"LET IT BE BLOODY WARFARE!"

It’s time to get tough with the varsity team from Loserville High, that being the Democrats in the Senate. Today, they started to filibuster the nomination of William Pryor. That makes four or five filibusters going at once on different judicial nominees. I know, I know, how can you have five non-stop debates going on at the same time in one chamber? You can’t, except in that fraternity we call the Senate. In that august body, you can have “continuing debate” without anybody actually speaking.

The Republicans need to remember they are the good guys. They need to go to the Senate and let the Demon-rats debate. If they get tired, call for a cloture vote. If they feel they need to debate some more, don’t leave and let them debate. Do this until they can’t take it and then vote on the nomination. As soon as we have a vote on one, start a debate on another. Force these little fancy-boys to stand up and be men, they won’t be able to do it.

"LOWER RAISES? CALL IN THE DEMOCRATS!"

Companion stories from competing wire services prove a point that the liberals will never want to hear. From the Associated Press, we get “Americans Getting Smaller Pay Raises”. I expect we’ll be hearing this from the Nine Dwarves, especially the line about small pay increases planned for 2004. From Reuters, we get ,”Employment Costs Rode in Second Quarter”. This story talks about the 3.7 increase so far this year in employment costs with benefits outpacing wages and salaries.

Don’t expect to hear much about this from our candidate friends.

LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE

It must be nice to be part of the New York Times editorial’s staff and be unburdened by the truth. In today’s paper, they lament the fact that President Bush didn’t come out in favor of gay marriage. This is not unexpected from the Paper of Record, but they did feel the need to throw this in:

“But Mr. Bush belongs to a party in which many national leaders recently celebrated remarks by conservatives like Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who compared homosexuality to incest. Mr. Bush's careful attempt to brush back more of that kind of bigotry was welcome.”

Now, of course, anyone with a brain knows that Senator Santorum did not do that. He made the point that once marriage became nothing more than a civil union, why could that not apply to all kinds of relationships, like polygamy and even incest. It was the legal, civil part of gay marriage that got compared, not homosexuality itself. Of course, maybe I ask too much from a paper that promoted Jayson Blair and still thinks Alger Hiss and the Rosenberg’s were innocent.

THOSE DARNED REBATE CHECKS!

My best friends boss, a bleeding heart liberal (limousine liberal if the truth be known), was making snide remarks about the tax rebate checks coming back from the sink-hole known as the Federal government. He said the checks would be used for one of three things:

- Pay down credit card debt
- Pay off the bill you haven’t the money to pay
- Save it for later when you won’t have the money for something

This was a snide and none too brilliant slam against President Bush and the repatriation of our confiscated wealth. What he was haltingly trying to say was that the money won’t be spent on goods, thereby helping the economy, but the spending will be hidden. He was trying to be cute in the second one by alluding to a present economy he sees in the dumps. Perhaps if he was a tad more alert in the Jimmy Carter "malaise" days, he would know what a poor economy is like. Anyway, his murky point was these checks are a waste, we peons don't know how to "spend them right", the tax cut will only be a drain on the economy, increase the deficit, rob food from kids plates, etc.

Bull. Money is fungible. If the checks go to paying down debt or goes to savings, that frees up other money that can be spent on other stuff; that will help the economy. Even if it is stashed in a mattress with every bit of free cash that person has, it is still a return of ill-gotten gain. Taxes are our money!! That has been the conservative mantra for like forever. Liberals can’t seem to grasp that concept, yet they will still cash the checks sent to them. Never will you see a liberal return the money to the IRS because they think they are under-taxed.

GOOD, BUT ICKY

Ah, poor John Poindexter. It seems he came with an idea to help predict future terrorist attacks, only it was in very poor taste. A futures market was created to get people to guess when the next terror attack occur, with those that got it right making big profits. Unfortunately, it is actually a good idea, it probably would work. Terrorists can’t help but want to make a few greenbacks and would get themselves in on this deal. But, it is in terrible taste. Poindexter is going to be sacrificed for this blunder and justifiably so. Even if this worked, and I think it would, Americans will never accept it, just like cigarette companies aren’t allowed to raise the real facts of the economic savings of early mortality rates for smokers. We can accept a lot, but money made on the death of real people is just too much for us.

JUST LIKE US

Homosexuals say they just want to be accepted, they want to be treated like everyone else. They just want to fit into society like the Irish or firemen. But, I wonder if that’s true.

Nothing sets back gay/straight relations further than a gay pride parade. Look, most people really don’t care if you’re gay, they look upon you like everyone else. Until the parade. Once they see you dancing down the street in a leather thong, they never look at you the same again. Now, I know that may not be fair. Hey, they march down the street wearing a green wig on St. Patrick’s Day and no one gives that a second thought. But, the wig isn’t semi-pornographic and completely disgusting, it’s just stupid.

