I may call myself Big Daddy, but THIS is the Real Big Daddy!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1189232/Desmond-Hatchett-fathers-21-children-11-different-women--hes-29.html

The banner says this Tennessee man, age 29, fathered 21 kids by 11 different women in a span of around 10 years. The funniest part of the whole story: "Many Knoxville residents are calling for him to be castrated."

Myself, I'm a big proponent of the punishment fitting the crime. I'd sentence this man to 1 year straight of being forced to care for all 21 kids at the same time. But alas, I think I'd run afoul there of our 8th Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause. Besides, I'm sure the Real Big Daddy would gladly accept castration over my punishment in a heartbeat.

For a little comic relief in these crazy times and world, you should read this story (AND this post).

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Reporter-Dragged-Kicking-and-Screaming-From-Near-Air-Force-One-.html

A number of observations here:

1. Can someone explain to me how in the heck this story is the headline of Drudge Report? Please. Drudge Report is starting to rub me the wrong way on a consistent basis almost as much as these left-slanted "journalistic" outlets like MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, etc.

2. I didn't realize the Catholic Church has suddenly done an about-face after centuries and centuries of only allowing males to be priests! (For the record, they should allow women to be priests, but that's irrelevant to the current point -- the only relevant fact is that the Catholic Church has not changed positions on this, and sadly likely won't anytime soon.) The FUNNIEST part of this story is how this lady ("Brenda Lee") claimed to be a "Catholic priestess" from LA. SAY WHAT?

3. This lady is apparently quite the globetrotter, moonlighting as a "Catholic priestess" in LA while somehow managing to find the time somewhere to be a writer for the Georgia Informer (whatever that is) in Macon, GA. I couldn't do that? Could you do that? (Wink to Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid).

4. Somehow I think that if Ms. Lee had been given a third opportunity to identify herself, we would have learned that she was previously Brenda Lee, the famous country-and-western singer, but also that she's undergone radical plastic surgery in recent years in order to contemporarize her entire look and image.

5. Why is Ms. Lee trying to hand a letter to His Majesty telling him to take a stand on traditional marriage? Hasn't he already done that? I thought that was already cleared up: His Majesty has very clearly taken the position (never retracted) that he opposes same-sex marriages (leaving aside his White House trying at the same time to walk both sides of the fence, e.g. basically referring to Miss California as a human being existing on the level of a canine). And BTW: Drew Barrymore ranting and raving today about the Cali Supremes' decision this week on gay marriage: Hey Drew, you were hot back in the day (and still largely are) in Poison Ivy and such, but where's the venom from people like you when it comes to the man you voted for for President (whom, I REPEAT, has taken the clear position -- never retracted -- that he opposes gay marriage)?

6. But I digress. I close with this observation: How in the heck was Ms. Brenda Lee ever granted White House press credentials in the first place? Was it due to her prominent place as a staff member of the Georgia Informer, or did it owe to her being a Catholic priestess from LA? Hell, methinks I need to apply for some White House press credentials -- after all I'm a graduate (cum laude, if I do say so myself) of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Journalism (the best J-School in the country, to this day, by the way) -- so I've got the credentials to get the "credentials", right? Damn, I'd love to walk into one of those White House daily briefings and start firing off some of the questions that I have! But somehow, I don't think such a spectacle would ever be permitted. Maybe if I was a Catholic priestess, though.

For a little bit of Independent Inspiration tonight, I thought I'd recite one of my all-time favorite quotes...

"In this world, some people are leaders, and some people are followers. And then there's me."

That's one of my favorite quotes because I just invented it about 10 minutes ago. (Although, if that just streamed through some level of my subconscious and some other ***hole said it first, I'm sure you'll let me know). It's rather quickly become one of my favorite quotes because I think it pretty well summarizes where I'm coming from in this thing.

