cat and Paul. Lynda remarks, “go to jail,” Salahis. Then the Committee directs some questions to Michaele, and she like Tareq also takes the Fifth.

Then focus shifts back to Tareq, who actually takes the Fifth when asked the simple questions of whether he wore a tux that night and whether he was actually at the event! Next some wiseass congressman asks Tareq whether “you are here right now,” and Tareq actually turns to his attorney for advice on answering that question! Back at Lynda’s apartment, Lynda is piling on Michaele, and she gets into it a bit with Paul, who considers Michaele a friend even though he agrees that the Salahis acted inappropriately in crashing (allegedly) the State Dinner.

Then HILARIOUS! The group at Lynda’s apartment discusses the topic of “who’s going to hire Michaele” for a job after all this. Mary predicts, “I think Playboy is next”! And mind you, this was almost a full year in advance of the announcement that Michaele will be appearing in Playboy. Mary sure nailed that one! The ladies then joke about how Playboy will have to “pad that,” in reference to Michaele’s lack of a chest! (This was precisely my comment when the recent news broke about Michaele’s Playboy appearance).

Segment 5: It’s Thursday, January 21, 2010, and we’re back at Lynda’s apartment. Stacie, Cat and Mary all show up for a meeting amongst the entire cast of the show (save Michaele). They’re meeting to discuss their approach to the dealing with the Salahis going forward. Stacie says that she still wants to hear the Salahis’ side of the story (a noble desire, BTW). Cat comes up with a new moniker for the Salahis – “Celebrity Terrorists.” Stacie wants to invite the Salahis to a dinner, with everyone attending, so that the Salahis can explain their side of things.

But Mary says there’s no way in hell she can be in their presence after they leveled accusations at Mary’s daughter Lolly about being involved in the theft of a vehicle and polo gear belonging to the Salahis (aside point: Mary has an extremely freckled chest, BTW, which I don’t think I’ve previously noted -- you'll find I'm chalk full of non-sequiturs like that!). Lynda also says that she currently has no desire to be around the Salahis. BUT CAT WANTS to be there to confront them, since she got un-invited from the White House Xmas party as a result of even knowing the Salahis.

Next It’s Dinner Time with the Salahis! Michaele and Tareq show up at Stacie’s house, with Stacie, Jason and Cat all in attendance. There is an immediate “can you even cut it with a knife” tension between Cat and the Salahis. Cat sits away from them in the living room, not looking at them, and taking deep breaths to try to keep from exploding upon them verbally. As the Turners and the Salahis make small talk, Cat exits the room in a huff. She then promptly re-enters the room, all bundled up for the cold, and announces that “I’m out of here.” But before she goes, she starts blasting on the Salahis! “You are two of the most artificial, most fake people, that I have ever met in my entire life. You are a disgrace to America!” Michaele stands up: “I won’t take your abuse. You need to be a lady!” Cat calls them a “disgrace” again and storms out.

Segment 6: In the meantime, Michaele has also put on her coat to leave, but Jason hilariously sweet talks her into taking off the coat and staying awhile (have I mentioned before that Jason is one of my favorite people on this show – yes, of course I have). The Turners are easily the two nicest people on this show (and about the only couple you’d like to know in real life), and yet they are also the most capable of putting on a great shuck-and-jive with fellow castmates! Here, it’s all designed to get the Salahis comfortable so that they will hopefully divulge some details about the now-infamous State Dinner!

The Turners and Salahis then sit back down in the Turners’ living room. Stacie reveals to the Salahis that Cat was un-invited from the White House Christmas party because she (Cat) knew the Salahis. Then, complete WEIRDNESS! Stacie merely alludes to the craziness of the past weeks, and Michaele declares that they can’t talk about the State Dinner and even acts at first like she and Tareq must leave. Michaele then says that their “real friends” don’t feel the need to even raise the subject.

Then Jason “cuts to the chase”: He and Stacie want to know the Salahis' side of the story because they have trouble reconciling the news accounts with the Salahis that they’ve grown to know in recent months. AND THAT’S IT! Michaele says, “We’re Done!”, and she and Tareq start to storm out. Off-camera, Stacie observes that this whole “WE CAN’T TALK” thing was being driven more by Michaele than Tareq (whereas most of the Salahis' drama is more typically driven by Tareq, seemingly).