Then there’s the public high school in New York for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and “questioning” students. This has been lauded by the gay community as a haven for these students who are often treated as outcasts. It also is a voluntary segregation, thereby assuring they will be treated differently.

To top everything off, Bravo has a new show, “Boy Meets Boy”, a reality show with one gay man trying to find a soul mate from fifteen other boys. The fun thing is, some of them are straight and if a straight guy can get the star of the show, James, to pick him, the straight guy wins cash money! If a gay guy is picked, James and his soul mate win money and an all expense paid trip. Nearly all of the gay sites I checked thought this show was just super! I think it treats homosexuals as entertainment, but they don’t seem to care. The only gay I found who thought like I do was actually James, the “star” of the show.

So, do they want to be “just like everyone else”? I don’t think so.

OUR LADY OF THE HOLY UNITED STATES?

Interesting little piece out of England. An editorial in The Guardian by George Monboit claims that the United States is no longer a nation but a religion. This coming from a country that has a state sponsored religion, the Church of England. Monboit in French means “my drinks” and it seams Georgie has been hitting the bottle.

He starts off by listing our “failures” in Iraq, which consists of our soldiers being shot in sniper attacks. If Drunk George considers cowardly attacks on American soldiers in a war zone failures, what must he think of the German bombing campaign on British soil during WWII, abject defeat? He then goes on to say because the United States hasn’t sued for peace over our failures, we must all be ideological zealots. He finds our belief that we can actually do good in the world some kind of religious fervor bordering on insanity.

He quotes Ronald Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” comment about the United States, George Bush quoting the bible and telling the troops, “Wherever you go, you carry a message of hope - a message that is ancient and ever new. In the words of the prophet Isaiah, 'To the captives, "come out," and to those in darkness, "be free".'" and Bush’s suggestion that the United States, "defend ... the hopes of all mankind".

This seems like scary religion-talk to someone whose religion is purely secular. Once a person or country abandons the thought of a higher power and purpose, they become a country of living for the moment, of expediency and power-madness. We can see that in the Democrat party right now and we had blaring examples of that in Communism. Once atheistic Communism took hold in China, Russia, Cambodia, etc. we had pure evil.

For the past century, the United States has had to step in and do what is right in various conflicts. We have deposed of despots and tyrants across the world and never tried to make these countries into Little America. We have done what was right. And where does right and wrong come from? The House of Lords or the House of Representatives? No, it comes from morality. It is this concept that is so alien to liberals that they feel it must some sort of religious zealotry, akin to snake handling and voodoo.

So George, why don’t you go back to the bottle and leave the concept of right and wrong to people who know better. Your Godless, amoral ways are not the way to do good in the world, they lead to pain, suffering, enslavement and horror.

"OH, THE INJUSTICE..."

The editorial board over at the LA times is concerned for Merle Haggard. It seems Merle has written a new song called "That's The News", about “big media firms ... parroting the Bush administration contention that major fighting in Iraq has ended.” They fear he won’t get his song played because big media groups will refuse. Of course, they don’t show any evidence his song is not being played, but the possibility as enough for a screed. They mention how Cumulus Media banned the Blixie Chicks and then go into the party line blah-blah about how ever growing media conglomerates are going to limit what people will hear on the radio and boo-hoo.

Boy, is this ever rich! Check out this quote:

As radio chains grow larger and more powerful, a handful of execs shape the medium to fit their own narrow vision — as giant Clear Channel Communications did after Sept. 11 by tossing songs like "Imagine" and "Bridge Over Troubled Water" off its post-9/11 playlist.

Giant companies that shape the medium to fit their narrow vision? Like Newsweek, that is owned by The Washington Post Company that spiked a story by Michael Isikoff about, what was her name, Monica something? Or maybe NBC stalling an interview by Lisa Myers with Juanita Broaddrick?

The Times doesn’t seem too concerned that every major newspaper is a liberal dominated rag in which 90% of the employees voted for Bill Clinton. But, companies that don’t vote the party ticket, well, they need to be put on a short leash because they’re not fair and balanced.

A quick look on the LA Times website show how they are a Tribune Media Company, part of Times Mirror. Jumping over to the Tribune Media site we get such statistics as,

Tribune Media reaches 80% of America’s households
Tribune Media as 12 major market daily newspapers
Tribune Media has 26 television stations PLUS a superstation, WGN.

Glass houses, boys….glass houses

ANTI-CATHOLIC

There's a new twist concerning the Democrats unconscionable blocking of Federal Judicial nominees. Lately, a concerted effort has been made to portray the Democrats as being anti-Catholic, particularly in the case of Judge William Pryor. Judge Pryor has a fairly flawless judicial record, but he is a strong Catholic and VERY anti-abortion. Because of Judge Pryor's views on abortion, ilk like Senator Charles Schumer (just saying that leaves a bad taste in my mouth) have waged an all out war of the nomination, calling him extreme and ultra-right wing and incapable of not being biased. Just a quick aside on that charge. Senator Schumer (yuck!), just because you don't have intelligence to follow the law despite your personal beliefs, that doesn't mean everyone else is as stupid and weak as you.