Is White House press secretary Robert Gibbs merely a thin-skinned little male clone of Janet Napolitano? I guess I better be "careful" over here!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/23016.html

Here goes His Majesty's administration again with the pointed comments about the kinds of words and language we should be using and the kinds of thoughts we should be expressing. Almost as quick as you can say Terrorist or Swine Flu, Gibbs is in on the act today with this outlandish statement concerning those who may try to criticize His Majesty's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

“I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation."

My follow-up question to Gibbs is simple: OR WHAT? What's going to happen to me if I'm not "exceedingly careful" (in your book) in any criticisms I might have of Sotomayor? Obviously, nothing's gonna happen. (See United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, First Amendment therein). That's why there is neither any rhyme nor reason to such an absurd assertion -- Rather it's just another mindless, overbearing directive from His Majesty's administration. Well, Your Majesty, that's some real good advice there. I hope you don't mind too much if I don't follow it. (Wink on the last line to that classic 70's western, Alias Smith & Jones).

Daily Notes: Cali gay marriage, Supreme Court nominee, and North Korea. So what do I think about the Cali Supremes upholding the CA gay marriage ban?

Well, here's precisely what I think: I couldn't give a rat's ass. It's an issue I care little about in the abstract, and moreover, I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.

http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/05/groups-on-far-left-far-right-who-try-to.html
http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html

2. Obama's USSC nominee: Since I'd never heard of her before today (except perhaps a few mentions on the Sunday morning political shows two days ago), I have no informed opinion at this point. I have read her now infamous quote (“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"), and frankly find it hard to ponder a more asinine comment coming from allegedly educated human being (let alone someone nominated to our nation's highest court) -- not to mention the outright impossibility of any caucasian republican USSC nominee making a similar comment and ever surviving the nomination process. But is it disqualifying? I'm not going to say that. Not as a person who has said myriad dumb, regrettable things in my time. No, I don't yet have any freakin' clue what this lady stands for or her judicial record, and so I'm going to reserve judgment until becoming more informed in the days to come and through the confirmation process. If you expected me to rush to judgment and start ranting and raving one way or the other, then you don't me very well and you can go **** yourself.

3. North Korea: I really do hate the national sports media's much-cliched line, "That's just Manny being Manny," which by the way the Kansas City media has transformed into a new stupid cliche ("That's just Zach being Zach", in response to your typical Greinke interview), but perhaps I will now lose all ability to ever have my stomach turned by such a line ever again, because here goes: This is just North Korea being North Korea. What the hell is supposed to happen in response? Sure, you'd hope that the US will work hard on the diplomatic front to garner a quick and sharp rebuke from the UN security council (something we were not able to accomplish after the recent missile test -- errrrrrrrrrrr "satellite launch" into space -- from North Korea). At least one thing I don't have to worry about: As much as many of His Majesty's views, policies and actions very much concern me, at least I know with him that there is no danger of us launching some ill-advised, moronic Neo-Con offensive at North Korea. AT LEAST I can sleep a tiny bit easier there.

Out.

On this Memorial Day, just wanted to take one second to express my extreme respect and gratitude to all our fallen servicepeople from all of our wars

Groups on far left & far right who try to affect elections in other states are the slime of the earth.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/25/conservative-group-takes-aim-at-reid/

And I call it both ways. The above link is about some far right group from outside Nevada trying to affect the next election involving Harry Reid as they previously did regarding Daschle. I say the same things when I see liberals from California and elsewhere like Tom Hanks pouring money into the Minnesota sentatorial campaign of Al Franken. And I say the same things when I see non-California Mormons rallying to defeat ballot measures in California. Worry about affecting politics in your OWN state OR, if you really want to affect elections in some other state or on a national level, then (1) MOVE to that other state or (2) run (or become involved in a campaign) for national office. Otherwise, shut the **** up already. I would call these people and groups carpetbaggers, but that would be an insult to carpetbaggers everywhere, since at least carpetbaggers have the sack to actually MOVE to the state they are trying to screw up.

The Top 10 Movies of Independence now (finally) have a #8!