Making their exit, the Salahis scurry out the Turners’ back door (apparently to avoid Bravo’s cameras as best they can), which visibly irritates Stacie and Jason. Back in the house, Stacie realizes that Cat hasn’t really left, but rather is still lingering about out in the yard (more weirdness!). Stacie invites Cat back in, and Cat returns. The three of them discuss the crassness of the Salahis' behavior this night [allegedly -- in case you haven't noticed, I feel the need the say "allegedly" in almost every sentence involving the Salahis since they might otherwise sue me, as they've threatened to do recently with respect to ALL of their DC castmates for so much as even raising the possibility that the Salahis "crashed" the State Dinner].

Stacie then actually refers to the Salahis as “deranged” (which I love, since that’s one of my favorite words) and Jason refers to Tareq as “a fool.” This whole event has been very off-putting to the Turners, who previously were willing to listen to the Salahis’ side of the story. The First Season ends with Cat’s observation that “there’s never a dull moment in DC.” Which is certainly one way of putting it! END OF SEASON ONE.

Final Comment: This was the Season Finale, and thus my coverage of this show ends. Bravo is reportedly airing "Reunion" shows with the cast members the next two Thursdays. I won't be covering those, but I thought I'd mention them for anyone who might be interested. Season 1 is now over. Thank God (I feel just like the ring announcer at the end of the Thunderlips-Rocky Balboa charity fight in Rocky III). Out.

These Look Delicious!

And yes, I'm being serious. They're "spaghetti tacos," which I noticed are getting a lot of buzz on the Internet these days (links below). I'm not sure that there's even any restaurant that carries them. Instead, it seems more like a "make it on your own at home" sort of rage. I will have to give these a try. I like tacos. I love spaghetti. Seems like a match made in heaven. And very low-fat as well, as long as you don't ruin it with a huge helping of cheese or extra meat.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/foodwine/2013081614_spagettitacos06.html?syndication=rss

http://www.icarly.com/iSnaps/photo6970.html

Mega-Ouch! Obama About As Popular in the Show-Me State as a Kansas Jayhawk Redlegger on the Wrong Side of the Border.

I was looking at some new CNN polling data tonight (link at bottom) concerning the U.S. Senate races and Obama approval ratings in several states, including my beloved Show-Me State of Missouri. The complete disconnect of Obama and the democrat party from those of us here in the American Heartland has been discussed many times in this space, and the same is on no better display than in the Missouri polling numbers, where Obama's approval ratings are starting to approach the abysmal (and deservedly so) levels of W Bush in his second term.

61% of likely voters in Missouri disapprove of Obama's job performance, while only a paltry 34% approve (we do, after all, have a lot of blind democrat party partisans in our two major metropolitan areas of Kansas City and St. Louis). My people -- the Independents and the non-liberal, non-conservative dems and repubs of the Missouri small towns and rural areas -- are clearly driving such numbers.

These numbers bode very poorly for your Robin Carnahans and Ike Skeltons of the world. I couldn't give a rat's behind about the Carnahan race, because I think her GOP opponent Roy Blunt is just as much of a slimeball as she is. But as to Skelton, I'll laugh my ass halfway to Columbia on November 2 if voters in his district send him into retirement after 35 years in the House. It's time for you to go, old man, since you're nothing more than a career politician and incessant AND MINDLESS rubberstamp for the far leftist dems who control DC these days.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/10/06/topstate5a.pdf

Sarah Palin's Hubbie to Alaska GOP Senate Candidate Joe Miller: "My Wife Put Her Ass on the Line for You!"

Apologies in advance, but any time I see a news story that contains both the word "Palin" and the word "ass," you can be darn sure that it's going to make an appearance on this blog. And so it is today that we have the rather oddball story of Palin's husband Todd firing off angry e-mails at Alaska republican Senate candidate Joe Miller (link to full story at bottom).