Anyway, getting back to the anti-Catholic charge, it probably isn't true in the strict sense, they aren't against Pryor because he's Catholic, it' because he's pro-life. That being said, it is true in action. True, practicing Catholics are anti-abortion, therefore, in the Schumer-ites views, not fit for bench.

So, the charge is somewhat unfair, but de-facto correct. The funny thing is to see the Democrats who claim to be Catholics show the world what little they know of their own religion, revealing that they are not really Catholics. Check out this quote:

Senator Richard J. Durbin, who is Catholic, said he reached his limit at a committee meeting on Wednesday when Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama (and a Methodist), began explaining Mr. Pryor's positions as "what a good Catholic believes."

Mr. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat who personally opposes abortion but backs abortion rights, added, "I understand the painful process I have to go through with the elders of the church on many of these issues, explaining my position. But it is galling, to say the least, when my colleagues in the Senate, of another religion, start speaking ex cathedra."

We Catholics have something called the Catechism. It's basically a rulebook of beliefs for Catholics. So, if Senator Durbin were a real Catholic, he would know that anybody, Catholic or Methodist, with a Catechism could say "what a good Catholic believes." Of course, it's at least likely that Senator Durbin DOES know this, but chose to lie about it because it makes good press. So, which is it Durbin, are you ignorant of your professed faith or a liar?

Then there's this one:

Many Catholic elected officials are, perhaps, particularly sensitive to the line between religious faith and public responsibilities. It was a line drawn most vividly by President John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, who had to deal with widespread fears that a Roman Catholic president would serve both Rome and the American people.

Kennedy responded by declaring, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be a Catholic, how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote." In recent years, Gov. Mario M. Cuomo reasserted that line, particularly regarding abortion.

John Kennedy is technically correct when he says "where no Catholic prelate would tell the president, should he be a Catholic, how to act". The Pope or Bishop or priest cannot tells us what to have for breakfast, but there are certain beliefs that must be held to call oneself a Catholic, so your faith will tell you how to act. As for the Cuomo line, he did try to spin the Kennedy obfuscation into cover for his pro-abortion beliefs. What the Times didn't mention was the Church didn't let him. In 1990 Cuomo was banned from speaking on Church property because of his abortion stance by John Cardinal O'Connor, God bless his holy soul. Also that year, Bishop Austin Vaughan, said Cuomo "was risking the fires of Hell for his support of the killing of unborn children".

I love to see liberals squirm and to see the "Catholics" among them try to reconcile the truth about their religion and what they say is sweet justice.

THE "STAIN" OF BILL CLINTON...AND I MEAN MORE THAN JUST THE BLUE DRESS

Remember how everything Bill Clinton did was just personal? Remember how it was just between a man and a woman and had no bearing on the country at all? Well, I had a crystal clear example how that man has affected this country and the way people look at the Presidency.

I always thought he was an utter pig, without morals or any core beliefs, but would never really hurt the institution of the Presidency; I always assumed the ghosts of Lincoln, Washington and Adams would exorcise the demons left by BJ Clinton. Now, I wonder if my faith wasn’t misplaced.

Today, a woman I utterly respect, a fence sitting liberal, but more Republican than she would like to admit, said something that saddened me. Concerning the bodies of the Hussein brothers, she said her mom (a psycho liberal if there ever was one) said those bodies might not even be real; she knows a wax artist that could make those in a heartbeat. Discounting this because it came from her mom, she said she found herself wondering if we hadn’t killed them a long time ago and were only exposing them now just because of the problems President Bush is having with the “sixteen words” and all that. She thought it might be some kind of “cover” being used by President Bush.

I was shocked by this. I could tell my friend thought of this scenario because it was something BJ would have done. Remember how the United States launched cruise missile attacks the day of the impeachment vote? Of course my friend, raised during the Clinton decade would think of the President doing something at the least immoral and underhanded just for “cover”.

So, proving me wrong, it seems BJ Clinton has managed to damage the Office of the President (and I don’t mean just taking the W’s from the keyboard). Thanks for everything, pig-boy.

AND PEOPLE PAY TO GO HERE...

I have always told my friends at work that they know I’m going to say something important or at least important to me when I start off by saying, “So, …”

So, I have found one of the most liberally biased pieces of clap-trap passed off as “news” I have ever seen. Our friends at the University of California at Berkeley have discovered what makes a conservative. Studying that strangest of all animals, our intrepid sociologists have surmised that some of the psychological factors that make a political conservative are:

- fear and aggression
- terror management.

