Tuesday, May 27, 2008
interesting...
So I bought this new phone which has me possibly questioning my loathing of technology. I am currently typing this on said phone. This means that I will be capable of live-blogging any event I am attending, like say a beach wedding. Very interesting.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Senator Clinton The Time Has Come
For you to exit this contest. I have gone from suprised, to disgusted, to furious with the way in which she has chosen to run this campaign.
What is sad to me is that her entire adult life has been building towards this campaign, and she will be remembered as the candidate that chose to take the low road where ever possible.
What is sad to me is that her entire adult life has been building towards this campaign, and she will be remembered as the candidate that chose to take the low road where ever possible.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
This was post on my fantasy baseball website and I think it deserves a place here:
For those of you who were around here last year, you have probably noticed that I have been significantly less obnoxious with my posts as I was last year.
There are many reasons for this, mostly, with having Avi most nights, I just don't have the time to watch as many games as I used to. I also have less time to think about what I just watched, analyze it, and write about it.
Like I said, there are many reasons for my silence, most of which revolve around the state of the Mets.
2006 is a distant memory. 2006 when the Mets could do no wrong, when trailing by 3 later in the game, I was fully confident that they would, if not come back to win, at least make it close and worth watching.
Last night, trailing by 4 in the 8th (it would have been 2 if Matt Wise had not given up a bomb to Mark f-ing Kotsay) SNY ran a poll to see who thought the Mets could come back. 92% of respondents thought the game was over.
That speaks volumes about where this team and it's fans are mentally.
I am bored with the Mets. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being asleep, and 10 being as excited as I have ever been (say like the day Santana was traded, man do I miss Carlos Gomez) this past weekends sweep of the (last place) Yankees was about a 2.
I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this team would come off of those two games, and fall flat on their faces in Atlanta, facing Tom Glavine and his 84 MPH fastball, and a guy that I seriously have never heard of.
This teams mediocrity is more than just a few uneven weeks of play. This team has look, acted, played and talked like this going back to last May. It has been a year.
There was a disastrous road trip to Colorado and Houston before the all-star break last year, that culminated with Reyes getting benched for lack of hustle, that kicked off the last 160 games or so of crap-tastic play.
There is no one reason for how poorly this team has played, and as complicated as the roots of this disaster are, the solutions are going to be just as complicated and painful, if not more.
The offense has been inconsistent for more than a year. Rick Down was fired before the all-star break last year as a scape goat for the offense.
It is not the results that are inconsistent. It is baseball, guys are going to make outs, I am completely prepared for that to happen, and happen a lot. It will happen to start an inning, it will happen with runners on base. I am completely ok with that.
When I say they are inconsistent, I mean there is no cohesion among the players when it comes to approach.
I realize that each player is different, and each player may or may not swing at a first pitch fastball.
But for years, the Yankees and Redsox have been known to, whether correctly or incorrectly, work the counts of the starting pitchers, exercising patience, driving up pitch counts, and getting the mediocre middle relief that is the Achilles heal of all teams.
This may just be B.S. talk from Yankees broadcasters, and analysts.
But I watch basically every Mets game, I think I know a few things about baseball and I can honestly say, for the past year-plus, I have no idea what the Mets approach is.
I have no idea, at-bat to at-bat, inning to inning, or game to game, what the Mets players, as a whole, are looking for.
I try to watch each batter, against each pitcher, whether they are right handed or left handed, a hard thrower or "crafty" (read:Tom f-ing Glavine), for instance, when David Wright faces a lefty, in general, he looks for a fastball early in the count, on the inside part of the plate to pull. David is a patient hitter that typically works the count, and will hit with two-strikes. But against lefties, he will swing first pitch on a fastball, if he can pull it.
And that, is the extent of the information I have been able to glean from this team, over the past year-plus.
Jose Reyes is lost, and watching him at-bat to at-bat, I have no clue what he is looking to do with the ball. I can honestly say, I cannot remember the last time I saw him get a base hit on a ground ball. This is the guy who is generally regarded as either THE fastest, or one of the fastest players in the game.
Outside of Ryan Church (who I just traded for, and is now out with a concussion because he slid too late last night trying to break up a double play that ended the game), who has a fairly consistent approach every time, Lefty or Righty, Church is looking for a fastball, thigh high that he can hit from gap to gap, which he has done on a consistent basis all year long.
I find it hard to believe that if Church is getting enough pitches to hit, that he is driving the ball consistently, Beltran who hits in front of him, or Wright to hits in front of Beltran are not seeing similar pitches and just not executing.
I don't know that a change in hitting coach could correct this, but it may be necessary.
Terry's Solution for the offensive woes:
make some changes to the lineup, and personnel.
Reyes
Beltran (who is not hitting for power anyways, and clearly needs more protection in the lineup, as he is drawing walks at a tremendous rate)
Wright
Church
Alou
------Make a trade for Delgado, the man has got to go.
Schnieder
Castillo
pitcher
in my opinion, trading Beltran is not out of the question. I am sick and tired of his inconsistent offensive production, his always injured body, and his lack of vocal leadership.
Yes he plays great defense. I get that, but so does Carlos Gomez, wait, shit we traded him for Santana.
--------------------------------
The Starting Pitching has been consistently slightly above mediocre. John Maine has turned it on (at least until yesterday) Santana has been consistently good, not great. Perez has been average and infuriating, Pelfrey has been Ok, and the fifth spot has not been terrible.
The problem for the starters is (and this translates into a huge problem for the bull-pen) they simply throw too many pitches early in the game.
John Maine could not get out of the 4th inning yesterday, Johan Santana has struggled to get into the 7th, Perez is lucky to get through 6 on any given night. Pelfrey is the same as Perez.
What this translates into is an over used, over exposed, weak bull-pen.
I don't know what can be done to reduce pitch counts. But the one question I have been waiting to hear be asked is this, what exactly is Rick Peterson's job if it is not to get better performances out of his starters?
Rick Peterson (whom I like, a lot) is touted as a master of pitching. He talks like a Buddhist Monk, he has diagrams, and metaphors for everything, and yet....Perez has improved only marginally, Maine has leveled off, Pelfrey has taken too long to realize that if he simply throws his sinker for strikes, he is not that different than Brandon Webb (you know, the guy who has won every game he has pitched this year).
The list of players who have not improved under Peterson is a hell of a lot longer than the list of gems that he has molded into Major League success storys.
And I haven't even mentioned the names in the Bullpen.
Aaron Heilman is a mess, and needs to go.
Matt Wise is a joke, and needs to go.
I realize that Willie has to go to these guys, as they are the tools that Omar has put in his tool box, much like going to Gillermo Mota, again and again, and again last year.
So it is time to change the Tools he has to use.
The Mets have a decent Bullpen (especially with Sosa gone)
Joe Smith
Pedro Feliciano
Duaner Sanchez (who still looks like he is recovering and getting his feet under him)
and Scott Schowenweis have been fairly productive, I don't expect the Bull-pen to lock down every lead, or keep every game in reach, but it would be nice to feel confident that down two in the 6th, with the starter out of the game because he threw 120 pitches in 5 innings, the game will stay in reach.
Terry' Solutions:
Heilman is gone tomorrow, get a serviceable arm in return (we got Sanchez for Jae Fucking Seo a few years ago, Omar, if you are the genius people believe you to be, and not the bumbling moron who lucked his way into most of the successful moves that have been made that I think you are, get it done)
Matt Wise is gone tomorrow, I don't care what you get in return, this was a stupid signing when it happened. And he is ugly.
I don't know that a change in pitching coach will make much of a difference, much like HoJo and the bats, consistent performance would make Peterson look a hell of a lot better.
---------------------------------
And now, on to Mr. Randolph.
For those of you who do not pay way too much attention to the Mets as I do, Willie had some awesomely stupid comments this weekend about how the Media is the reason he is portrayed like a bumbling moron who has no control over his team.
Let me take this opportunity to say, and I mean this very seriously: Willie, the reason you are portrayed as a bumbling moron who has no control over your team is because you are a bumbling moron who has no control over your team. Period.
It's not Racism as you would proclaim, Marvin the Fucking Martian could do a better job managing this team. And I don't know what color his skin is, nor do I care.
The players are not listening, you don't have the balls, or the authority to sit David Wright's ass on the bench when he fails to run out a pop fly to right, that is eventually dropped and could have tied the game, or Luis Castillo, who was also jogging, and should have parked his ass right next to Wright's had been running hard from first.
Reyes tuned you out last summer, and look how well he has performed in the last year.
Delgado could care less about what you have to say, or how you stick by your guys, he is long gone by the time the media is allowed in the club house.
You tell Wagner to keep it "in-house" when he speaks up about the lack of accountability in the club house with the media, then your turn around and blast your employer in the media, blame our treatment on racism, and scapegoat the journalist when he prints what you said, by saying "we were just chitchatting, and it was toung in cheek".
I am sure you are a nice guy, and you truly care about winning.
That being said. Pack your bags dude.
