"We Won Last Night!," Crows a Gleeful Nancy Pelosi Today. Baghdad Bob, Meet San Fran Nan!

You may recall Baghdad Bob (the former Iraqi information minister) from the 2003 invasion of Iraq. As American troops overran Baghdad, ole Bob was on television making statements such as, "I say to you, categorically, that there are no American troops in the Baghdad." Flash forward to today, when the American version of out-of-touch Bob -- San Fran Nan -- actually claimed victory for the dems from last night's election results. As Bill Cosby would say, "R-I-G-H-T!" The dems won last night. And I bare a striking resemblance to Brad Pitt. In addition to Baghdad Bob, San Fran Nan also reminds me today of that old Tony Montana line from Scarface: "I always tell the truth, even when I lie." I mean, it's one thing to spin -- all politicians do so. But to take what actually occurred, and then simply claim that the opposite is what really occurred -- That smacks of a person who is simply delusional or a person so arrogant with power that she feels as if she can get away with saying anything. Or, in the case of San Fran Nan, probably a lot of both. And this person is second in the line of presidential succession? Good grief.

http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Pelosi_dismisses_impact_of_New_Jersey_Virginia.html

How Long Before Far Leftist Bruce Springsteen Denounces New GOP Gov. Christie's Playing of "Born to Run" Right Before Christie's Acceptance Speech?

I'd put the over/under on that one at about an hour. But I'm just trying to grab your attention, because regardless of The Boss' political views, he's an American rock and pop music icon, and the music is all that really matters. But I digress.

As for tonight's election results: As I discussed in the last few days in this space, while I think it's good that a few of the radically controlled dems are losing tonight, you won't find me celebrating republican victories. The repubs are the party who gave us a Neo-Con fringe ruling the very top of our federal government, which needlessly cost us numerous young American lives taking over a sovereign country, which posed little threat to us, on the false pretense of WMD's (which I remain convinced that "W" knew full well were in all likelihood not present in Iraq). But that aside, my post from the past few days basically predicted a repub clean sweep tonight, and it appears that the "conservative party" guy Hoffman in the New York congressional race will lose to the dem Owens. This is somewhat surprising, given that Hoffman was viewed as a more probable win for repubs than Christie in New Jersey.

The reason I mention the New York race is because I view that result as somewhat of a positive, even if it means another leftist dem in Congress. That's because this was a race in which national right-wing big wigs such as Palin, Hannity, Pawlenty, etc., tried to influence the race by endorsing the "conservative party" candidate and thereby effectively forcing the GOP candidate Scozzafava out of the race. I concede that Scozzafava was basically a liberal, not a moderate or centrist in any sense of the word, and probably had no business calling herself a republican. But regardless, I think it's a real positive that the far-right conservatives can try their best to influence a local election and yet come up empty. That makes me laugh. As do the significant dem losses tonight in New Jersey and Virgina. Overall, a pretty good night for an Independent!

Perhaps This Was the Reason for ABC's Rumored Hesitancy to Air the Remake of the "V" Series...

...Politics? As discussed previously in this space (first link below), even stranger than ABC's decision to greenlight the remake of a mediocre 1980's sci-fi series was the reported rumor that ABC was experiencing hesitancy to even put the show on the air despite the show already having been produced. (BTW, the remade "V" debuts tonight on ABC at 7 p.m. central time -- an ABC picture of some of the characters is above). The rumor at that time was that such hesitancy pertained to some silliness about extraterrestrial "aliens" being the focus of the series (which really made no sense). Well, here's perhaps a different (and much less non-sensical) explanation for ABC's alleged hesitancy: The Chicago Tribune today reviews the upcoming series (apparently having been given a sneak peek) and reports that many of the series' themes and events can be interpreted as commentary negative to the so-called "Obamamania" wave of the past year (see second link below).

Regardless, ABC is airing the series (although did it really have any choice financially since the thing had already been produced?), and so I suppose the rumored "hesitancy" is largely a moot issue. At any rate, the Tribune review indicates that the new series is very well made, even if you happen to dislike the supposed anti-"Obamamania" commentary. Based on that positive review, I hope to have a chance to see it.

http://independentrage.blogspot.com/2009/10/weird-stuff-from-tv-network-abc.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-tc-tvcolumn-v-1102-1103nov03,0,7062976.story

Looks Like a Probable Clean Sweep for the Elephants Tomorrow in the Gubernatorial and Congressional Races. But You Won't See Me Celebrating.