Check out this quote:

“Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).”

Oh, we’re racists. I was confused by our support of Ward Connerly and the liberals unholy love of affirmative action.

Then there is this:

“Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way.”

So Rush and President Reagan are just like Hitler and Mussolini. You know, people like Al Franken, Al Sharpton, Major Owens and Tim Robbins have been telling me this for years. I always thought they were just out of their minds.

Finally, we get this:

"In many cases, including mass politics, 'liberal' traits may be liabilities, and being intolerant of ambiguity, high on the need for closure, or low in cognitive complexity might be associated with such generally valued characteristics as personal commitment and unwavering loyalty," the researchers wrote.

Oh, loyalty and commitment are really just by-products of an unenlightened person with "low cognitive complexity". Translation: ignorant morons.

I don’t think there is a greater example of liberal elitism. There is nothing else I can add to this, they didn’t wait for us to give them enough rope to hang themselves, they grabbed it out of our hands and tied the noose themselves.

NOTHING IS EVER GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM

The liberals are at it already. We have the cry and hue of a million armchair liberals bemoaning the fact that Uday and Qusay Hussein were not captured alive. The complaints range from it was just an assassination to without a perp walk in Baghdad, the Iraqis will never believe they are dead. Of course, none of these actually deal with what really happened, that would be to inconvenient and might actually require some thought. It’s much easier to shout out some rhetoric and go back to your Bush-bashing.

If all we wanted to do was kill the animals, why did only a squad of four soldiers show up at first? If we didn’t want to capture them alive, how come three of the soldiers were wounded going to the second floor? How come the 101st peppered the outside of the building with small arms fire and use psyops to try and talk them out of the building? Why, after this had been tried did the 101st try to go back into the building, only to fired upon again? Why didn’t the entire company show up and start blasting the villa with everything in their arsenal? Or perhaps send in the bombers with the MOAB’s?

Assassination? I believe that we tried to get them to surrender, right? Didn’t we just go over that? Our boys were fired upon first, they then have the right and the duty to eliminate the threat. They have done that. I say, “Good Job – Stay Safe and Come Home”.

THINKING MAKES MY HEAD HURT

What the H-E-double toothpicks is up with California? Suffering from a $38.2 billion deficit, they want to waste another $35 million on a recall motion for their loser of a governor. In no other state in the nation would people whose feelings have been hurt be able to waste so much time and money on raising their self-esteem. Come on, you felt he was the right man just under a year ago, wait until the next election to throw the bum out. But noooooo; we’re Californians, we deserve better.

This such a lose-lose situation for everyone. Gray Davis is now a lame duck governor no matter what happens, not that he was that strong to start out with. The Democrats have sworn to back him all the way, so if he loses, so do they. If he does get tossed out, the new guy will probably win with only a plurality, not a majority. Either way, he his inheriting the helm of the Andrea Doria, post-Stockholm. We can also expect recall drives after every election from now until doomsday, not only in California but every other state, too - especially those in which a Republican won.

This is all part of the, “It’s not my fault, I’m OK, you’re OK, nobody did anything wrong, blah blah blah…” society we live in. This disaster of an existence not only got started on the Left coast, it flourishes there like nowhere else. If the moron voters had just spent twenty minutes thinking back in 2002, this wouldn’t be happening. They abdicated their responsibility to cast a well thought out vote last year and now this year, want to act on emotions again and abdicate their vote again. I have said for years we should go back to only landowners having the right to vote. Most half-wits are incapable of casting a responsible vote and the only thing that keeps our whole system from slipping into chaos is such a low turn out – most of these people don’t bother to vote. If we limited the vote to landowners, those with the biggest financial stake in what governments do (40% of the population doesn’t pay federal income taxes, do they think the tax rate is too high?), we might have a more reasonable everything. I know, I know, I’m such a bastard. Whatever.

WELL, SHE'S COMPLETELY LOST IT

Maureen Dowd is becoming absolutely unhinged. Her latest column is…well, I don’t know what it is. It makes no sense at all, it’s in the form of a imagined redacted letter from Dick Cheney to a Prince from Saudi Arabia. I guess she was trying to be cute or funny or intelligent or something, but it ended up being just plain stupid. It really doesn't say anything, more of an indictment of the U.S. Government’s coddling of Saudi Arabia. I agree with her on the whole Saudi Arabia thing, but I don’t think we are easy on them because of a personal relationship between Vice Presiden Cheney and Prince Ali-What-His-bin-Name. She goes way out on a limb with extent of this imagined personal relationship, but when have facts really mattered to Miss Cuckoo-Cuckoo? Of course, because Maureen Dowd is also trapped in a liberal death spiral and can’t seem to break out of it, we get the clichéd, old “Halliburton made me do it” thing again.