You are not Joe Girardi who is struggling in his first season, with an injured lineup, and a mediocre pitching staff that was over-hyped and over-rated coming into the season.
The Yankees are what I thought they were, average. Which is in no way the fault of Girardi.
Cashman gambled that Hughes and Kennedy were going to be good enough, and that Andy Pettite and Mike Mussina were not crap, they are.
He was wrong, and unlike the Red Sox who have the offense to compete with crappy end of the rotation pitching, The Yanks boast no such offensive production.
The Yanks are also in a much improved division. The Rays are not better by accident. Their management has done one hell of a job putting together a tough, exciting, talented team.
The Jays have one of the better Starting Rotations in the game, The Orioles are improving with young players.
And the Sox are the best team in the AL.
The Yankees are, a middle of the road, highly paid, old team that will have a lot of old, highly paid players come off the books this offseason, and are not going to compete for the division this season, with or with Alex and Jorge.
The Mets however, Willie, are the most talented team in their division.
They have the best pitcher in the NL not named Brandon Webb, they have last seasons real MVP in David Wright, and a resurgent Billy Wagner.
There are no excuses for how poorly the Mets have played.
I don't mean wins and losses. I mean the WAY they play.
In '06 they played with passion and excitement. They were the best defensive team in the NL.
They did the little things that clubs have to do, to rise about the mediocre competition in the NL East.
Willie's "we'll get them tomorrow, it's just one game" attitude has worn out.
This team suffered the worst regular season collapse in the history of baseball last year (Sorry Yanks you still hold the title for worst choke job in sports history).
If one lesson should have been learned last year, it is that every game, the Big ones against the Yankees, and the get-away-day blow out losses to the Reds when you trotted out the B-squad cause Alou, Delgado, Castillo, Schneider, and Beltran needed to rest, All Matter.
When you lose the division by one game, they all matter.
I find it most interesting, that the two players who have played consistent, and hard all year, Church and Schnieder, have spent the least amout of time with Willie, as if the more time you spend under his tutelage, the lazier, the less interested in playing hard you become.
I could not believe my eyes when David Wright casually jogged around first on that pop up against the Nats, that isnt the David Wright I used to know.
He did that, because in Willies club house, that type of behavior is ok.
That is not OK.
I have never heard Willie take responsibility for the focus of his team the way Girardi did following this weekends sweep. Willie always has someone else to blame, or some circumstance that explains away the poor play of his team.
And so, Terry's Solution:
Pack your bags Willie, 2006 was awesome, thanks for the memories.
Make Jerry Manuel the manager for the rest of the season, as we saw Sunday night, he isn't scared to get run out of a game in defense of one of his players, even if that player (Delgado) is too disinterested to argue for himself.
I have more to say, but my hands hurt.
Stay tuned.
-Terry
For those of you who were around here last year, you have probably noticed that I have been significantly less obnoxious with my posts as I was last year.
There are many reasons for this, mostly, with having Avi most nights, I just don't have the time to watch as many games as I used to. I also have less time to think about what I just watched, analyze it, and write about it.
Like I said, there are many reasons for my silence, most of which revolve around the state of the Mets.
2006 is a distant memory. 2006 when the Mets could do no wrong, when trailing by 3 later in the game, I was fully confident that they would, if not come back to win, at least make it close and worth watching.
Last night, trailing by 4 in the 8th (it would have been 2 if Matt Wise had not given up a bomb to Mark f-ing Kotsay) SNY ran a poll to see who thought the Mets could come back. 92% of respondents thought the game was over.
That speaks volumes about where this team and it's fans are mentally.
I am bored with the Mets. On a scale of 1-10, 1 being asleep, and 10 being as excited as I have ever been (say like the day Santana was traded, man do I miss Carlos Gomez) this past weekends sweep of the (last place) Yankees was about a 2.
I knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this team would come off of those two games, and fall flat on their faces in Atlanta, facing Tom Glavine and his 84 MPH fastball, and a guy that I seriously have never heard of.
This teams mediocrity is more than just a few uneven weeks of play. This team has look, acted, played and talked like this going back to last May. It has been a year.
There was a disastrous road trip to Colorado and Houston before the all-star break last year, that culminated with Reyes getting benched for lack of hustle, that kicked off the last 160 games or so of crap-tastic play.
There is no one reason for how poorly this team has played, and as complicated as the roots of this disaster are, the solutions are going to be just as complicated and painful, if not more.
The offense has been inconsistent for more than a year. Rick Down was fired before the all-star break last year as a scape goat for the offense.
It is not the results that are inconsistent. It is baseball, guys are going to make outs, I am completely prepared for that to happen, and happen a lot. It will happen to start an inning, it will happen with runners on base. I am completely ok with that.
When I say they are inconsistent, I mean there is no cohesion among the players when it comes to approach.
I realize that each player is different, and each player may or may not swing at a first pitch fastball.
But for years, the Yankees and Redsox have been known to, whether correctly or incorrectly, work the counts of the starting pitchers, exercising patience, driving up pitch counts, and getting the mediocre middle relief that is the Achilles heal of all teams.
This may just be B.S. talk from Yankees broadcasters, and analysts.
But I watch basically every Mets game, I think I know a few things about baseball and I can honestly say, for the past year-plus, I have no idea what the Mets approach is.
I have no idea, at-bat to at-bat, inning to inning, or game to game, what the Mets players, as a whole, are looking for.
I try to watch each batter, against each pitcher, whether they are right handed or left handed, a hard thrower or "crafty" (read:Tom f-ing Glavine), for instance, when David Wright faces a lefty, in general, he looks for a fastball early in the count, on the inside part of the plate to pull. David is a patient hitter that typically works the count, and will hit with two-strikes. But against lefties, he will swing first pitch on a fastball, if he can pull it.
And that, is the extent of the information I have been able to glean from this team, over the past year-plus.
Jose Reyes is lost, and watching him at-bat to at-bat, I have no clue what he is looking to do with the ball. I can honestly say, I cannot remember the last time I saw him get a base hit on a ground ball. This is the guy who is generally regarded as either THE fastest, or one of the fastest players in the game.
Outside of Ryan Church (who I just traded for, and is now out with a concussion because he slid too late last night trying to break up a double play that ended the game), who has a fairly consistent approach every time, Lefty or Righty, Church is looking for a fastball, thigh high that he can hit from gap to gap, which he has done on a consistent basis all year long.
I find it hard to believe that if Church is getting enough pitches to hit, that he is driving the ball consistently, Beltran who hits in front of him, or Wright to hits in front of Beltran are not seeing similar pitches and just not executing.
I don't know that a change in hitting coach could correct this, but it may be necessary.
Terry's Solution for the offensive woes:
make some changes to the lineup, and personnel.
Reyes
Beltran (who is not hitting for power anyways, and clearly needs more protection in the lineup, as he is drawing walks at a tremendous rate)
Wright
Church
Alou
------Make a trade for Delgado, the man has got to go.
Schnieder
Castillo
pitcher
in my opinion, trading Beltran is not out of the question. I am sick and tired of his inconsistent offensive production, his always injured body, and his lack of vocal leadership.
Yes he plays great defense. I get that, but so does Carlos Gomez, wait, shit we traded him for Santana.
--------------------------------
The Starting Pitching has been consistently slightly above mediocre. John Maine has turned it on (at least until yesterday) Santana has been consistently good, not great. Perez has been average and infuriating, Pelfrey has been Ok, and the fifth spot has not been terrible.
The problem for the starters is (and this translates into a huge problem for the bull-pen) they simply throw too many pitches early in the game.
John Maine could not get out of the 4th inning yesterday, Johan Santana has struggled to get into the 7th, Perez is lucky to get through 6 on any given night. Pelfrey is the same as Perez.
What this translates into is an over used, over exposed, weak bull-pen.
I don't know what can be done to reduce pitch counts. But the one question I have been waiting to hear be asked is this, what exactly is Rick Peterson's job if it is not to get better performances out of his starters?
Rick Peterson (whom I like, a lot) is touted as a master of pitching. He talks like a Buddhist Monk, he has diagrams, and metaphors for everything, and yet....Perez has improved only marginally, Maine has leveled off, Pelfrey has taken too long to realize that if he simply throws his sinker for strikes, he is not that different than Brandon Webb (you know, the guy who has won every game he has pitched this year).
The list of players who have not improved under Peterson is a hell of a lot longer than the list of gems that he has molded into Major League success storys.
And I haven't even mentioned the names in the Bullpen.
Aaron Heilman is a mess, and needs to go.
Matt Wise is a joke, and needs to go.
I realize that Willie has to go to these guys, as they are the tools that Omar has put in his tool box, much like going to Gillermo Mota, again and again, and again last year.
So it is time to change the Tools he has to use.