The question that will be the subject of all the media and politician spin tomorrow night and thereafter will be whether these likely results are a "referendum on Obama." Well, I say who gives a rat's behind. Yes, they are a referendum on Obama & The Dems at this moment, but hardly so with respect to 2010 or beyond given how quickly these things change. I see a GOP party right now that is ever-increasingly controlled by its far-right conservative extreme, with an ever-diminishing place for anyone in the party who is not also a right-wing conservative. The dem party is little different, with little place for anyone who is not a "progressive" or, at the bare minimum, a liberal. Just another election, same old tired story: Two out-of-touch, extreme-controlled parties who fail in any way to represent a huge swath of this country. It seems clear that the right-wingers will be partying tomorrow night, while the leftist dems will be doing their best to spin a nice face on to a negative story. Meantime, so many of us across the country will just be yawning.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125720723841924171.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

"We **** Everything That Moves!!!"

Hillary Clinton this weekend actually made a public comment that "We tax everything that moves and doesn't move" (first link below). Immediately, I was reminded of the famous Dennis Hopper line from the movie Blue Velvet, although he was dropping an F-bomb in place of the word "tax" (see hilarious video, second link below, which also includes his classic line, "Heineken, **** that **** -- Pabst Blue Ribbon!!!"). Well anyway, I saw Clinton's line and I had to blog about it, but truth be told: (1) When she says "we," she appears to be referring to the United States in general, rather than her party; and (2) I think she's basically telling the truth -- here in the U.S., we do tax just about everything that moves and doesn't move, which is very unfortunate. Obviously, there has to be tax revenue for our government entities to stay in business, but I think I'd like to see those taxes limited in the number of different things that are taxed. Put another way, if local, state or federal government legitimately need to raise taxes in a particular instance (and sometimes it is legitimate, although very often not), then raise an existing type of tax (income is always there and available) and stop trying to find new things to tax all the time. And a final note: Do check out the video contained on the second (youtube) link below: I found it tonight in putting together this blog post, and it is very funny!

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2009%5C10%5C30%5Cstory_30-10-2009_pg1_1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxsIGtju1So&feature=PlayList&p=81C2CA61EA068F36&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=33

This Seems Completely Out of the Blue on a Saturday Morning.

New York GOP congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava (say that name 10 times quickly) has suddenly suspended her campaign this morning, leaving only "conservative party" candidate Doug Hoffman and dem guy Owens in the race. I'm intrigued by what might be going on behind the scenes here. Scozzafava is a fairly liberal republican, not merely a moderate from what I've read (frankly, I've kind of been wondering why she's not a democrat in the first place). Anyway, Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity and a whole host of other deranged right-wingers have been focusing on this New York race and have been endorsing the third-party conservative candidate Hoffman over the GOP candidate Scozzafava. I would assume that all that pressure from the far right finally got to Scozzafava, but who knows. BTW, I often rail on dems and repubs in this space for having no place in their parties for centrists. However, I've remained silent on Scozzafava because, as noted above, I really don't think she's much of a centrist -- instead, she appears to be fairly liberal and probably should be a democrat to begin with (sorry Jeeves to end a sentence on a preposition).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/31/republican-scozzafava-suspends-new-york-congressional-campaign/

The White House Hypocrisy Train Rolls On! If You're a Media Outlet That Disagrees With Us, We Attack! But If You're With Us, WELCOME ABOARD!

(See link below). Sorry, this president and administration are an absolute embarrassment, much like the creature known as W that preceded him (errrrrr, that he "inherited"). Folks, Obama is just another politician. No more, no less. But what makes him so concerning to me is that he's the most radical (in either direction) president in the history of our country. Hardly change "we can believe in." Rather change we should absolutely FEAR, as I do. I have no desire to live in a European-model Huge Government quasi-socialist state. Nor do I want to live in a country where my government works to undermine my unfettered 1st Amendment rights. But yet, those seem to be callings that Obama is all about! He & The Dems scare the hell out of me. And this is an Independent talking -- an Independent who eschews the far right conservatives and republicans on a daily basis just as much as I eschew the dems. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REPRESENT MAINTREAM AMERICA? Good God. In all my years, there's never been a time period that I would describe as Scary Days. Until now.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28955.html

Just In Time For Halloween! The 2000 Page Monster.