Dances With Wolves (1990).

I've been slow in continuing this top 10 list, but to recap: #10, Field of Dreams; #9, Night of the Living Dead; and also-rans which did not quite make the cut: #11, Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid; #12, Godfather Part II; #13, Rocky (part I); #14, The Sting; and #15, The Outlaw Josey Wales.

But back to Dances With Wolves: In addition to the wonderfully magnetic cast, orchestral soundtrack (which is God-awesome), scenery, and cinematography -- to me, the most significant and overarching (and yet simple) message of this film was as follows: Don't buy too much into the stereotypes of groups of people whom society says are "different" from you because they come from a different culture and way of thinking, and don't embrace the too-often resulting viewpoint that you should be fearful, hateful and warwongering towards "different" people. Instead, before you do too much of anything, go try to get to know and talk to those people. You just might find that the stereotype bares no resemblance whatsoever to the truth.

Colin Powell continues to pi$$ away the former respect I had for him.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22902.html

Geez Colin, how about at least taking a decisive stand for one of first times in the political aspect of your career. At least I could have an ounce of respect for that. But you don't vote for Obama, then make proclamations about how most Americans "want" more and more taxes and more government in their lives, and then claim to be a republican! Talk about trying to walk both sides of the fence, which is something I can't stand. In my view, you're basically a liberal democrat these days, so why not embrace it? Or, if you truly do have views that are both on the left and right, then start calling yourself an Independent. But own up to whom you are (whomever that might truly be) and stop it with the incessant fence-straddling and turncoating which has very much become your calling card. It's getting very old, man.

My goodness, this is a crazy, hate-filled world. Want some peace? My suggestion would be to go to your local Best Buy and pick up Lennon Legend.

That's the greatest hits compilation CD of John Lennon from his solo career after the Beatles. If you can't listen to those songs and find a tiny bit of peace, then you have a screw loose.

BTW, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9, Number 9.

Another thought tonight: My goal is not to make you change your mind. Because if your mind's made up I won't change it. My goal is for you to hear me

Because I'm just expressing $hit that the mainstream of America largely believes. So if you're on the far right or far left, I know I'm not gonna change your mind, but if you hear enough folks like me and rest of the majority speaking out, we will at least change your way of acting (if not of thinking).

Here's why the Far Right's portrait of Ahmadinejad as some kind of new AntiChrist figure has always been so laughable to me.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521481,00.html?test=latestnews


This dude is like a complete cartoon character -- a dufus, a flunkey, a lackey, a sidekick, much like Danny Stinkscale to #1 D-Bag KEITZ! on 810 radio in KC -- he takes his orders from the Ayatollah. Did anyone notice in the last month (I don't have a link readily at hand, sorry) when Ahmadinejad got dressed down by the Ayatollah for firing some bureacrat whom the Ayatollah didn't want fired? I mean, Persia is a completely backward state, with several centers of power, and I would be surprised to ever see them act together in any kind of decisive fashion to suddenly pose a serious world threat. Not to mention, there is a very strong "moderate" influence in Iran that is a constant check on the radicals. We were told 'round 2003 that they are a part of this "Axis of Evil", along with Iraq and North Korea, and I have to say that's when "W!" totally lost me (I didn't vote for him (or Gore) in 2000), but I at least was willing to give him a chance). I can recall thinking, WTF are you thinking about with that speech, "W!" -- it was very clear right at that moment and from the pundits afterward that we were going to invade Iraq for any good or bad reason that we could find. Bad memories.

People who know me wonder I'm a little militant. A little angry. A little loud. A little out there. I'll tell you why.