The Mets have a decent Bullpen (especially with Sosa gone)
Joe Smith
Pedro Feliciano
Duaner Sanchez (who still looks like he is recovering and getting his feet under him)
and Scott Schowenweis have been fairly productive, I don't expect the Bull-pen to lock down every lead, or keep every game in reach, but it would be nice to feel confident that down two in the 6th, with the starter out of the game because he threw 120 pitches in 5 innings, the game will stay in reach.
Terry' Solutions:
Heilman is gone tomorrow, get a serviceable arm in return (we got Sanchez for Jae Fucking Seo a few years ago, Omar, if you are the genius people believe you to be, and not the bumbling moron who lucked his way into most of the successful moves that have been made that I think you are, get it done)
Matt Wise is gone tomorrow, I don't care what you get in return, this was a stupid signing when it happened. And he is ugly.
I don't know that a change in pitching coach will make much of a difference, much like HoJo and the bats, consistent performance would make Peterson look a hell of a lot better.
---------------------------------
And now, on to Mr. Randolph.
For those of you who do not pay way too much attention to the Mets as I do, Willie had some awesomely stupid comments this weekend about how the Media is the reason he is portrayed like a bumbling moron who has no control over his team.
Let me take this opportunity to say, and I mean this very seriously: Willie, the reason you are portrayed as a bumbling moron who has no control over your team is because you are a bumbling moron who has no control over your team. Period.
It's not Racism as you would proclaim, Marvin the Fucking Martian could do a better job managing this team. And I don't know what color his skin is, nor do I care.
The players are not listening, you don't have the balls, or the authority to sit David Wright's ass on the bench when he fails to run out a pop fly to right, that is eventually dropped and could have tied the game, or Luis Castillo, who was also jogging, and should have parked his ass right next to Wright's had been running hard from first.
Reyes tuned you out last summer, and look how well he has performed in the last year.
Delgado could care less about what you have to say, or how you stick by your guys, he is long gone by the time the media is allowed in the club house.
You tell Wagner to keep it "in-house" when he speaks up about the lack of accountability in the club house with the media, then your turn around and blast your employer in the media, blame our treatment on racism, and scapegoat the journalist when he prints what you said, by saying "we were just chitchatting, and it was toung in cheek".
I am sure you are a nice guy, and you truly care about winning.
That being said. Pack your bags dude.
You are not Joe Girardi who is struggling in his first season, with an injured lineup, and a mediocre pitching staff that was over-hyped and over-rated coming into the season.
The Yankees are what I thought they were, average. Which is in no way the fault of Girardi.
Cashman gambled that Hughes and Kennedy were going to be good enough, and that Andy Pettite and Mike Mussina were not crap, they are.
He was wrong, and unlike the Red Sox who have the offense to compete with crappy end of the rotation pitching, The Yanks boast no such offensive production.
The Yanks are also in a much improved division. The Rays are not better by accident. Their management has done one hell of a job putting together a tough, exciting, talented team.
The Jays have one of the better Starting Rotations in the game, The Orioles are improving with young players.
And the Sox are the best team in the AL.
The Yankees are, a middle of the road, highly paid, old team that will have a lot of old, highly paid players come off the books this offseason, and are not going to compete for the division this season, with or with Alex and Jorge.
The Mets however, Willie, are the most talented team in their division.
They have the best pitcher in the NL not named Brandon Webb, they have last seasons real MVP in David Wright, and a resurgent Billy Wagner.
There are no excuses for how poorly the Mets have played.
I don't mean wins and losses. I mean the WAY they play.
In '06 they played with passion and excitement. They were the best defensive team in the NL.
They did the little things that clubs have to do, to rise about the mediocre competition in the NL East.
Willie's "we'll get them tomorrow, it's just one game" attitude has worn out.
This team suffered the worst regular season collapse in the history of baseball last year (Sorry Yanks you still hold the title for worst choke job in sports history).
If one lesson should have been learned last year, it is that every game, the Big ones against the Yankees, and the get-away-day blow out losses to the Reds when you trotted out the B-squad cause Alou, Delgado, Castillo, Schneider, and Beltran needed to rest, All Matter.
When you lose the division by one game, they all matter.
I find it most interesting, that the two players who have played consistent, and hard all year, Church and Schnieder, have spent the least amout of time with Willie, as if the more time you spend under his tutelage, the lazier, the less interested in playing hard you become.
I could not believe my eyes when David Wright casually jogged around first on that pop up against the Nats, that isnt the David Wright I used to know.
He did that, because in Willies club house, that type of behavior is ok.
That is not OK.
I have never heard Willie take responsibility for the focus of his team the way Girardi did following this weekends sweep. Willie always has someone else to blame, or some circumstance that explains away the poor play of his team.
And so, Terry's Solution:
Pack your bags Willie, 2006 was awesome, thanks for the memories.
Make Jerry Manuel the manager for the rest of the season, as we saw Sunday night, he isn't scared to get run out of a game in defense of one of his players, even if that player (Delgado) is too disinterested to argue for himself.
I have more to say, but my hands hurt.
Stay tuned.
-Terry
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Jon Lester
Last night Boston Redsox pitcher Jon Lester threw a no-hitter, which in and of itself is an awesome accomplishment. I can name the last five Major League no-hitters off of the top of my head (which either means it is a really cool thing to throw one, or I have way too much useless baseball knowlege on the top of my head).
What makes this story better is that two years ago, Jon was diagnosed with Lymphoma, a very serious form of cancer, which affects the lymphatic system. Jon basically had cancer in his entire body.
He returned to the Majors last season and helped the Sox win their second world series in three years (for those of you counting at home, that is two championships this century to zero for the Yankees).
Last night he was in control from start to finish. I could not help but feel incredibly happy for the man, he is about my age and has had to deal with something that I couldn't dream of.
Monday, May 19, 2008
A Step in the Right Direction
This is not a post about politics.
This is not a post about baseball.
This is a post about life, and love, and the RIGHT to do both.
I am a donating member of the Human Rights Campaign (HRC.org), I have Gay Pride stickers on my Man Wagon. My daughter wears gay pride clothing. I do not do these things lightly, or with any sense of it being a joke. I put my money where my mouth is and support the LGBT community.
I proudly support the rights of all people.
On Thursday, May 15th 2008 the California State Supreme Court ruled that the states ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional.
It was a ruling that Republican Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger supported.
The ruling will not be challenged in the Federal Supreme Court.
I have been waiting to write about this until I had the time to think about what I really want to say.
I am not sure, at this moment that I really know, even still, what it is exactly I want to say.
I will be taking part in a wedding in June. A wedding that, according to the Law will not mean anything.
However, according to those who will take part, myself included, it will be counted among the most important days of our lives.
I have an overwhelming sense of pride when I think about that day. I am proud to stand with the people that I love, and watch to people who love each other as much as any two people are capable of enter their lives together.
It takes a long time for change to come. The mood of our country swings like a giant pendulum. The pendulum is swinging in the other direction.
The Tide is Turning.
It will be a long time before there is a Federal Law that ensures the Right of Gay people to marry.
New York State will be the next to pass a law on the State level guaranteeing the right to marry for all citizens. Rochester is on the forefront of this battle.
Civil Unions are not enough.
My daughter will grow up in a world that recognizes the rights of all people to marry.
That, is something to be proud of.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
"George Bush and John McCain have a lot to Answer For"
He is just so God Damned Presidential. Man it feels good to watch him talk.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
September 26, 2006
This was the first Special Comment I saw. I remember where I was, and what I was doing. I was blown away, I had not heard a voice say the exact things that I was thinking. This was almost two years ago.
The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.
Nonetheless. The headline is this:
Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration did not try.
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except for this.
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for “e-mailing” you the question.
Clinton fumes
Sept. 25: Former President Bill Clinton clashes with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace in a combative interview. NBC's Mike Taibbi reports.
Today show
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth untold about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?
Who distracted whom?
This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book “1984.”
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence.
He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
The headlines about them are, of course, entirely wrong.
It is not essential that a past president, bullied and sandbagged by a monkey posing as a newscaster, finally lashed back.
It is not important that the current President’s portable public chorus has described his predecessor’s tone as “crazed.”
Our tone should be crazed. The nation’s freedoms are under assault by an administration whose policies can do us as much damage as al Qaida; the nation’s marketplace of ideas is being poisoned by a propaganda company so blatant that Tokyo Rose would’ve quit.
Nonetheless. The headline is this:
Bill Clinton did what almost none of us have done in five years.
He has spoken the truth about 9/11, and the current presidential administration.
"At least I tried," he said of his own efforts to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. "That’s the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They had eight months to try; they did not try. I tried."
Thus in his supposed emeritus years has Mr. Clinton taken forceful and triumphant action for honesty, and for us; action as vital and as courageous as any of his presidency; action as startling and as liberating, as any, by any one, in these last five long years.
The Bush Administration did not try to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.
The Bush Administration ignored all the evidence gathered by its predecessors.
The Bush Administration did not understand the Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in U.S."
The Bush Administration did not try.
Moreover, for the last five years one month and two weeks, the current administration, and in particular the President, has been given the greatest “pass” for incompetence and malfeasance in American history!