Pelosi & House Dems reveal their version of the health care bill today, although apparently it won't be available for any of us to look at until early next week (why is that?). Although, if you try to read it next week, be prepared to be reading (at a minimum) for days, if not weeks, and even then you are likely to understand very little of it. And since Pelosi intends to have the House debate begin on this thing next week, and to ram it through to a vote before November 11, I'm left to wonder exactly the extent of the wool that the dems are trying to pull over our eyes here. Politico.com has the following sample of some of the wonderfully crafted language of the Pelosi bill -- and this is just one sentence:

“(a) Outpatient Hospitals – (1) In General – Section 1833(t)(3)(C)(iv) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395(t)(3)(C)(iv)) is amended – (A) in the first sentence – (i) by inserting “(which is subject to the productivity adjustment described in subclause (II) of such section)” after “1886(b)(3)(B)(iii); and (ii) by inserting “(but not below 0)” after “reduced”; and (B) in the second sentence, by inserting “and which is subject, beginning with 2010 to the productivity adjustment described in section 1886(b)(3)(B)(iii)(II)”.

By the way, I took just a few minutes today to look up the page lengths on a few other pieces of important law and legislation from the past and present, which really does help to put into perspective just how completely absurd a 2000-page health care bill really is (unless the goal is to hide a lot of the things included within the bill):

-The Declaration of Independence: 3 Pages.

-The U.S. Constitution, as ratified in 1789: 23 Pages.

-Title 28 to the U.S. Code, which includes 100's of individual statutes governing the federal judicial branch and the federal court system: Approximately 600 pages.

-The first 155 Chapters of Missouri's statutory code, which includes 100's if not 1000's of individual statutes on myriad different topics and comprises approximately one-fourth of Missouri's entire statutory code: Approximately 1500 pages.

I can't imagine sitting down and fully digesting and understanding all of Title 28 in less than a month, and it would probably take longer. And the first 155 Chapters of the Missouri statutes? Months. But these house members are going to understand the 2000-page monster within the next 10 days or so? One word: Please.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28904.html

Jon Gosselin Poised to Date The Octomom? You Gotta Be Kiddin' Me!

This is one of those celebrity (if you want to call these two that) stories that's so over the top, it actually cracks this side of the blog. Anyway, that's the new report from In Touch Weekly (see KC Star link below). Apparently Jon & The Octomom would date as a part of a new reality series (what else?), with the show's pilot episode called, "Jon - Kate = Jon + Octomom" (no, this is not April 1).

But alas, a potential fly in the ointment: Jon is reportedly a bit "creeped out" about dating The Octomom -- not by The Octomom herself, mind you -- but rather by the possibility that if they hit it off and decide to tie the knot, he would suddenly have 22 kids. Well, yeah, I can see where that might be a bit off-putting to some dudes. But it would make for some wonderful holiday gatherings. For example, they could start a tradition of an annual Thanksgiving football game between the kids since they'd have enough to field two complete teams. Jon & The Octomom could coach one team, and Kate Gosselin the other. Stick it on TLC, bring in a professional broadcast team, hire a few celebrity refs -- and instant ratings, baby! (And BTW, Kids: Never smoke cigarettes.)

http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1535428.html

I Always Thought Calling Someone a "Whore" Was Inappropriate Regardless of What You Meant By It. Guess That's Just My Naivete Shining Through?