Reportedly, Todd blew his stack when Miller recently dodged a question from Fox News asking Miller if Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. Todd apparently took offense to this since his wife had previously endorsed Miller during the GOP primary. In addition to the above-mentioned reference to his wife's ass, Todd's e-mails also rant and rave about Miller "not being able to answer a simple question" from Fox News and that this is not "how this endorsement stuff works."

But perhaps the zaniest thing from Todd's e-mails is when he explains that "Sarah spent all morning working on a Facebook post for you" (which Todd indicates was a wasted effort -- "she won't use it, not now"). Excuse me? All morning on a simple Facebook post? And Todd's really complaining about someone being unwilling to trumpet his wife's qualifications for president? I mean, say she got elected president and had to come up with a State of the Union address -- how long's that process going to take her? Six weeks at Camp David?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101006/el_yblog_upshot/todd-palin-slams-joe-miller-in-leaked-emails

Possible Obama/Hillary Ticket Reportedly"On the Table." Yes! NOW Obama ReallyHas My Vote for 2012!

NOT! I didn't vote for His Majesty in 2008, and I sure as heck won't be voting for him in 2012. I don't care if he resurrects and rolls out JFK (the last great American president) as his damn running mate. Not that Hillary would make any difference, anyway: I don't trust her, and I don't like her. Hell, just stick with Biden. At least he's good for some laughs. Nope, the only question for me in 2012 is whether I'll be able to stomach voting for whomever the republicans stick up there. I've never voted for a republican for president, and so the GOP has its work cut out for it.

But I'm not so pompous as to fail to fully realize that a move to add Hillary to the ticket (with Biden basically switching places with her and becoming secretary of state) ain't aimed at me. Sure, the democrat party would be hopeful that such a move would bring back some lost Independents, but the real motivation would be to energize democrat voters to get out to vote. The energy and enthusiasm with which democrat-leaning groups (Latinos, African-Americans, 20-somethings, etc.) got out and voted in 2008 has all but evaporated in 2010, and the democrat party is certainly going to try to rekindle that for 2012.

That being said, is there really any possibility that Obama would actually add Hillary to his ticket? The White House is denying today that any such plan is even being considered. And while the White House denying something is typically completely meaningless, I think there just might be some truth to today's denial. That's because I don't see any way in hell that the egomaniacal Obama would ever let a political rival like Hillary anywhere near his ticket. Hillary is secretary of state for one primary reason: The old Godfather adage about keeping "your friends close, but your enemies closer." Even under that wisdom, there is such a thing as too close. And that's why I predict that we will never see an Obama/Hillary ticket.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20018699-503544.html

Obama & Rahm Can't Be Pleased: Chicago Neighborhood Named Most Dangerous in the Entire Country. But Where's the Shock?

It's the "United Park Center" neighborhood in the Windy City, and a new report from Walletpop.com names it Numero Uno on that website's list of the Most Dangerous Neighborhoods in the United States. And if you happen to wonder what that means, here's a little taste, just to wet your beak: The website reports that if you so much as walk down a street in this neighborhood, your chances of being the victim of a crime are one in four.

Just think about the poor dude tasked with delivering the mail down there! As the linked story from the local NBC affiliate says, if you plan to stray into this neighborhood, "keep your belongings close and the pepper spray handy." Gee, ya think?

But alas, does any of this come as any real surprise? It seems to me that Chicago has been notorious for its bad neighborhoods for decades. The late musician Jim Croce was talking about "the south side of Chicago being the baddest part of town" back in the early 1970's when he introduced the world to Bad, Bad Leroy Brown.

Then in the 1980's, the badass One Man Gang terrorized professional wrestling rings throughout the country. And from where did OMG hail, you might ask? Well, from none other than Halsted Street in Chicago -- a neighborhood immediately east of the above-described "United Park Center" neighborhood.

So there's really nothing new here. I've been to Chicago a number of times, and (apart from its slimy political culture) it's a great city. Just know the neighborhoods to stay the hell out of, and you'll be fine. And if you are dumb enough to wander into those neighborhoods, watch out you don't leave "looking like a jigsaw puzzle with a couple of pieces gone."