President Roosevelt was rightly blamed for ignoring the warning signs—some of them, 17 years old—before Pearl Harbor.
President Hoover was correctly blamed for—if not the Great Depression itself—then the disastrous economic steps he took in the immediate aftermath of the Stock Market Crash.
Even President Lincoln assumed some measure of responsibility for the Civil War—though talk of Southern secession had begun as early as 1832.
But not this president.
To hear him bleat and whine and bully at nearly every opportunity, one would think someone else had been president on September 11th, 2001 -- or the nearly eight months that preceded it.
That hardly reflects the honesty nor manliness we expect of the executive
But if his own fitness to serve is of no true concern to him, perhaps we should simply sigh and keep our fingers crossed, until a grown-up takes the job three Januarys from now.
Except for this.
After five years of skirting even the most inarguable of facts—that he was president on 9/11 and he must bear some responsibility for his, and our, unreadiness, Mr. Bush has now moved, unmistakably and without conscience or shame, towards re-writing history, and attempting to make the responsibility, entirely Mr. Clinton’s.
Of course he is not honest enough to do that directly.
As with all the other nefariousness and slime of this, our worst presidency since James Buchanan, he is having it done for him, by proxy.
Thus, the sandbag effort by Fox News Friday afternoon.
Consider the timing: the very weekend the National Intelligence Estimate would be released and show the Iraq war to be the fraudulent failure it is—not a check on terror, but fertilizer for it.
The kind of proof of incompetence, for which the administration and its hyenas at Fox need to find a diversion, in a scapegoat.
It was the kind of cheap trick which would get a journalist fired—but a propagandist, promoted:
Promise to talk of charity and generosity; but instead launch into the lies and distortions with which the Authoritarians among us attack the virtuous and reward the useless.
And don’t even be professional enough to assume the responsibility for the slanders yourself; blame your audience for “e-mailing” you the question.
Clinton fumes
Sept. 25: Former President Bill Clinton clashes with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace in a combative interview. NBC's Mike Taibbi reports.
Today show
Mr. Clinton responded as you have seen.
He told the great truth untold about this administration’s negligence, perhaps criminal negligence, about bin Laden.
He was brave.
Then again, Chris Wallace might be braver still. Had I in one moment surrendered all my credibility as a journalist, and been irredeemably humiliated, as was he, I would have gone home and started a new career selling seeds by mail.
The smearing by proxy, of course, did not begin Friday afternoon.
Disney was first to sell-out its corporate reputation, with "The Path to 9/11." Of that company’s crimes against truth one needs to say little. Simply put: someone there enabled an Authoritarian zealot to belch out Mr. Bush’s new and improved history.
The basic plot-line was this: because he was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11.
The most curious and in some ways the most infuriating aspect of this slapdash theory, is that the Right Wingers who have advocated it—who try to sneak it into our collective consciousness through entertainment, or who sandbag Mr. Clinton with it at news interviews—have simply skipped past its most glaring flaw.
Had it been true that Clinton had been distracted from the hunt for bin Laden in 1998 because of the Monica Lewinsky nonsense, why did these same people not applaud him for having bombed bin Laden’s camps in Afghanistan and Sudan on Aug. 20, of that year? For mentioning bin Laden by name as he did so?
That day, Republican Senator Grams of Minnesota invoked the movie "Wag The Dog."
Republican Senator Coats of Indiana questioned Mr. Clinton’s judgment.
Republican Senator Ashcroft of Missouri—the future attorney general—echoed Coats.
Even Republican Senator Arlen Specter questioned the timing.
And of course, were it true Clinton had been “distracted” by the Lewinsky witch-hunt, who on earth conducted the Lewinsky witch-hunt?
Who turned the political discourse of this nation on its head for two years?
Who corrupted the political media?
Who made it impossible for us to even bring back on the air, the counter-terrorism analysts like Dr. Richard Haass, and James Dunegan, who had warned, at this very hour, on this very network, in early 1998, of cells from the Middle East who sought to attack us, here?
Who preempted them in order to strangle us with the trivia that was, “All Monica All The Time”?
Who distracted whom?
This is, of course, where—as is inevitable—Mr. Bush and his henchmen prove not quite as smart as they think they are.
The full responsibility for 9/11 is obviously shared by three administrations, possibly four.
But, Mr. Bush, if you are now trying to convince us by proxy that it’s all about the distractions of 1998 and 1999, then you will have to face a startling fact that your minions may have hidden from you.
The distractions of 1998 and 1999, Mr. Bush, were carefully manufactured, and lovingly executed, not by Bill Clinton, but by the same people who got you elected President.
Thus, instead of some commendable acknowledgment that you were even in office on 9/11 and the lost months before it, we have your sleazy and sloppy rewriting of history, designed by somebody who evidently read the Orwell playbook too quickly.
Thus, instead of some explanation for the inertia of your first eight months in office, we are told that you have kept us "safe" ever since—a statement that might range anywhere from zero, to 100 percent, true.
We have nothing but your word, and your word has long since ceased to mean anything.
And, of course, the one time you have ever given us specifics about what you have kept us safe from, Mr. Bush, you got the name of the supposedly targeted Tower in Los Angeles wrong.
Thus was it left for the previous president to say what so many of us have felt; what so many of us have given you a pass for in the months and even the years after the attack:
You did not try.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your predecessor.
You ignored the evidence gathered by your own people.
Then, you blamed your predecessor.
That would be a textbook definition, Mr. Bush, of cowardice.
To enforce the lies of the present, it is necessary to erase the truths of the past.
That was one of the great mechanical realities Eric Blair—writing as George Orwell—gave us in the book “1984.”
The great philosophical reality he gave us, Mr. Bush, may sound as familiar to you, as it has lately begun to sound familiar to me.
"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power...
"Power is not a means; it is an end.
"One does not establish a dictatorship to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.
"The object of persecution, is persecution. The object of torture, is torture. The object of power… is power."
Earlier last Friday afternoon, before the Fox ambush, speaking in the far different context of the closing session of his remarkable Global Initiative, Mr. Clinton quoted Abraham Lincoln’s State of the Union address from 1862.
"We must disenthrall ourselves."
Mr. Clinton did not quote the rest of Mr. Lincoln’s sentence.
He might well have.
"We must disenthrall ourselves and then we shall save our country."
And so has Mr. Clinton helped us to disenthrall ourselves, and perhaps enabled us, even at this late and bleak date, to save our country.
The "free pass" has been withdrawn, Mr. Bush.
You did not act to prevent 9/11.
We do not know what you have done to prevent another 9/11.
You have failed us—then leveraged that failure, to justify a purposeless war in Iraq which will have, all too soon, claimed more American lives than did 9/11.
You have failed us anew in Afghanistan.
And you have now tried to hide your failures, by blaming your predecessor.
And now you exploit your failure, to rationalize brazen torture which doesn’t work anyway; which only condemns our soldiers to water-boarding; which only humiliates our country further in the world; and which no true American would ever condone, let alone advocate.
And there it is, Mr. Bush:
Are yours the actions of a true American?
The Text
From Keith's Special Comment last night:
SPECIAL COMMENT
Keith Olbermann - 'Countdown'
President Bush has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration and public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and John McCain lurk.
Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States." This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came during a May 13 interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo.
The question was phrased as follows: "If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"
The president replied: "Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?" They are those in -- or formerly in -- your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.
Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? "This ideological struggle," Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.
It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else's, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like "Patriot Act" is a brand name or "Protect America" is a brand name.
But wait, there's more: You also said "Iraq is the place where al-Qaida and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated." They made no "stand" in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!
As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of "they'll greet us as liberators." And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infra-structure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroy, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir.
Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!
***
It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him.
"Do you feel," asked an ordinary American, "that you were misled on Iraq?"
"I feel like -- I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction," the president said. "You know, 'mislead' is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional -- I don't think so, I think there was a -- not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."
Flawed.
You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons.
You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, fast.
You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how "intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment."
You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished anybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad.
And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus, all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country's policy in lieu of, say, common sense.
The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco.
You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as claim was built from "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
***
Of course if there is one overriding theme to this president's administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.
"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"
"No, no," replied the President. "I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction ..."
People? What people? The insane informant "Curveball?" The Iraqi snake-oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi? The American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney?
"I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
"And of course, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."
Mr. Bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nation's throat. When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply resubmitted it, with phrases amounting to "See, I done proved it," virtually written in the margins in crayon.
You defied patriotic Americans to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes," only with the stakes -- as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it -- being a "mushroom cloud over an American city."
And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that for members of Congress "the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes" -- while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy -- 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect -- dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, "I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction."
***
Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solar plexus, his last reopening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgment but his very suitably to remain in office.
"Mr. President," he was asked, "you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?
"Yes," began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans on our history. "It really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died, to see the Commander in Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq? Do you think these families, Mr. Bush, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf? Do you think, sir, they care about you?
You, Mr. Bush, let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf? Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war.
Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't even give up talking about Iraq a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world?
Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency? In your own words "solidarity as best as I can" is to stop a game? That is the "best" you can do?
Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf! Golf. Not "Gulf" -- golf.
And still it gets worse. Because it proves that the president's unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick with a ball, was not even his own damned idea.
"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?"
"I remember when [diplomat Sergio Vieira] de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf, I think I was in central Texas, and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it any more to do."
Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't even think of it yourself? The great Bushian sacrifice -- an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, 4,000 of their brothers and sisters lose their lives -- and you lose golf, and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?
If it's even true.
Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time -- coincidence, no doubt -- the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U.N. and interrupted your round of golf was on Aug. 19, 2003.
Yet CBS News has records of you playing golf as late as Oct. 13 of that year, nearly two months later.
Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you 6 1/2 years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain, succeeds you.
The war in Iraq, your war, Mr. Bush, is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next Jan. 20 will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:
When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at ...
When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation ...
When somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abdicating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead.
This advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up!
SPECIAL COMMENT
Keith Olbermann - 'Countdown'
President Bush has resorted anew to the sleaziest fear-mongering and mass manipulation of an administration and public life dedicated to realizing the lowest of our expectations. And he has now applied these poisons to the 2008 presidential election, on behalf of the party at whose center he and John McCain lurk.
Mr. Bush has predicted that the election of a Democratic president could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States." This ludicrous, infuriating, holier-than-thou and most importantly bone-headedly wrong statement came during a May 13 interview with Politico.com and online users of Yahoo.
The question was phrased as follows: "If we were to pull out of Iraq next year, what's the worst that could happen, what's the doomsday scenario?"
The president replied: "Doomsday scenario of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States. The biggest issue we face is, it's bigger than Iraq, it's this ideological struggle against cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives."
Mr. Bush, at long last, has it not dawned on you that the America you have now created, includes "cold-blooded killers who will kill people to achieve their political objectives?" They are those in -- or formerly in -- your employ, who may yet be charged some day with war crimes.
Through your haze of self-congratulation and self-pity, do you still have no earthly clue that this nation has laid waste to Iraq to achieve your political objectives? "This ideological struggle," Mr. Bush, is taking place within this country.
It is a struggle between Americans who cherish freedom, ours and everybody else's, and Americans like you, sir, to whom freedom is just a brand name, just like "Patriot Act" is a brand name or "Protect America" is a brand name.
But wait, there's more: You also said "Iraq is the place where al-Qaida and other extremists have made their stand and they will be defeated." They made no "stand" in Iraq, sir, you allowed them to assemble there!
As certainly as if that were the plan, the borders were left wide open by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of "they'll greet us as liberators." And as certainly as if that were the plan, the inspiration for another generation of terrorists in another country was provided by your government's farcical post-invasion strategy of letting the societal infra-structure of Iraq dissolve, to be replaced by an American viceroy, enforced by merciless mercenaries who shoot unarmed Iraqis and then evade prosecution in any country by hiding behind your skirts, sir.
Terrorism inside Iraq is your creation, Mr. Bush!
***
It was a Yahoo user who brought up the second topic upon whose introduction Mr. Bush should have passed, or punted, or gotten up and left the room claiming he heard Dick Cheney calling him.
"Do you feel," asked an ordinary American, "that you were misled on Iraq?"
"I feel like -- I felt like, there were weapons of mass destruction," the president said. "You know, 'mislead' is a strong word, it almost connotes some kind of intentional -- I don't think so, I think there was a -- not only our intelligence community, but intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment. And so I was disappointed to see how flawed our intelligence was."
Flawed.
You, Mr. Bush, and your tragically know-it-all minions, threw out every piece of intelligence that suggested there were no such weapons.
You, Mr. Bush, threw out every person who suggested that the sober, contradictory, reality-based intelligence needed to be listened to, fast.
You, Mr. Bush, are responsible for how "intelligence communities all across the world shared the same assessment."
You and the sycophants you dredged up and put behind the most important steering wheel in the world propagated palpable nonsense and shoved it down the throat of every intelligence community across the world and punished anybody who didn't agree it was really chicken salad.
And you, Mr. Bush, threw under the bus, all of the subsequent critics who bravely stepped forward later to point out just how much of a self-fulfilling prophecy you had embraced, and adopted as this country's policy in lieu of, say, common sense.
The fiasco of pre-war intelligence, sir, is your fiasco.
You should build a great statue of yourself turning a deaf ear to the warnings of realists, while you are shown embracing the three-card monte dealers like Richard Perle and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney.
That would be a far more fitting tribute to your legacy, Mr. Bush, than this presidential library you are constructing as a giant fable about your presidency, an edifice you might as claim was built from "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" because there will be just as many of those inside your presidential library as there were inside Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
***
Of course if there is one overriding theme to this president's administration it is the utter, always-failing, inability to know when to quit when it is behind. And so Mr. Bush answered yet another question about this layered, nuanced, wheels-within-wheels garbage heap that constituted his excuse for war.
"And so you feel that you didn't have all the information you should have or the right spin on that information?"
"No, no," replied the President. "I was told by people, that they had weapons of mass destruction ..."
People? What people? The insane informant "Curveball?" The Iraqi snake-oil salesman Ahmed Chalabi? The American snake-oil salesman Dick Cheney?
"I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction, as were members of Congress, who voted for the resolution to get rid of Saddam Hussein.
"And of course, the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes."
Mr. Bush, you destroyed the evidence that contradicted the resolution you jammed down the Congress's throat, the way you jammed it down the nation's throat. When required by law to verify that your evidence was accurate, you simply resubmitted it, with phrases amounting to "See, I done proved it," virtually written in the margins in crayon.
You defied patriotic Americans to say "The Emperor Has No Clothes," only with the stakes -- as you and the mental dwarves in your employ put it -- being a "mushroom cloud over an American city."
And as a final crash of self-indulgent nonsense, when the incontrovertible truth of your panoramic and murderous deceit has even begun to cost your political party seemingly perpetual congressional seats in places like North Carolina and Mississippi, you can actually say with a straight face, sir, that for members of Congress "the political heat gets on and they start to run and try to hide from their votes" -- while you greet the political heat and try to run and hide from your presidency, and your legacy -- 4,000 of the Americans you were supposed to protect -- dead in Iraq, with your only feeble, pathetic answer being, "I was told by people that they had weapons of mass destruction."
***
Then came Mr. Bush's final blow to our nation's solar plexus, his last reopening of our common wounds, his last remark that makes the rest of us question not merely his leadership or his judgment but his very suitably to remain in office.
"Mr. President," he was asked, "you haven't been golfing in recent years. Is that related to Iraq?
"Yes," began perhaps the most startling reply of this nightmarish blight on our lives as Americans on our history. "It really is. I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died, to see the Commander in Chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be as -- to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
Golf, sir? Golf sends the wrong signal to the grieving families of our men and women butchered in Iraq? Do you think these families, Mr. Bush, their lives blighted forever, care about you playing golf? Do you think, sir, they care about you?
You, Mr. Bush, let their sons and daughters be killed. Sir, to show your solidarity with them you gave up golf? Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't give up your pursuit of this insurance-scam, profiteering, morally and financially bankrupting war.
Sir, to show your solidarity with them you didn't even give up talking about Iraq a subject about which you have incessantly proved without pause or backwards glance, that you may literally be the least informed person in the world?
Sir, to show your solidarity with them, you didn't give up your presidency? In your own words "solidarity as best as I can" is to stop a game? That is the "best" you can do?
Four thousand Americans give up their lives and your sacrifice was to give up golf! Golf. Not "Gulf" -- golf.
And still it gets worse. Because it proves that the president's unendurable sacrifice, his unbearable pain, the suspension of getting to hit a stick with a ball, was not even his own damned idea.
"Mr. President, was there a particular moment or incident that brought you to that decision, or how did you come to that?"
"I remember when [diplomat Sergio Vieira] de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life. And I was playing golf, I think I was in central Texas, and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, it's just not worth it any more to do."
Your one, tone-deaf, arrogant, pathetic, embarrassing gesture, and you didn't even think of it yourself? The great Bushian sacrifice -- an Army private loses a leg, a Marine loses half his skull, 4,000 of their brothers and sisters lose their lives -- and you lose golf, and they have to pull you off the golf course to get you to just do that?
If it's even true.
Apart from your medical files, which dutifully record your torn calf muscle and the knee pain which forced you to give up running at the same time -- coincidence, no doubt -- the bombing in Baghdad which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello of the U.N. and interrupted your round of golf was on Aug. 19, 2003.
Yet CBS News has records of you playing golf as late as Oct. 13 of that year, nearly two months later.
Mr. Bush, I hate to break it to you 6 1/2 years after you yoked this nation and your place in history to the wrong war, in the wrong place, against the wrong people, but the war in Iraq is not about you.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your grief when American after American comes home in a box.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about what your addled brain has produced in the way of paranoid delusions of risks that do not exist, ready to be activated if some Democrat, and not your twin Mr. McCain, succeeds you.