You have to laugh at left-wing lunatic Alan Grayson (democratic congressman from Florida). I don't think I've bothered to dignify any of this goof's insane rhetoric previously in this space because (1) it's so utterly mindless, (2) he's a publicity hound, and (3) he's even very small potatoes at that. But his latest escapade is pretty amusing. He calls a Federal Reserve official a "K Street Whore" and tries to defend the statement by dispatching a spokesperson to talk to the media. The spokesperson comes armed with a dictionary, basically saying (and yes, I'm paraphrasing and taking a certain poetic license):

"See it's right here in the American Heritage Dictionary, right there under 'whore.' See, under 'whore,' Definition # 2? It says, 'a person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.' There you have it! The good congressman didn't mean to call Robertson a street-walker. He didn't mean to impugn her character. This wasn't meant as a personal attack. He merely meant that she's a whore in the sense that she has no dignity, principles or conviction whatsoever after she flushed all of that away for her own personal benefit and success. There's nothing more to it than that. Alan should now be exonerated. Just a big misunderstanding. You folks have a good one!"

So. Let me get this straight: As long as you didn't intend to literally refer to someone as a lady of the night, it's perfectly OK to call her a "whore" if what you really meant is that she's an unprincipled fink? A distinction without much of any real difference, perhaps?

And, BTW, what's next out of Grayson? A homophobic F-bomb explained away with the British slang for cigarette? A "jackass" blast backed only with the intention of calling someone "a large eared mammal known for its stubbornness"? A "brown shirt" characterization grounded in the aim of complimenting someone on their attire? Keep that dictionary handy, I guess!

Finally, and just to clarify for the record, when I call Grayson a loon, I don't mean that he's a water fowl native to certain parts of the Northern Hemisphere. And when I call him a goof, I don't mean that he's a computer game error. Nope. Only Definition #1's are good enough for this guy.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28786.html

So If Harry Reid's Health Care Bill Passing Committee with an "Opt Out" Provision Is Really Such a "Bombshell," Why Can't We Read It?

Well, simple, of course: Because it would then be exposed to the ridicule and great marketplace of ideas that has always been the hallmark of our great country, and therefore the far left-controlled dems absolutely eschew such openness. I've said before, folks, these are dangerous times for the country as we know it, and we're seeing more of that play out today. But regardless, it would appear that there's a good chance that the "opt out" is pure subterfuge, anyway, reading between the lines. Bob Beckel (a well-connected liberal whom I respect and whom I think is usually honest in his proclamations) on FoxNews tonight indicated that deals have been struck in far back rooms of congress, and he predicted that the way this will go down is that the "opt out" will be effectively eliminated by a last-minute amendment from (allegedly, although I think it's pretty accurate) left-wing GOP senator Snowe that will inject a so-called "trigger" into the final bill that the senate will pass -- all apparently in an effort to confuse the populace even more. That is, we will be struggling to figure out what the "opt out" means in the first place without being able to read it, and then suddenly we'll get a last-minute bait-and-switch into a "trigger" (which likewise we'll never be allowed to read) that will pass the senate based on back-room deals made, then only to be rubber-stamped into law, in all likelihood, by the radical-left-controlled house . It's a chain of events that wouldn't surprise me at all. These leftists control everything in our federal government, folks -- if you really ever thought they wouldn't ram something through, then you were probably a bit naive.

FORE!

Good grief, Obama sure seems to play a ton of golf and attend a lot of political fundraisers, certainly much more than Bush ever did (link below). Of course, Bush must have set set some kind of modern record for presidential vacation days, and so he had his own problems. My only point is this: During a period when we continue to lose American lives in Afghanistan daily, and when commanders in the field have been waiting and waiting on a decision from Obama about the commanders' requests for more troops, these stories about excessive fundraising and golfing (not to mention finding time to campaign for Olympics and run attack campaigns on solitary media outlets and other organizations) tend to make Obama look very bad, at least in my eyes. I think I know why he's stalling, as discussed previously in this space -- politics, i.e. put the likely controversial decision off until a health care bill can be passed and/or the upcoming gubernatorial elections are over. But I continue to say, Afghanistan is an issue that's so important that politics must be put on the backburner. Obama needs to be spending every waking hour and minute of free time devoting himself to the formulation of a coherent and adequately resourced strategy in Afghanistan or else he needs to get us to the hell out of there. Enough of the politics and golf games already.

http://www.politico.com/click/stories/0910/obama_ties_bush_on_golf.html

Pelosi Pushes for a "Robust Public Option." Say what?