Maureen, I think it’s time you take your Pulitzer and retire to a nice home where people can take care of you and help you get better. Hey, why don’t you take Harley Sorenson with you? You make a nice couple. Whacked-out, but nice.

DR. DEAN, DR. EVIL....WHATEVER

On the campaign trail today, Howard Dean dismissed the killing of Uday and Qusay Hussein saying, “The ends do not justify the means.” Ok, let’s guess what exactly Dean means by that. Does he mean that they deserved death? How, exactly, would you have accomplished this noble aim of yours, Dr. Dean, without American soldiers pulling the trigger? Wait for a popular insurgency, perhaps? Maybe Dr. Dean, in his mad rush to God-knows-where, hasn’t heard of bootleg videos on the streets of Iraq showing home movies of executions. They are being purchased by families in search of the whereabouts of their missing children, parents and cousins. That’s what happened to popular uprisings in Iraq, Dr. Dean. Maybe you were thinking assassination? I believe that your party thirty years ago was so offended by that concept, President Ford issued an executive order against political assassinations and six years later your anathema President Reagan re-affirmed it.

Or maybe you don’t mean anything by it, maybe you were spewing forth a sound bite to get past a situation you didn’t want to have to deal with. You’re good at that, you did that in the Russert interview and your campaign staff has never answered the question I have posed to you, “When exactly do you believe life begins?” More likely, what you meant was, "There was no reason to depose Saddam Hussein, all that did was make President Bush look good and make it harder for me to convince the people are worse off with him as President ." If you happen to capture the Democratic nomination for President, I for one will never let you forget you magic phrase, “The ends don’t justify the means”.

"THEY'RE COMING TO TAKE ME AWAY, HA HA, HEE HEE..."

Harley Sorenson is a raving lunatic. Do you know who Harley Sorensen is? Me either. He is a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle/SFGate.com which describes him as a “liberal iconoclast”. The American Heritage Dictionary says an iconoclast is:

1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

My guess is both of those are true. Anyway, getting back to the latest column, he slips his gears right off by comparing two classic Clinton-ectomies,

- “I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
- "It depends on what your definition of 'is' is."

With a statement by Condoleezza Rice,

“I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile."

The first clue that Sorensen is a few slaps short of a beating presents itself when he calls all three “obfuscations.” One is a lie, one is an insulting obfuscation and the last is an honest assessment of a horrific situation. He then goes onto a completely new subject, equally deranged, but having nothing to do with these quotes. Sorenson believes that the entire 43rd Presidency is really being run by Bush 41. In the middle of this delusion, we find out the true aim of George W. Bush. At the behest of daddy and a group known as PNAC, he yearns for:

****WORLD DOMINATION****

Yes, it’s true. He seeks world domination. That explains the months of begging the United Nations to help in Iraq and creating the coalition of the willing. Plain, unilateral world domination. I’m surprised Sorenson didn’t think Bush wanted to blackmail the world's richest nations (“One MILLION dollars”).

But the slippery-slope to insanity isn’t over yet. In another channel changing switch, he leaps into the next paragraph, abandoning all previous assertions and accuses Bush of destroying social programs. Amazing, considering we conservatives lament the huge spending increases signed into law by Bush and the Republican Congress.

Sorensen is obviously so blinded by hatred for George Bush, he is unable to think clearly or articulate himself with any kind of comprehensibility. The Chronicle should have recognized what utter trash this was and sent it back to Sorenson for psychiatric evaluation. But, the Chronicle isn’t known for it’s love of Bush, so I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised.

OH, THIS IS RICH...

Frank Rich has a column in The New York Times concerning liberals inability to even break into the political talk spectrum (i.e., talk radio). He drones on and on with the tired old complaints about Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Fox. In the piece, Rich had a couple of whoppers:

1. MSNBC is/was a "lame, would be Fox clone"?. This piece of fantasy is backed up because they hired Michael Savage for like a week. Really, Frank, get on the reality roller-coaster. MSNBC, conservative?
2. He talks about a liberal catechism, "a multilateral foreign policy, affordable health care, a progressive tax code, pro-environmental regulation, pro-choice, etc."? AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE? Then why are the liberals in Congress holding up legislation on malpractice reform (at the behest of one of the most special of special interest groups, trial lawyers)?
3. Quoting the loveable Al Franken, "Fox had the idea you could do a cable news network that actually had an agenda, and no one had thought of that before"?. Really, are you telling me ABC, for example, has no liberal agenda?

Basically, Rich thinks a lot of the problems liberals are having is because they are not doing entertainment. Even the title of the editorial, "Why Liberals Are No Fun"? goes to prove his point. He chalks up all the conservative media presence (what there is of it) as pure entertainment, not something to be taken seriously. Frank, it's that snobbish, liberal elite attitude that prevents you and your ilk from making it in the talk radio world. But heck, you've got everything else, so why not settle down a bit?

ART?