The war in Iraq, your war, Mr. Bush, is about how you accomplished the derangement of two nations, and how you helped funnel billions of taxpayer dollars to lascivious and perennially thirsty corporations like Halliburton and Blackwater, and how you sent 4,000 Americans to their deaths for nothing.
It is not, Mr. Bush, about your golf game! And, sir, if you have any hopes that next Jan. 20 will not be celebrated as a day of soul-wrenching, heart-felt thanksgiving, because your faithless stewardship of this presidency will have finally come to a merciful end, this last piece of advice:
When somebody asks you, sir, about Democrats who must now pull this country back from the abyss you have placed us at ...
When somebody asks you, sir, about the cooked books and faked threats you foisted on a sincere and frightened nation ...
When somebody asks you, sir, about your gallant, noble, self-abdicating sacrifice of your golf game so as to soothe the families of the war dead.
This advice, Mr. Bush: Shut the hell up!
I Get So Caught Up
In the Democratic Primary, I sometimes forget that we still have a moron running our country.
Luckily Keith Olbermann is here to remind me:
Michelle Obama was right. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.
This man makes me sick.
Luckily Keith Olbermann is here to remind me:
Michelle Obama was right. For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.
This man makes me sick.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Tide is Turning
And that folks is the nail.
John Edwards has (finally) endorsed Barack Obama for President.
The Timing is perfect. As Hillary is riding the highest wave of support that she has enjoyed since her B.S. crying fit in New Hampshire, scheduled for interviews on all three major networks tonight, Obama holds a massive rally in Michigan (you know, the state that she keeps saying needs to be counted, but Obama's name wasn't on the ballot) and kills any momentum she might have had.
My choice for VP is Virginia Senator Jim Webb, but I have to admit, watching the speech tonight, they looked an awful lot like the winning ticket.
I laid on the floor with Avi watching the rally. And it dawned on me. I am who they are talking about.
I am a home owner because the federal government offered me a mortgage that I could afford while I worked to get a better job to afford the house on my own. I am proud of my home, I am proud of the house that I own, and I could not do that without the help of the government.
Republicans, my Republican family members, the Republican nominee for president, would see that I was not given that opportunity. To them, I don't deserve to own a home if I cannot afford it. They would shrink the government, and the programs that it offers to a point where we would all fend for ourselves, and Avi and I would live in an apartment somewhere because we could not afford this house on our own.
John Edwards and Barack Obama would see to it that people like me, hard working people can be proud of where they live.
I took my daughter to the doctors yesterday. It wasn't and emergency, but she needed to see the doctor. We didn't have to pay a Co-pay. She was prescribed a medication, we didn't have to pay for the medicine.
Avi is on Child Health Plus. This is Socialized Health Care (scary words to Conservatives and Republicans). My daughter is healthy because of State Sponsored Health Care. I can sleep at night, knowing she is safe and healthy, because she has free health care.
Republicans hate that. They hate that I am offered a mortgage that I can afford. They hate that my daughter is given nearly free health care.
Barack Obama supports the life that I live. When Obama, or John Edwards talk about lower middle class, or lower class Americans that are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay bills and buy food, living week to week, pay check to pay check, able to afford their houses, or their health care, they are not talking about some unknown, nameless, faceless someone who is in trouble because of bad choices that they have made.
They are talking about me, and my daughter. That is why I support Barack Obama for President.
The Tide is Turning.
Monday, May 12, 2008
On The List of Terry's Heros
Josh Hamilton is pretty near the top.
Josh was selected as the #1 overall pick in the 1999 MLB Draft by the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.
Josh was selected on spot ahead of Red Sox Ace Josh Beckett.
Hamilton signed a 4 million dollar contract with the Rays out of high school. He performed well in the Minors for the Rays, but injuries and off field issues halted his progress.
In 2002 Josh was suspended for violation of the MLB drug testing policy. Josh's life spiralled out of control. He became addicted to Crack Cocaine, Meth, and Heroin.
After spending over a year out of baseball, Josh was selected in the Rule 5 draft by the Cincinnati Reds. The rules of the Rule 5 Draft allow teams to take selected players from other teams, but they must remain on the active major league roster in order to be retained, otherwise they have to be sent back to the original team.
Hamilton was considered a long shot heading into spring training in 07 with the Reds. He proceeded to lead the Majors in batting in Spring Training, hitting over .400.
Josh was a Rookie of the Year candidate last season when he hurt his wrist (a bad injury for a baseball player) and missed too much of the season to garner much attention for ROY.
Josh was traded to the Texas Rangers in the offseason, a move which has greatly benefitted both teams.
Josh is leading the Majors in RBI and has an impressive line of
.303 7 HR 39 RBI .354 OBP .548 SLUG
Josh is now married with a young child. He has completely turned his life around. In a world where the worst stories, and worst people are given the most attention, to me, Josh's story is the kind that I want to hear. Josh's story is the kind I want to tell my daughter about. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/080508
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201312.html
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Friday, May 9, 2008
Hard Working People, White People
I know I have been fairly hard on Hillary Clinton, and her campaign. In my opinion, all of the criticism (except when I called her "helmet hair" and said her voice sounds like the aliens from "Mars Attacks", and when I said she has a huge can (right now is actually the first time I have mentioned her huge can)) I have levied against her I feel has been justified.
She has poorly managed her campaign, she has given me no reason to believe she could run this country when she cannot run a political campaign without resorting to the tactics that disgust me about Bush.
Now, when she is clearly dead in the water, she has sunk to a level that proves that she will not stop this, at any cost.
During an interview with USA Today yesterday, Hillary said:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As evidence she cited an Associated Press report that, she said, "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." (emphasis mine)
I allowed myself to hope on Tuesday, and even into Wednesday that she was going to go quietly into the night. That is clearly not going to happen. She still believes, however delusionally, that only she can win the Presidency as a Democrat.
Hillary, I am truly disgusted.
She has poorly managed her campaign, she has given me no reason to believe she could run this country when she cannot run a political campaign without resorting to the tactics that disgust me about Bush.
Now, when she is clearly dead in the water, she has sunk to a level that proves that she will not stop this, at any cost.
During an interview with USA Today yesterday, Hillary said:
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As evidence she cited an Associated Press report that, she said, "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." (emphasis mine)
I allowed myself to hope on Tuesday, and even into Wednesday that she was going to go quietly into the night. That is clearly not going to happen. She still believes, however delusionally, that only she can win the Presidency as a Democrat.
Hillary, I am truly disgusted.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
In My Head
My head has been crazy the last few weeks. The Democratic primary has dominated the majority of my free thinking time. Although mathematically eliminated, Senator Clinton is going to fight on. Her basic argument for doing so is: Obama's base (young, black voters) will vote for her, while her base (white, middle aged voter) will not vote for him. Now she hasn't come out and said it like that (mostly because it shows that her base is racist, regardless of political affliation). Now comes the long, slow gasping crawl to the forgone conclusion to this thing.
Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. John McSame does not stand a chance in the general election against him.
On baseball. I am bored with baseball right now. The Mets are the same team that blew a 7 game lead with 17 to play last fall. Nothing has changed. Until Willie Randolph is fired, nothing is going to change. The team has taken on the personality of the manager, and in this case that is a lack there of.
I don't know if it is my recent adventures into fatherhood, but I just don't live and die with the wins and loses anymore.
It is part of my personality to cheer for the underdog. The problem is, the Mets are not the underdog. They have the highest payroll in the NL. They are underachievers, which I hate.
The Redsox have become to good for me to enjoy. The still have a group of young, exciting players. And my favorite character in the history of sports, Manny. There just is not that excitement. Perhaps it will build as the season goes on.
The Twins continue to play better than anyone gave them a chance to. The Oakland A's (who if you will remember, Terry picked to win the division) have managed, despite being killed by injuries, stayed atop of the AL West.
The Diamond Backs are for real.
Barack Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee. John McSame does not stand a chance in the general election against him.
On baseball. I am bored with baseball right now. The Mets are the same team that blew a 7 game lead with 17 to play last fall. Nothing has changed. Until Willie Randolph is fired, nothing is going to change. The team has taken on the personality of the manager, and in this case that is a lack there of.
I don't know if it is my recent adventures into fatherhood, but I just don't live and die with the wins and loses anymore.
It is part of my personality to cheer for the underdog. The problem is, the Mets are not the underdog. They have the highest payroll in the NL. They are underachievers, which I hate.
The Redsox have become to good for me to enjoy. The still have a group of young, exciting players. And my favorite character in the history of sports, Manny. There just is not that excitement. Perhaps it will build as the season goes on.
The Twins continue to play better than anyone gave them a chance to. The Oakland A's (who if you will remember, Terry picked to win the division) have managed, despite being killed by injuries, stayed atop of the AL West.
The Diamond Backs are for real.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Obama 08
In an effort to keep myself calm, and not think too much about the devistation she can cause in the next month:
The Tide is Turning.