Tell me, will the "robust public option" follow a "robust debate" on said "robust" option? Who talks like that, anyway? Well, dems and repubs do, and perhaps that's a small window into why both parties are so out of touch these days. I mean, can you imagine if we went around talking like dem and repub politicians in our every day lives? "Look at that blonde hottie at the end of the bar. I'm going to march right over there and engage her in some robust conversation!" "Damn, I'm running out of gas. I better get to the next gas station for a robust fill-up." "I got my fourth DUI last night. Time for some robust self-examination!" "If you look at my gal one more time, I'm gonna clock you a robust one!" OK, now I think I have a very robust headache. Trying to listen to these politicians will do that to a person.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/64515-pelosi-calls-emergency-meeting-reiterates-pledge-for-robust-public-option

They'll Be Boozin' in the Street, With Their Panties at Their Feet.

"And the morals that they worship will be gone." Welcome to the wild, booze-fueled, insanity-ridden night-time world of Britain's "ladette" culture (link below). But now the cops are crackin' down! Party poopers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222090/Reveller-pictured-knickers-ankles-shocking-scene-UKs-streets-shame.html

Ouch. Bad News Today for Republicans. But Is It Any Better For Dems?

A new ABC News/Washington Post poll reports that 83% of Independents surveyed said that they do not trust the republicans to make the right decisions. Place yours truly squarely within that 83%, but place me also into what is almost certainly a similar percentage of Independents who do not trust the far-left-controlled dems to make the right decisions. The poll also reports that only 20% of those surveyed identified themselves as republicans -- apparently the lowest number in 26 years. (Link below discusses these poll results in the context of the White House's current crusade against media outlets that it views as not being favorable to Obama).

But, as posited at the top, are things really much better for the dems? I notice that current Rasmussen polling still has Obama's job disapproval rating at around 47%. The poll numbers for the democrat-controlled Congress are abysmal. It gets back to a point that I've made several times in this space in recent months: While Obama & The Dems' poll numbers aren't very good, that has not meant that the repubs are picking up any significant degree of new support nationwide. As I've discusssed, this might just be the so-called "perfect storm" from which a slew of non-liberal dems, non-conservative repubs, and Independents may be able to win elected office in the next few years running as either Independents or third party candidates. I think it's in the wind. I just hope that wind keeps a blowin'.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28532.html

"I'll Have a Diet Coke With That": The Top 10 Worst Fast Food Items You Can Place Into Your Piehole.

And these are just the worst examples that I'm currently aware of! (The numbers following each item denote Fat Grams/Calories/Carb Grams):

10. Pizza Hut: 6-inch Veggie Lovers Personal Pan Pizza. Since it's "veggie," it must be healthy, right? Wrong. (35/960/118)

9. Burger King: Double Whopper w/ Cheese. I think I'll "have it my way" and never order this item. (64/980/49)

8. Taco Bell: Chipotle Steak Fully Loaded Taco Salad. Fully loaded with what? Lard? (59/950/76)

7. Sonic: SuperSonic Cheeseburger w/ mayo. Add on a large Fritos chili cheese pie, and double your pleasure! (The sandwich only: 64/980/58)

6. Subway: Spicy Italian Footlong. Eat Fresh, and therefore eat something other than this. (64/1044/40)

5. McDonald's: "Deluxe Breakfast". Can you think of a more deluxe way to start your day? I can. (60/1150/116)

4. Wendy's: Bacon Deluxe Triple Burger. More like Bacon Deluxe Triple Bypass. (71/1140/47)

3. Steak 'n Shake: "Frisco Melt". SNS is celebrating its 75th year. Eat this sandwich regularly, and you'll never reach yours. (93/1173/43)

2. Hardees: 2/3 Pound Monster Thickburger. I'd rather eat a Monster Truck. (95/1320/46)

1. Captain D's: "Catfish Feast". Feast your way right to an early grave. (141/1990/46)

Now, most of these restaurants do offer much healthier alternatives, and so I'm not going to bag on them too much. But some of those numbers above are just mind-numbing. But I guess you can always tell them to hold the mayo, right?

Good to See That An Obama Administration Priority Over Making a Decision on Afghanistan Is a Choreographed Attack on a News Organization.