This morning in the coffee shop, I happened to look up at a poster from some Museum, like the National Gallery of Art or something. It was a print of a piece of “art” by Mark Rothko, titled Number 5(Number 22). This was NOT art. It was five parallel lines, not even all that straight. How in the heck can this be called art and more importantly, why in the world would a museum feel compelled to show it and make prints of it? I am not artistic and if what I am looking at is something I could do, it ain’t art.

I have never understood this modern art stuff. As I have commented before, I like my art to look beautiful, not make me gasp and cry out, “Oh my God!! Was anybody hurt?” I firmly believe nearly everyone who claims to appreciate and love modern art is just faking it. I think they look at this stuff, say, “I don’t get it” but pretend that they are moved by it so they can get chicks and keep friends. After Social Security, modern art is the biggest scam pulled on the American public.

ONCE A BUTCHER....

I’m not the thinnest S.O.B., but I’m trying and part of the trying involves walking each day. I listen to books while I walk and the newest is a biography of Julia Child. (Keep your comments on the irony to yourself). What I didn’t know about Julia is what a bleeding heart liberal she is. In 1987, at several charity events for the Gestapo, I mean Planned Parenthood, she was dismayed to find protestors. After the exhibitions, she wrote a letter to Dear Abby in protest of her own. In it she said something like, “Who will take care of the retarded baby of a thirteen year old syphilitic prostitute….”, pulling out every non-existent heart string she could come up with.

Dear Julia, what is the alternative? Not get pregnant? That’s what we, the PROUD MEMBERS of the Pro-Life Crowd have always wanted. Oh, you mean, “not have the baby”. So, your alternative is kill the baby. Thanks, Julie…why don’t you go back to making a brown sauce and leave matters of life and death to those with a conscience

Look, 1.2 million abortions are executed each year in the United States. That’s 3,500 a DAY.

Stop and think about that.

Nine-Eleven? Less than 3,000 deaths and that galvanized a nation. Abortion? Over 43 million dead since Roe v. Wade. Yeah, 43,000,000.

At least the chicken isn’t overcooked.

IT'S ALL GEORGE'S FAULT

Nicholas Kristof has an op-ed piece today in the New York Times today about his hometown of Yamhill, Oregon. In the first few sentences we get this: “People across America will pay the price for Washington's indifference in lower-quality schools, fewer chances to go to college, less police protection and diminished medical care.” He then goes on with tales of woe about the spending cuts that are decimating the school system, police department and medical care. He tells of an epileptic whose lost his free prescription medicine (courtesy of the state) and now has severe brain damage from an epileptic episode in February. All of these spending cuts are at either the State or local level, yet Kristof, with the blanket statement about “Washington’s indifference”, is blaming George W. Bush. At the end of the piece, Kristof tries to cover his liberal butt by saying. “President Bush is not primarily to blame for this fiscal crisis. The causes include overly enthusiastic spending during the boom years as well as the popping of the tech bubble.” Guess what the next word is? “But...” He then goes on to blame Bush again. Typical liberal – no sense of reality or more likely just a liar.

What didn’t Kristof mention? Oregon’s tax revenue increased 112%, from 2.8 billion dollars to 5.9 billion dollars from 1990-2001. Adjusting for inflation and population growth in the same period, there was a net “fluff” increase of 66%. That means if Oregon had just kept spending in line with inflation and population, they would have over 1.5 billion dollars in the bank to cover the epileptics $13.00 a day worth of medicine instead of cutting him off. (BTW, where was his family to help with this? What about his “domestic partner”, Werth Sargent, where was he? Why does Kristof jump 3,000 miles away and blame George Bush first?)

Kristof doesn’t feel the need to mention any of this because he doesn’t want to editorialize on reality, that wouldn’t make George Bush look bad to the great unwashed out there.

JUMP OFF THE CLIFT, OK?

Eleanor Clift, she whose veins flow with vinegar and water, has what she must just think is such a snappy little editorial in Newsweek. Blathering on, parroting the DNC talking points on Satan, I mean George W. Bush, she makes an utter fool herself once again. I’d love to take her on point-by-point like I have in the past, but it couldn’t hold a candle to Victor Davis Hanson’s piece of pure genius in National Review.

LIBERALS, AGAIN

Someone named H.D.S. Greenway has a tired old rehash of an editorial in the Boston Globe today. He’s bemoaning the “axis of evil” phrase used in the first State of the Union address. He cries in his oat bran that that phrase has made foreign relation sooooo hard and forced North Korea and Iran to work that much harder to get nuclear weapons. He seems to think it was this phrase that was the cause of our North Korea problem, that it made Kim Il Sung feel we were going to attack Korea. Huh, H.D., the Korean problem stems from B.J. Clinton and Jimmy Carter’s can-kicking in 1994. Hello, you’re the Foreign Affairs reporter and you can’t see this?