The Tide is Turning.
Obama biro yawne yo! Obama biro yawne yo!
"Obama is coming, clear the way!
With his overwhelming victory in North Carolina, and an incredibly narrow defeat in Indiana (which Terry suspects foul play in, and voter fraud but that is for another time) Barack Obama has finally crossed that hypothetical threashold, that imaginary line that pundits and observers have been talking about. They have maintained, that as long as Hillary can keep extending the game, keep forcing overtime, she might manange to squirm her way to the nomination.
The tone last night among the talking heads, (who clearly do the thinking for everyone in the country) was, ok now how does she get out gracefully.
This process is over. It has been over since February, and now everyone sees it. Obama is going to loan her the money to get her campaign out of debt, and kick her ass to the curb. No Vice Presidential nod, maybe, maybe a cabinet position. But what Obama has to consider is, what good exactly does she do for him. He has proven that he can win states like Iowa, and Wisconson, without her.
Obama biro yawne yo! Obama biro yawne yo!
Obama is coming, clear the way!
With his overwhelming victory in North Carolina, and an incredibly narrow defeat in Indiana (which Terry suspects foul play in, and voter fraud but that is for another time) Barack Obama has finally crossed that hypothetical threashold, that imaginary line that pundits and observers have been talking about. They have maintained, that as long as Hillary can keep extending the game, keep forcing overtime, she might manange to squirm her way to the nomination.
The tone last night among the talking heads, (who clearly do the thinking for everyone in the country) was, ok now how does she get out gracefully.
This process is over. It has been over since February, and now everyone sees it. Obama is going to loan her the money to get her campaign out of debt, and kick her ass to the curb. No Vice Presidential nod, maybe, maybe a cabinet position. But what Obama has to consider is, what good exactly does she do for him. He has proven that he can win states like Iowa, and Wisconson, without her.
Obama biro yawne yo! Obama biro yawne yo!
Obama is coming, clear the way!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Super Tuesday....again
So we find ourselves with another "make or break" day on the campaign trail. The conventional wisdom on the radio and television is that if Hillary is able win one of two primaries today, she should stay in the race.
Keith, with the assistance of Chuck Todd's goatee does a better job explaining why this simply is not the case, far better than Terry can:
There is a scene in "Gettysburg" where Robert E. Lee (played by president Bartlett, Martin Sheen) is talking to James Longstreet (played by Tom Berenger, of "Sniper" fame) about the futility of the Civil War, and how it just keeps going:
"But this war goes on and on and the men die and the price gets even higher. We are prepared to lose some of us, but we are never prepared to lose all of us. We are adrift here in a sea of blood and I want it to end. I want this to be the final battle."
I seriously think of that quote every time I think about this campaign.
Keith, with the assistance of Chuck Todd's goatee does a better job explaining why this simply is not the case, far better than Terry can:
There is a scene in "Gettysburg" where Robert E. Lee (played by president Bartlett, Martin Sheen) is talking to James Longstreet (played by Tom Berenger, of "Sniper" fame) about the futility of the Civil War, and how it just keeps going:
"But this war goes on and on and the men die and the price gets even higher. We are prepared to lose some of us, but we are never prepared to lose all of us. We are adrift here in a sea of blood and I want it to end. I want this to be the final battle."
I seriously think of that quote every time I think about this campaign.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
The Empire Strikes Barack
Tuesday is going to be interesting. Keep in mind that she has to win by 50 point margins in both primaries to even stay alive in the pledged delegate, and popular vote counts
Saturday, May 3, 2008
"That's my Patriotism"
The Next President of these UNITED STATES
That's my patriotims.
I am a single parent.
I own my home because the Government was willing to offer me a loan, and pay the interest for me, so that I can be proud of who I am, and where I live.
That is my story.
That's my patriotims.
I am a single parent.
I own my home because the Government was willing to offer me a loan, and pay the interest for me, so that I can be proud of who I am, and where I live.
That is my story.
Friday, May 2, 2008
If You Tried to Play the Video
On the story two posts down and it didn't work, it is because Youtube pulled it. Let me give you a quick synopsis. A former Clinton aid referred to the people of Indiana as "Shit" and "White N>>>>s", it was later stated that the video was edited and he did not say "White N>>>>s", but he did say the people of Indiana are Shit.
Lets Play a Game
Lets imagine a Politician, we will call them politician X.
This politician in about to embark on the most important political event of their career.
Our Politician comes from a rich political background, and is closely related to a former Presidential administration.
Upon embarking on this endeavour, our politician had almost unanimous support.
Soon after undertaking this endeavour X began squandering the support they once received through a series of miss steps and miss calculations.
X surrounded themselves with close friends and relations instead of people who are capable of effectively handling the endeavour.
As support for X's endeavour began to lose ground, X resorted to stretching the truth to its breaking point. Constantly changing the rationale for continuing the endeavour became X's strategy.
As the endeavour began to fail, X was seemingly the last person to realize it, like an ostrich with it's head in the sand, X continues to refuse to see what is clear to everyone not named X.
Now comes the question:
Is X....
Hillary Clinton
or.....
George W. Bush?
I cannot take credit for this little game. A caller on Ed Schultz's program (950 Am in Rochester, 12-3:00 pm) proposed this question to the host. As I listened I was picturing Hillary. When he asked at the end of his call, was he talking about Hill or W, I laughed out loud.
I have made similar comparisons in the last few weeks (read through the archives, they are awesome) I just had not thought of it as cleaverly as this. She continues to creep further and further into the dark, ugly end of the political world (see her interview with Bill-O, or Bill Clinton's appearance on Druggie Limbaugh's show).
And let me prempt Tuesday's talking points about Hillary winning one state out of two means she has to stay in the race. Please allow me to point out, that if Hillary does not win 75% of the remaining Pledged Delegats, 75%...which means she needs to win by a 50 point margin, not 5, if she does not win 75% she cannot win the Pledged Delegate race. It is this race that is what the nomination is supposed to be decided.
She will need an overwhelming majority of Super Delegates that have yet to commit.
It is not going to happen. Period.
The only way that she is going to become the president of these United States in 2009 is as a third party candidate, and even that is beyond a long shot.
No matter what gets said on Tuesday, or after, if she does not win by 50 point margins in both states, there is no justification for her staying in the race, none.
This politician in about to embark on the most important political event of their career.
Our Politician comes from a rich political background, and is closely related to a former Presidential administration.
Upon embarking on this endeavour, our politician had almost unanimous support.
Soon after undertaking this endeavour X began squandering the support they once received through a series of miss steps and miss calculations.
X surrounded themselves with close friends and relations instead of people who are capable of effectively handling the endeavour.
As support for X's endeavour began to lose ground, X resorted to stretching the truth to its breaking point. Constantly changing the rationale for continuing the endeavour became X's strategy.
As the endeavour began to fail, X was seemingly the last person to realize it, like an ostrich with it's head in the sand, X continues to refuse to see what is clear to everyone not named X.
Now comes the question:
Is X....
Hillary Clinton
or.....
George W. Bush?
I cannot take credit for this little game. A caller on Ed Schultz's program (950 Am in Rochester, 12-3:00 pm) proposed this question to the host. As I listened I was picturing Hillary. When he asked at the end of his call, was he talking about Hill or W, I laughed out loud.
I have made similar comparisons in the last few weeks (read through the archives, they are awesome) I just had not thought of it as cleaverly as this. She continues to creep further and further into the dark, ugly end of the political world (see her interview with Bill-O, or Bill Clinton's appearance on Druggie Limbaugh's show).
And let me prempt Tuesday's talking points about Hillary winning one state out of two means she has to stay in the race. Please allow me to point out, that if Hillary does not win 75% of the remaining Pledged Delegats, 75%...which means she needs to win by a 50 point margin, not 5, if she does not win 75% she cannot win the Pledged Delegate race. It is this race that is what the nomination is supposed to be decided.
She will need an overwhelming majority of Super Delegates that have yet to commit.
It is not going to happen. Period.
The only way that she is going to become the president of these United States in 2009 is as a third party candidate, and even that is beyond a long shot.
No matter what gets said on Tuesday, or after, if she does not win by 50 point margins in both states, there is no justification for her staying in the race, none.
I Wonder What Rev. Wright Thinks About
The People of Indiana, because now we know what a Clinton Advisor and close friend thinks:
He has come out strongly denying that he called them "White N>>>>s" but does not explain why he called the people of Indiana "Shit"
Keep pumping that gas Hil. It will be interesting to see if this gets have the play that the Wright Youtube clips got on every effing channel.
Human Sharpei Brit Hume was still talking about the "lingering" Wright controversy last night
He has come out strongly denying that he called them "White N>>>>s" but does not explain why he called the people of Indiana "Shit"
Keep pumping that gas Hil. It will be interesting to see if this gets have the play that the Wright Youtube clips got on every effing channel.