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Chicago-most-Dangerous-Neighborhood-in-America-104278813.html?dr

Employment-At-Will Run Amok @ Nude Shoot:So You Thought You Could Eat a Pastry, Uh?In that Case, YOU'RE FIRED!

I don't care how pretty I might be, I vow never to do any nude modeling for Abercrombie & Fitch -- leastways not after having read the horror story linked at the bottom. And I don't care how much they pay me!

It's reported that Abercrombie really put the screws to 30 female and male models during a recent nude shoot in New York. During the week-long shoot, the models were allegedly forced to work 13-hours days, were paid peanuts by industry standards, and were given a palty 13-buck-per-day stipend for meals. But none of that was even the worst part!

The ad agency tasked by Abercrombie to police the models -- Shahid & Co. -- "monitored their drinking, eating and workouts around the clock." And reportedly, Shahid really took its enforcer role pretty damn seriously:

The agency gave one Belgian model his walking papers for committing the cardinal sin of eating a croissant! And from the quote in the linked story, it also appears that the model's coffee drinking also played some sort of role in the firing.

I can only speculate that these models were expected to live on bread and water during their imprisonment (errrr, employment) -- at least as much bread and water that their putrid per diem meal stipend would allow.

For these models, there has to be a less difficult career out there somewhere. I would think that even serving as a crash-test dummy or a janitor in an Alabama $hithouse would be preferable.

http://www.newyorkpost.com/p/pagesix/slim_pickings_at_nude_shoot_l5vqW2lsT4SorVWBXqOtdJ

Look At This Monstrosity!

No, not that annoying King Burger King mascot, but instead Burger King's new "Pizza Burger" (pictured above), which was introduced in the Big Apple this weekend (link to story at bottom). Just in time for the colder months (when people already tend to pack on a few extra pounds), BK is hitting America with this piece of crap -- which tips the scales at over 2500 calories (that's not a typo).

I wouldn't even want to know the fat content, but it must be well over 100 grams -- maybe 2 or 3 hundred. This heart-attack-on-a-bun features Whooper patties topped with pepperoni and mozzarella cheese (and Lord only knows what that white sauce might be -- it's probably seasoned lard, with BK tossing that into the mix just for good measure).

But alas, as usual, I won't heap too much $hit on the fast food joint for its unhealthy menu items (since people know full well they're eating crap when they eat crap) unless the joint fails to offer any healthy alternatives. And I know for a fact that BK does offer a low fat veggie burger (just tell them to hold the mayo), which is good, if not also overpriced.

BTW, I wonder if Obama -- who's never met a cheeseburger he didn't like -- will be giving the Pizza Burger a try sometime soon? Just make sure you split the thing with Biden and a few other people, Mr. President.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Recipes/slideshow/calories-fast-foods-biggest-indulgences-10336424

NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman Nails It: Forget the Conservative "Tea Party"; The Angry Non-Conservative, Non-Liberal Masses Are the Real "Tea Party"

In a column this weekend (link at bottom), Friedman (pictured on the left) says that conservative-dominated and so-called "Tea Party Movement," while influential, still amounts to little more than a "'Tea Kettle movement' — because all it’s doing is letting off steam." He declares that the people with the real influence on upcoming elections -- non-liberal, non-conservative Independents, democrats and republicans -- are the "real Tea Party."

They're the angry folks you saw in such droves at all the townhall meetings and protests (as pictured above) during the August of Discontent in 2009 (which did not repeat itself in 2010 because dem lawmakers were too cowardly to hold very many townhalls). They're the folks who are dismissive of the "Tea Kettle" conservative tea partiers, with all of their incoherent drivel about cutting debts and deficits while at the same time cutting taxes right and left and with no concrete proposal or plan whatsoever for doing so (with the exception of Paul Ryan, although most tea partiers and establishment repubs alike run from that guy like he was some form of the plague -- how dare he actually come up with a plan for balancing the budget?!).