H.D. lays his whole, twisted, liberal belief system on the line with a sentence in the final paragraph, “The ''axis of evil'' speech was just one of the reasons the United States found it so hard to gain diplomatic cover at the United Nations for war on Iraq, and it is hurting us still.” “Gain diplomatic cover”? Is that all you liberals can think about, all that is important to you, COVER? How about sucking it up and being a man? You know, actually be responsible for your own actions? A little hard for you, huh? You sicken me, the lot of you.

HIGHWAY TO HELL

Strange story out of New Mexico. The local Catholic church in Chama, NM is being sued over a funeral. The family of Ben Martinez claims to be suffering emotional and physical harm because, allegedly, the priest said Martinez was a “middling Catholic”, “lukewarm in his faith” and was going straight to Hell.

Now, after you have stopped laughing, let’s look at this. Firstly, this is not a State matter, it’s a purely religious matter. If people can sue over emotional distress because the Church is telling them, “reform or damnation”, then there is no Church. Not that that’s all the Church does, but all true Christian churches have a Heaven and a Hell. Come on. Now I can understand that people would feel distress that someone they love (even themselves) is going to Hell, but that’s part of religion. If your precious feelings are going to be hurt, go to the Unitarian church.

Secondly, the priest was WAY out of line if he said Martinez was going to Hell. A simple call to the Bishop and they would have heard that no one, not even the Pope (God bless his holy soul) knows if a person is going to Heaven or Hell after death. The ways of the Lord are not our ways and when we die, if we go to Heaven, we’ll be surprised who we see and who we don’t.

Lastly, I got this report from Lucianne.com and the comments left on this story were truly sad. Most of them were from ignoramuses who were just bashing the Church, mostly along the lines of, “If the family just got out their credit cards…”. One happy moroon said, “Id rather go to hell than be bossed around by a group of effeminate pedophiles parading around as the voice of god. Jesus has long deserted this whore of a church.” It’s just very obvious that the Church is still misunderstood and still despised. For that, I am truly sad.

"IF I CLOSE MY EYES, IT WON'T HAPPEN"

Norah Vincent has an op-ed piece today at the LA Times saying traditional marriage is not going to be torn apart by gay marriage. Commenting on National Review’s many pieces on the coming storm, she gives a very good rundown of NR’s positions and predictions. She then summarily dismisses them with the argument, “It won’t happen just because”.

"How will it all end? I suspect that gay relationships are likely to be recognized as legal because we have finally begun to understand that it's only fair. And when they do, traditional civil marriage will survive — because, quite simply, it always has."

Her theory of “It is always been that way” is a wonderful argument for why we think marriage won’t survive. Marriage has always been a union between a man and a woman and that’s about to be blown away. So, “because, quite simply, it always has” is about to be proven not the strongest of arguments. She sounds a lot like the people from Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, who no matter how impossible they made it for the industrialists to succeed, they always felt the industrialists would succeed and save them all, because they always had before.

Ignorance does seem to make it easier to get through the day.

THE REALITY OF TELEVISION IS IT SHOULD BE SHUT OFF

This whole “reality television” thing is really scary. The newest, scariest one is NBC’s “Who Wants to Marry my Dad?”. Yeah, it’s just what you think it is. Four kids get to choose their father’s new(est) wife. The tag line is, “This is the most important decision of my life – and I’m not even making it!” Last year, we had “Married by America” - tag line, “The newest experiment in marriage”. Just go to the link and watch the intro - I have nothing else to say.

How many of you have seen “The Running Man”? It’s a movie starring Ahnold as a wrongly accused convict, forced to “star” in the prime time game show, “The Running Man”. The premise of this reality TV show is convicts are set loose in a closed off part of the city and they are hunted down and killed by the stars of the show, all filmed and shown live to the masses. Ever since “Survivor”, I’ve been convinced that we are headed to that, if we don’t get sidetracked to “Peep Show” first.

What does this say about us, people? Seriously, WHAT DOES THIS SAY? Nobody likes cheap, risqué humor as much as me, but HELLO? Parents, unplug the television and read some books.

KILL THE KIDS AND LIMIT SERVICES - ALL IN THE NAME OF THE CHILDREN

Deciding that he hasn’t screwed up California enough, Gov. Gray-out Davis signed into law a bill denying hospital owners the right to limit services available when the hospital is sold or leased. The idea was to force Catholic hospitals to offer murder services, I mean abortions when they lease their hospital and damn well make sure their will be no covenant on the transaction if it is sold. The twisted logic is that without the freedom to choose what they want to provide, hospital owners/leasers may not complete the transaction and the hospital will close. In a mad effort to continue the carnage, the exact opposite is going to happen. When the Catholic Church no longer has the means to run a hospital, it’s not going let it become a killing field for children, so it will choose just to close the facility.