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1212521.html

Because I live in a world of slimeballs. People who abuse animals. People who kidnap and rape children. People who hack off other human beings' heads. People who bully around others who aren't as physically strong as them. People driven to kill as many innocent Americans as possible, with a far left that immediately thereafter tells me that I'm to blame. People on both extremes who tell me I would never any place in their party since I'm not an extremist just like them. People third in line for the presidency who say "I was never briefed" but later are forced to admit that they were informed. People who lie to us about the pretense to invade a sovereign country in order to further some highly misplaced dream that it's our country's destiny to impose our way of thinking and governance (as wonderful as it may be, admittedly) upon the entire world. People who state or imply that I'm something less than them or am some kind of an extremist since I have the nerve to vote for third party candidates and to hale from a town of 9000. People who call themselves journalists but are no more than advocates for a cause. People (Jack Harry) who pick KU to win the north before the season and then disingenuously slam on Pinkel in November that he deserves no credit for anything except accomplishing what he was expected to accomplish. Allright, obviously I could keep up with such theme and rant all night, but the point being -- it's a slimeball world, and frankly these are fairly dangerous times. The rage and the anger is just a response to that. These days, we all need to keep an edge in one way or the other just to tolerate all the slimeballs. Laughing more is good way too. Just laugh at 'em when that's possible. Because the slimeballs aren't going anywhere (there are more of them every day). But either are we.

Moronic Far Left/Far Right Debate # 832,649.

http://www.kansascity.com/273/story/1210607.html

The BIG ISSUE? Whether or not a majority of the country is "pro-life". And then there's the corollary issue of whether recent opinion polls on the abortion question have been biased, corrupted and/or just plain fraudulent. Big yawn. I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture a guess that the country is somewhere around 50-50 on this issue, one way or the other. So there you have it. Can we move on now? I can think of many much more compelling things to think about this Memorial Day weekend, like where I'm going to pick up my lunch and whether the local zoning rules will permit me to construct a $hithouse in an apartment complex common area -- both of which I view about as seriously as whether 49%, 50% or 51% of the country is "pro-life".

Geez! Drudge Report doing its best to drive down the stock market?

DOLLAR PLUNGE; FEAR OVER DEBT
GM revamp under attack; Feds to cancel debts, inject aid...
FIAT already concerned for 'deteriorating' CHRYSLER...
Lawmakers want Obama to slow down on autos...

The above are the top 4 headlines on Drudge tonight and are very similar to what's been there all day long. I realize that Drudge slants to the right (just like the so-called mainstream media incessantly slants to the left), but this is a little over the top, and as a dude who just calls it like I "sees" it, and who absolutely hates the journalistic bias he sees all around him on a daily basis, I have to say on this night that Drudge should be ashamed of itself (or is it, himself? I have no idea how much Matt Drudge even has any editorial involvement in that site anymore). Last time I noticed earlier today, the Dow Jones was actually up, and now I see that it closed today at a WHOPPIN' FOURTEEN POINTS DOWN! Stop the Presses! To read Drudge all day, you'd think the sky was falling. As Lennon once said (paraphrasing), all most of us are just looking for is some truth. Too bad we can NEVER look to any of our media outlets or popular websites for the same.

Obama just keeps on rachetin' up the spending & troop levels in Afghanistan. CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!

All without any articulated plan for what the **** we are doing there. MORE OF THE SAME, METHINKS!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/senate-approves-billion-war-spending/

And Karl Rove really needs to join Cheney in that bunker somewhere and just go the **** away as well.

Meghan McCain has that $h** all correct -- Dude Rove is a really creepy guy, and I wish he would just go the **** away too.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286200693341141.html

OK, Dick Cheney really just needs to go the **** away!

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22804.html

I'm get tired of listening to him. Hey Cheney, you say we all need to stop "looking backward"? Then why in the hell do you keep pasting your fat, bloated, slimey mug all over the television and internet? As many issues as I have with the current regime and the far left base they are in bed with, I must say dude -- It's not your proper place anymore to take them on. Your times are over! Over! And you've got to get that through your head! (wink to Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid and American Graffitti for a classic mixed line right there) . You and your brother in arms, "W!", committed about the worst political atrocity that I've witnessed in 38 years on this planet -- outright lying to us about the pretense for invading Iraq. And I've lived through slimeballs like Nixon and Clinton, so my last statement is really saying something. I'm serious, you slimey dishonest piece of crap -- just get the **** out of here! Don't go away mad, just go the **** away, already!!!