As Friedman very accurately describes the "real tea partiers" (a moniker that I don't much care for, but it's just Friedman's way of referring to us): "The important ["real"] Tea Party movement, which stretches from centrist Republicans to independents right through to centrist Democrats, understands this at a gut level and is looking for a leader with three characteristics. First, a patriot: a leader who is more interested in fighting for his country than his party. Second, a leader who persuades Americans that he or she actually has a plan not just to cut taxes or pump stimulus, but to do something much larger — to make America successful, thriving and respected again. And third, someone with the ability to lead in the face of uncertainty and not simply whine about how tough things are — a leader who believes his job is not to read the polls but to change the polls."

The final paragraph of Friedman's column provides an excellent summation: "Any Tea Party that says the simple answer is just shrinking government and slashing taxes might be able to tip the midterm elections in its direction. But it can’t tip America in the right direction. There is a Tea Party for that, but it’s still waiting for a leader."

And Friedman's correct -- we are waiting. How about the aforementioned Paul Ryan? He's been about the only politician on either side for many, many years who has left a favorable impression upon me (at least so far). But alas, he's still just a young guy, about my age. But regardless, someone -- a natural leader and person of character -- has got to step up one of these days to represent the majority of this country which is not on the far left or far right. I still have confidence that such person is out there, somewhere.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/opinion/29friedman.html

Oh, Good Grief!

A picture's worth a 1000 words, as they say. Just in time for Halloween and the Holiday Season, the "Tea Party Coloring Book For Kids" is apparently about to hit bookstores everywhere (link to story at bottom). In addition to the sneak peak available above, one is left to imagine what other choice figures might be included within this inspired publication? I mean, I can only imagine how the Table of Contents might read:

-p.1: Punish The RINO with your crayon.
-p.2: Finish off The Moderate's mealy-mouth.
-p.3: Give The Liberal a zany, menacing sort of look.
-p.4: Color The Bible with glowing colors.
-p.5: You CAN color lipstick on a Palin.
-p.6: Create your own misspelled rally sign.
-p.7: Show them that there ARE TOO black tea partiers!
-p.8: Can you find the Obama birth certificate?
-p.9: Doodle away on Glenn Beck's chalkboard.
-p.10: Color The Communist bright red.
-p.11: Defile this gay couple's marriage certificate.
-p.12: Draw the happy face of new tax cuts.
-p.13: Color clothes on our real founding fathers, Adam & Eve.
-p.14: Start a raging orange blaze atop The Koran.
-p.15: Help Christine O'Donnell cast a colorful spell.

And if the next thing we see is "The Progressive Coloring Book For Kids" this fall, I'm really going to start to worry (i.e. have a field day)! -- Talk about a Table of Contents that would write itself!

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/books-and-literature/book-blog/article_527f0b28-cd8d-11df-91af-00127992bc8b.html

Worst Getaway EVER: Mugger Tries to Hop Train, But "Train Kills Thug"

Psssst: Unless you're a hobo or a professional stunt man with acquired talents in the arts of hopping on and off of moving trains, you might want to come up with a different getaway plan the next time you knock over a gas station or rob a pedestrian. And with today's moral in mind, I bring you this rather disgusting story from the Big Apple (link to The Post's full story at bottom):

New York City cops says local man Bryan Freeley (not clear if he's any relation to fellow New Yorker, Ace) brandished a knife on a street in lower Manhattan yesterday and mugged a 32-year-old victim for 150 bucks. So as for Part I of Freeley's master plan: Success. But that's when things went terribly awry, you might say.

Freeley apparently had forgotten to develop a Part II to said plan (i.e. his escape) or the Part II he had in mind was awfully ill-conceived (which I believe would officially make it a "half-baked plan," no?). Freeley reportedly took off on a "fatal dash" (that's certainly one way of putting it) down into the NYC subway system, where he tried to leap aboard a speeding subway train.

Apparently lacking the skills and expertise of a veteran tramp or stunt man (to which I alluded at the top), Freeley fell between two cars of the train and was swept underneath. Yep, he's dead alright. And if he had just been a bit more patient and waited for the next train -- he had more than enough dough on him to afford a token.

http://www.newyorkpost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/train_kills_thug_Atrd1ArGhpHz6gyge5nqNL