Read below about how the Obama administration has put a priority in time and resources recently on attacking FoxNews and sending out the clowns (such as Axelrod and Emanuel, pictured above) to do the bidding (link below). "Not a real news organization" seems to be the theme and talking point of these people in reference to FoxNews. On their face, I agree with their comments: FoxNews is slanted to the right and, as a journalistic organization, should absolutely not be and should be ashamed of itself. But the utter gal and disingenuousness of these people to complain about FoxNews, when they have the overwelming majority of the national media (which is left-slanted) in their back pocket is purely slimey and, frankly, insulting to my intelligence. It's indicative of the "we want it all, we want everything" mentality of Obama & The Dems, as noted in this space previously: They completely control the federal government at the moment, and they have almost all of the national media onboard with them, but that's not enough for them. Sorry, but that kind of thinking smacks of an authoritarian-leaning outlook which I'm very much concerned about and which I very much fear from this current regime. But that aside, I must comment: When I was a young journalism student at the oldest and greatest journalism school in the country -- The University of Missouri-Columbia -- I was very much instilled with the spirit and belief that it was the job of the press and media (as the so-called "Fourth Estate") to incessantly keep an eye on the powers-that-be, to keep a close eye on the government officials who wield so much power over us, regardless of their party affiliation. Where has American journalism gone so utterly wrong?! At least on the national level, it's all slanted one way or the other, including FOXNEWS. That's not journalism, it's pure advocacy. And bottom line: What I see on a daily basis from these national news organizations makes me sick. OK, I'm done ranting & raving for one night, and I leave you in peace. ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/weekinreview/18davidcarr.html?hpw

It Seems Very Clear to Me Why Obama Keeps Stalling on Adopting an Afghanistan Stategy. In a Word: Politics (What Else?).

It looks like he's going to stall this thing out as long as he possibly can until the Congress can (he hopes) pass some kind of health care reform bill. Because if he actually purports to adopt a coherent strategy for Afghanistan for the first time in his administration (which he should have done back in January), it will be controversial either way, and Obama does not want that gumming up the health care reform works. Smart politically? Probably. But who gives a rat's behind about politics where the lives of American boys (and ladies) are at stake? Obama needs to put politics aside (although I concede that's virtually impossible for just about any dem or repub president during my lifetime) and make a freakin' decision already -- you are the Commander in Chief, after all, Obama! I've been clear on this issue for months -- we have not had any kind of articulated or coherent plan in Afghanistan during the entire Obama administration (nor during much of the Bush years), and as a result, thousands of American lives have been lost while the politicians at home (both Bush and Obama) pay scant attention to Afghanistan. Well, I for one am SICK OF THIS $HIT. Obama needs to stop playing politics and put the lives of American troops above his petty political goals and aspirations. Period. Make a damn decision, for crying out loud! Either commit, with a coherent plan, to the new troops the commanders in the field say are necessary, or get us the hell out of there. Just do something!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6879511.ece

I Called This Shot the Day of the Balloon Boy Debacle...

Looks like the parents have an appointment with the hoosegaw. And deservedly so. CNN reports that charges are soon expected for perpetrating a hoax. And BTW: SHAME ON THEM for making every parent of a young child nationwide feel horrified as they watched that balloon speed through the air. I personally hope they both rot in hell someday.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/17/colorado.balloon.boy/index.html

"I AM NOT A SLUT!"

...says Meghan McCain (link below) in her best Richard M. Nixon impersonation. Apparently the above picture that McCain posted this week on Twitter has been raisin' quite the ruckus. But why? People need to loosen up. It reminds of the Super Bowl that I believe involved the Steelers and Seattle. Everyone went absolutely ape**** over Janet Jackson's nipple popping out, but no one had any problem with some of the extremely crude and tasteless commercials that aired during that broadcast, nor did anyone care about the rather pathetic taunting the Steelers were aiming at their opponents once the game was in hand. But I digress. And BTW -- If the McCain pic above offends you, be sure to scroll down to my Ladies Panel on the right side.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/16/meghan-mccain-dont-call-me-a-slut/

Idiot of the Year Nomination!