You want some change we can believe in? How about that you will not hear me try to blame today's NYC terror plot on either Obama or Bush.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/FBI-Bust-Plot-Foiled.html

The surmised motive for this plot is our continuing presence in Afghanistan, on which I have loudly criticized the Obama administration for wratcheting up our troop levels by 25K (with a lot more sure to come) and billions and billions of new spending WITHOUT any expressed, coherent plan for what the hell we are trying to accomplish there. Similarly, I had (and still have) no problem with our initial presence there because the stated goal was to take out Al Qaeda, but Bush screwed the pooch, as they say, by diverting most our resources to a BS infiltration of Iraq. So in other words, I have plenty to say about both these dudes that is not positive when it comes to their Afghani policies. But does that I mean that I blame either of them for some sicko, deranged freak plotting some terror plan against innocent Jewish people in NYC? Fuck no. (that's right, I didn't even bleep myself out this time as I usually do, because I feel so strongly about using that word in this instance). So whom do I blame? Get this -- because it's very novel thinking in this day and age -- I actually blame the sick fucks who hatched the plan and conspiracy in the first place! Whoahhhh! Stop the moon's revolution around the earth! What am I thinking? (well, actually, I'm just thinking like the 60-65% majority of this country thinks, even if the radical far left and far right are totally incapable of getting a clue about such a reality at any point in their pathetic lives).

On occasion, these politicans have to make tough decisions, and when they do, they don't deserve to be called war criminals and murderers.

I've never been much of fan of Jay Nixon. He's always struck me as a political fat cat, kind of like the new wave version of Kit Bond. Dude was Missouri AG for like 40 years (can you say term limits!), and dude has never impressed me with too much that's he's done (although sticking up for the preservation of the old Boonville railroad bridge over the Missouri river was a notable exception). But I digress. The point is he had a TOUGH decision tonight, and ultimately denied clemency for this Skillicorn character.

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1205083.html

I personally would have labored over that decision more than the natural resulting act of a hot dog eating contestant in a Georgia shithouse. I would have labored over the fact that I oppose the death penalty because it on rare occasions results in innocent convicts being killed, versus, on the other hand, that I've seen little (although haven't exactly followed the whole story and saga very closely, admittedly) to suggest that this Skillicorn isn't as guilty as sin and doesn't deserve to die for the innocent life that he took (as I've said before in this space, I have no problem with the basic tenet upon which the death penalty is based, i.e. that if you take someone's life in the first degree, you deserve to die for it). And I'll admit this -- I have no freakin' idea where I would have come out on such a decision if I had the power. So you won't hear my criticizing Nixon tonight on the extremely difficult decision he had to make.

Which leads me to something that REALLY riled my up recently, but which I have not previously addressed in this space. That would be Jon Stewart calling Harry Truman a "war criminal" for Truman's decision to drop the atomic bombs in Japan. I mean, shit, can you cite me a more difficult decision than ANY POLITICIAN IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER HAD than that one? -- between killing tens of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians versus killing tens of thousands of American troops through prolonging the war with an invasion of the Japanese mainland? Disagree with Truman's decision --that's fine -- but don't you dare start spouting some of these bullshit 2000's political buzz phrases like "war criminal" upon a Missourian who faced a tougher decision than I can recall for any American president. I think Stewart purported to issue some kind of apology after the fact, and frankly I have not read it, although I suspect it was probably laiden with the same kind of non-apology apology crap that we saw from Anderson Cooper's so-called "teabagger" non-apology earlier today (see this space, just below).