Good job, guys.

FIRST DAY

Hey, thanks for the great first day. I can't promise I'll post as much I did today everyday, but I promise to sure post more than once a week. Oh, and for some non-political fun (can there be such a thing?) I give you this, Despair.com.

Happy Blogging!

Liars

The Democ-rats have a new ad out about the most evil, repugnant man in the world. Surprisingly, even though most people would say that was either Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Ill or Saddam, our friends at the "compassionate" party think it's George W. Bush. You know, that man who "stole" the 2000 election from the Prince of Dorkness, Al Gore? In true Democrat fashion, it lies. Yes, it pulls a huge Dowdism. A Dowdism, named after the beautiful and absolutely whacked out Maureen Dowd (Pulitzer prize winner), leaves out key parts of a phrase to change it's meaning completely into something more convenient. Tell me, what could be wrong with President George W. Bush's (I still love saying that!) sixteen words from the State of the Union Address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Well, if it ends up that MAYBE (The British are still sticking by the statement) Uncle S.H. didn't try to buy uranium from Niger AND you conveniently leave out the first six words with a Maureen Dowd special you get "...Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" and Whamo!! President Bush has lied and should resign according to the calm, cool and collective (HA HA!) Democrat front runner Howard Dean. It also makes a DNC advertisement that parrots the insane Dean approach.

Are you sure these people are fit to lead? They lie constantly and can't seem to find a coherent message, never mind a TRUTHFUL message. Please, when was the last time you found a RNC message so packed with lies?

HOMOPHOBIC

I don’t like the term homophobic. I really don’t like the homosexual lifestyle, with it’s rampant promiscuity, leather thongs and “pride” parades, but I’m not scared of them. I don’t like Cat Stevens, but that doesn’t mean I’m scared of him. (Unless there is a fatwah put out on me, then I’m scared) Besides, doesn’t homophobic mean “fear of oneself” or “fear of man” or something?

DADS

Have you ever noticed that all the fathers on television are doofuses? Dad’s are made out to be like lazy morons like Homer Simpson or bumbling idiots like Jim Belushi on According to Jim. Thankfully, these men have a wife with a good head on her shoulders to taker care of them. Even kids shows, like Lizzie McGuire, have a doofy dad and strong, calming mom. Now, I’m not saying this wrong and we shouldn’t have any Homer Simpson’s on TV (perish the thought!!!). What I’m saying is that we don’t have any Ward Cleavers anymore – a strong, moderating, intelligent, hard-working dads anymore.

Who did this to us? We did, with a lot of help from the feminists, liberal media and the PC police. What can we do about it? Point out to our kids watching the tube that dad’s are actually better than what they are seeing and hey, maybe even read a book or two.

LOSERS

Have any of you ever read David Eddings' The Losers? It starts out as an allegory about Good and Evil (at least, I think that is what he was doing) but halfway through, it takes a strange turn into an indictment on the welfare state. My guess is something happened to Eddings that caused him to completely change the book in mid-stream. Anywhoo, if you get near a library, check it out - literally.

Speaking of books, I have just finished the new Harry Potter book. If you liked the previous four (and I did) you will love this one, too. Some weirdo's on the fringes have been huffing and puffing about the Potter books leading kids in to witchcraft and straight to damnation. I say, "Bah!" What the Potter books do is get kids reading and that's a good thing. Sure, they're reading about witchcraft, but more importantly, they are reading about right and wrong (and right is made out to be good, too!) So, if this leads kids into witchcraft and the dark arts, it's because of very poor parenting and if the parenting is that bad, the kids had no chance anyway.

GAY BATTLE

There's a new battle looming on the horizon - gay marriage. The Supreme Court ruling on Lawrence has set the foundations for this "right" to be "found" in the Constitution. Please, do not kid yourself, this will be the next "big thing" in the next decade. If you think I'm goofy or if you think that gay marriage is just ducky, I encourage you to go to National Review and read some of the articles that they have written about this. National Review is distinctly conservative, but it is not staffed by whacko-s. I recommend the column by John O'Sullivan (called Marriage-American Style) - it's scary and hopeful all at the same time.

I'll be writing more about this later, but I want everyone to understand the gravity of the situation we face. The Lawrence ruling will have as big of an effect on society as Roe did, but without the mass killing. Unfortunately, that wasn't a joke.

IT STARTS

So, here I am with my very own blog. Some of you know that I used to post these on my website – well, longer versions called musings. When I started posting Mike’s Musings in 1997, I was faithful to do a new one each week. Then came Katie and still was pretty good about it. By 1999, I wasn’t so good and I don’t think I’ve posted a new one in over a month. NOT THAT I DON’T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY! I have a lot of things to say, it’s just I’ve been too lazy to put them up. Hence, I thought I’d try this little blog. Check it out frequently and I promise to put up my thoughts and ravings.