It goes to the Dad, and for that matter the Mom, of the 6-year-old who was supposedly flying over Colorado today as the nation watched and prayed for a safe outcome. Best case scenario: That this story is actually bona fide on its face -- meaning that Mom and Dad just happened to have a makeshift hot air balloon tethered in their backyard to which kiddos had unfettered access, such that situations like that which was presented could conceivably occur: Kiddo untethers the line, gets in the balloon, and heads for the moon -- even though he was told not to do that. That's the best case scenario -- and even that draws into question the competency of these parents to be caring for minor children. BUT HERE's the thing: I think that's a huge farce. Here we have a family that has recently appeared on a reality television show, so they come into this whole equation with a certain mindset. And then all of a sudden, we have an event that captivates the nation's attention, allegedly because the parents just happened to have a hot air balloon available in their backyard that the kids were told to stay away from?!? Smacks of the biggest and most idiotic publicity stunt since, well, I e-mailed the White House and told them to take note of me for having "fishy" opinions. Bottom line: Either these are the two worst parents in the country OR they totally orchestrated this event for the publicity. I suspect it's the latter, but either way it's rather sickening.

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-balloon-boy-found-101509,0,6905331.story

The Best TV Segment I've Seen in Awhile!

Check out the YouTube video below. On tonight's Hannity, sports (and general) commentator Stephen A. Smith and Michael Meyers from the New York Civil Rights Coalition appeared to talk about race issues. What followed was a very funny, highly entertaining exchange between two dudes who both struck me as very independent-minded (which I adore). If Hannity is smart (which I openly question, but in a joking fashion), he will bring back these 2 as a regular weekly segment, because the two of them together are quite unlike anything I've seen in awhile -- extremely entertaining, and they make you think at the same time. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8B-bJbxRBu0

Rest in Peace, Captain Lou.

Today I saw the sad news of Captain Lou Albano's passing. Captain Lou was one of the most classic "managers" from the pro wrestling world back when managers were a huge part of the storylines. Captain Lou's character had a rather abrasive edge to it. Best way I can describe it: Barney Frank with facial rubberband piercings, a huge belly, and a big curly mullet. In other words, Captain Lou was very entertaining, and that's the name of the game in that business. But I also fondly recall Captain Lou for the so-called "Rock'n'Wrestling Connection" which was based on his close connection to pop singer Cyndi Lauper. A truly memorable moment from the original MTV era was Lauper's video for Girls Just Wanna Have Fun, in which Captain Lou portrays her dad, starts ranting and raving at her (depicted in second pic above), and promptly gets placed in an arm lock by her. For entertaining me as well as he did for a number of years, my hat's off tonight to Captain Lou.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/14/obit.albano/index.html

Let the Civil War Begin.

Today the Senate finance committee approved the so-called "Baucus bill" supported by Baucus the Montana senator (pictured above along with Obama and Pelosi). The bill does not contain a "public option." Other competing bills in the Senate and House do contain the public option. The unions are already lining up against the Baucus bill. So are the radical "progressives," likely including Pelosi based on recent statements she's made. The linked story below says the "war" now begins within the democratic party to see how far leftward the Baucus bill will be taken as the dems in the Senate attempt to merge it with a competing Senate bill (containing the public option), not to mention the House versions of the bill containing the public option. It should be interesting to observe this process from the sidelines. So what's my view on the Baucus bill? I have no idea, since it's 1300 pages long and not much of anyone has read it yet. I can guarantee you that repubs will oppose it about 99%. But to me, the presence of a public option in many of these bills has always been my biggest concern and source of opposition, because I'm convinced that just about any public option is designed to and will result ultimately result in a single payer system, i.e. total government control of American health insurance (which I very much oppose). Put another way, I may well be able to support the Baucus bill once I know more about it, but I highly suspect that the bill ultimately voted upon by the Senate and House is likely to bear little resemblace to the current Baucus bill. The big issue is whether or not the bill voted upon will contain a public option of some type. I think it likely will, but with some kind of "trigger" or other qualification that gives Obama his endgame: Which is that something passes on which he can claim victory and which is ultimately satisfactory to the far left (even if they'd like to see something stronger than what ultimately passes). Stay tuned...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28256.html