In sum, you loony, radical, out-of-touch far left and far right: It's fine that you go around spewing your moronic hate and using your anti-intellectual little buzz words 24-7 -- that's your right in this great, wonderful country -- but you really might want to stick the muzzle on when it comes to spewing your same stupid venom when it comes to politicians who truly have to make the hard calls, such as Nixon tonight and Truman in 1945.

Was about to credit Anderson Cooper for apparently taking back his 3rd grade style "teabagger" remark, BUT...

then I actually read the story.

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/anderson_cooper_says_teabagging_comment_was_stupid_silly_116894.asp

Talk about your typical non-apology apology. "It's incorrect to say that I was trying to disparage legitimate protests." That's precisely what you were trying to do, Cooper, wearing your biases on your sleeve at the same time -- behavior that is intolerable in my view from any person holding themselves out to the public as a journalist. THEN, just for loony good measure, you actually have the gall today to throw in the additional comment that "I don't think it's my job to disparage, or encourage, which oddly other networks seemed to be doing." The complete intellectual dishonesty of that statement is self-explanatory. So in conclusion, Cooper, why don't you take your non-apology and go **** yourself (again, just a catch-phrase, not necessarily to be taken literally). You're not a real journalist in any sense of that term.



Post-script: If you go back and read my posts about the tea parties when they occurred, you'll see my viewpoints on those events, which have not changed: I did not like the tenacles that the republican party had into those events, but to describe those events as being exclusively attended by conservatives, republicans and "racists" -- as the far left politicans, blogosphere and mainstream media tried to do -- when a huge swath of the attendees were Independents and/or non-conservatives (with even a fair amount of democrats mixed in), was pure falsehood.

It was sad to listen to a formerly true Independent, Jesse The Body Ventura, on the "Hannity" show tonight.

Dude seems very all-consumed with Bush hatred. Jesse -- he's gone finally -- move on to some new material. Not to mention that you sounded little different from the far left radical blather that I have no place for in my life. Very boring stuff. And cut the mullet dude (for crying out loud)!




Post-script: Hannity sickens me just as much as any of the loony leftsters who control the democratic party. Because everything with him is all about whether your viewpoints align on this neat little vertical pole that he subscribes to. One thing that Ventura had it right about tonight was pointing out that same fact. Of course, Ventura is talking out of both sides of his mouth, because he struck me tonight as just another boring Garrison Keillor & Walter Mondale-like Minnesota leftist with the funny accent. I liked him a lot better when he was Independent.

Heard Gore Vidal tonight likening "W!" to Richard M. Nixon. Shame on you Gore.

This came on VH1 Classic's "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" (an OUTSTANDING documentary that all of you should watch). With all due respect, Mr. Vidal, you are trying to compare apples to oranges, and that's the nicest way I can put it. I've yet to see any evidence of the W! people (as slimey as they were) creating FBI open files on anyone who had the audacity to disagree with them publicly, although I have very much felt some strong winds from your hero's current administration that this same sort of egregious practice might just be coming back into vogue from the Janet Napolitanos, etc., of this country. Yes, W! is one of the worst presidents in this great country's history, and his most absolutely unpardonable sin was lying to us about the pretense to invade Iraq, but was he an absolute enemy of America threatening to deprive us citizens of some of the most basic freedoms we've enjoyed for over 200 years (i.e., the right to freely dissent against our political leaders), as Nixon was trying to do? Not even in the same league. No credible comparison. Shame on you, Gore. Shame on you.

On 4/18/09, I criticized Obama for yucking it up with the likes of Hugo Chavez while tensions were running high between Israel & Iran.

http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/04/israel-stands-to-bomb-iran-this-is-bad.html

Today I will credit Obama for focusing on that issue, because it is a hugely important one.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6307431.ece

Me crediting His Majesty twice in the same day! That's gotta be some kind of record. But as the old cliche goes, I just call it like I see it, and I'll credit The President when I feel he deserves it. But hey, Obama, I'll still waiting over here for you to coherently articulate (sorry for the split infinitive) the plan for Afghanistan. It's long overdue, man.