Human Sharpei Brit Hume was still talking about the "lingering" Wright controversy last night
This May Come as a Suprise
But there is a fairly heated debate going on in the world of sports journalism, as it relates to the journalistic responsibility of "Blogs" and other online mediums.
It is a fairly black and white issue (as these things so rarely are), where those in the "traditional" media (print, television) feel that "new" media (blogs etc.) do not represent credible journalism and have no place in the world of covering sports (the same thing is being argued in the political world as well).
Bloggers feel that they represent the fans, and offer a different forum, other than picking up a news paper the day after something happens and seeing what said journalist thinks about it.
Bloggers argue that they offer real time, up to the minute updates on what is going on in the realm of the topic they cover (for instance I can get up to the minute updates, and talk with other fans, as a baseball game is going on).
The problem for the Bloggers is that the comments that are made after their posts (an issue I don't have to deal with as no one ever comments!) are lumped in with the content of the posts themselves.
This is a clip from a recent episode of Bob Costas' show on HBO where Will Lietch of www.deadspin.com is asked to defend the content of his site against Costas and "Friday Night Lights" author, and general douche bag Buzz Bissenger, who claim that "blogs" are shit. Notice the sweet cameo by Browns receiver Bralyon Edwards who has to be asking his agent, "what the eff did you get me into"
Lietch does not stand a chance in this argument, not that you would be able to hear him over Buzz (Chipper Jones called and said it's time to drop the childish nickname) anyways.
My attitude is, like anything there are good blogs, and crap blogs. Because Mozart was a good musician, does that mean that all music is great? Because believe it or not, Buzz Bissenger is a good writer, are all writer's great?
As www.firejoemorgan.com has pointed out, again and again and again, There are a ton of really bad sports journalists out their, and they get their crap printed everyday.
This argument comes off to me a lot like pre-reformation Catholic Church rationale for why the Church was a vital part of common people's lives. Before Martin Luther and his 95 Thesis, The Church argued that only they were able to communicate directly with God, and only through them could common people speak with their Deity. It was this "we know what's best for you" mentality that led to the formation of the Protestant Church, which today manifests itself in American Evangelicalism, where people believe that they have a personal relationship with God (W thinks he talks with him on a daily basis).
Old school sports writers seem insecure to me. It feels like they fear that they are losing their grip on the thoughts and minds of the sports watching population. I no longer have to wait for the next days news paper to tell me what to think about the state of the Mets. I can watch the game, log onto www.Metsblog.com and see what other Mets fans are saying and thinking, and come to my own conclusion about how soon Willie Randolph needs to get canned. I now have a personal relationship with my sports teams, regardless of what so and so from the Daily News thinks about it.
It is true that people say things online that they would not necessarily say in their day to day lives. I would not sit at my desk and say all the nasty things about Hillary that I write on a daily basis. At some point, Internet content will probably be policed in some fashion. But for now, people are free to say or write what ever they feel.
I am having trouble inserting links into my posts. (any help would be appreciated)
but here is a reminder of the sites that I spend my time on.
www.metsblog.com
www.bobcesca.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.firejoemorgan.com
It is a fairly black and white issue (as these things so rarely are), where those in the "traditional" media (print, television) feel that "new" media (blogs etc.) do not represent credible journalism and have no place in the world of covering sports (the same thing is being argued in the political world as well).
Bloggers feel that they represent the fans, and offer a different forum, other than picking up a news paper the day after something happens and seeing what said journalist thinks about it.
Bloggers argue that they offer real time, up to the minute updates on what is going on in the realm of the topic they cover (for instance I can get up to the minute updates, and talk with other fans, as a baseball game is going on).
The problem for the Bloggers is that the comments that are made after their posts (an issue I don't have to deal with as no one ever comments!) are lumped in with the content of the posts themselves.
This is a clip from a recent episode of Bob Costas' show on HBO where Will Lietch of www.deadspin.com is asked to defend the content of his site against Costas and "Friday Night Lights" author, and general douche bag Buzz Bissenger, who claim that "blogs" are shit. Notice the sweet cameo by Browns receiver Bralyon Edwards who has to be asking his agent, "what the eff did you get me into"
Lietch does not stand a chance in this argument, not that you would be able to hear him over Buzz (Chipper Jones called and said it's time to drop the childish nickname) anyways.
My attitude is, like anything there are good blogs, and crap blogs. Because Mozart was a good musician, does that mean that all music is great? Because believe it or not, Buzz Bissenger is a good writer, are all writer's great?
As www.firejoemorgan.com has pointed out, again and again and again, There are a ton of really bad sports journalists out their, and they get their crap printed everyday.
This argument comes off to me a lot like pre-reformation Catholic Church rationale for why the Church was a vital part of common people's lives. Before Martin Luther and his 95 Thesis, The Church argued that only they were able to communicate directly with God, and only through them could common people speak with their Deity. It was this "we know what's best for you" mentality that led to the formation of the Protestant Church, which today manifests itself in American Evangelicalism, where people believe that they have a personal relationship with God (W thinks he talks with him on a daily basis).
Old school sports writers seem insecure to me. It feels like they fear that they are losing their grip on the thoughts and minds of the sports watching population. I no longer have to wait for the next days news paper to tell me what to think about the state of the Mets. I can watch the game, log onto www.Metsblog.com and see what other Mets fans are saying and thinking, and come to my own conclusion about how soon Willie Randolph needs to get canned. I now have a personal relationship with my sports teams, regardless of what so and so from the Daily News thinks about it.
It is true that people say things online that they would not necessarily say in their day to day lives. I would not sit at my desk and say all the nasty things about Hillary that I write on a daily basis. At some point, Internet content will probably be policed in some fashion. But for now, people are free to say or write what ever they feel.
I am having trouble inserting links into my posts. (any help would be appreciated)
but here is a reminder of the sites that I spend my time on.
www.metsblog.com
www.bobcesca.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.firejoemorgan.com
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Power to Inspire
It does not take emotional speeches, in packed arenas to galvanize people. It does not take "gas tax holidays" to make people believe again in our system.
It does not take ridiculous photo-ops at a gas station, acting like a regular guy/girl to reach people.
It takes someone with the power to inspire, it takes a Great Communicator.
The Tide is Turning.
On a side note: Why is it exactly that the fundamental question of the Democratic Primary is which of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can appeal to working class voters more? It has been asked over and over again, basically which of them can dumb down, redneck up their image, their dress, their speech (their ridiculous effing photo ops) in order to win the "ignorant shit" vote.
Why is Wal-Mart Nation given the decisive voice in this competition? Why would I want the very people who would be swayed by Hillary's pathetic pandering yesterday (specifically the embarrassment at the gas station, and the "take your joke of a Presidential Candidate to work day" ride with Billy Bob and his family) to have the ultimate say in this thing? Why is it a huge deal that Obama is loosing the "white" vote to Hil, but not news that he destroys her in the "black" vote? Is it just assumed black people are an ignorant monolithic group of voters that it can be assumed will vote for Obama no matter what so it is taken as a foregone conclusion?
It seems to me that there is some inherent racism in that line of thought. Obama wins 80-90% of the black vote in basically every state, and it is just assumed that is what "should" have happened. He is black, so he should have won those voters. But Hillary pulls in 60%-ish of white people in most states (which means Obama is winning 40%-ish) and the story is: Why can't Obama win the white vote?
Doesn't that line of thought marginalize the black population? Am I out of my mind on this one?
What happened the last time the "other-half" elected the C student that they would like to have a drink with?
Oh yeah:
I am ready for a President that is smarter than I am. I am ready for a President that knows more than I do. I am ready to look at my President and feel confident that he did not fall asleep earlier that morning when the Secretary of State was briefing him on the next international crisis. I am ready for a President that can watch a football game without choking on a pretzel.
I am ready for change.
It does not take ridiculous photo-ops at a gas station, acting like a regular guy/girl to reach people.
It takes someone with the power to inspire, it takes a Great Communicator.
The Tide is Turning.
On a side note: Why is it exactly that the fundamental question of the Democratic Primary is which of Senator Obama or Senator Clinton can appeal to working class voters more? It has been asked over and over again, basically which of them can dumb down, redneck up their image, their dress, their speech (their ridiculous effing photo ops) in order to win the "ignorant shit" vote.
Why is Wal-Mart Nation given the decisive voice in this competition? Why would I want the very people who would be swayed by Hillary's pathetic pandering yesterday (specifically the embarrassment at the gas station, and the "take your joke of a Presidential Candidate to work day" ride with Billy Bob and his family) to have the ultimate say in this thing? Why is it a huge deal that Obama is loosing the "white" vote to Hil, but not news that he destroys her in the "black" vote? Is it just assumed black people are an ignorant monolithic group of voters that it can be assumed will vote for Obama no matter what so it is taken as a foregone conclusion?
It seems to me that there is some inherent racism in that line of thought. Obama wins 80-90% of the black vote in basically every state, and it is just assumed that is what "should" have happened. He is black, so he should have won those voters. But Hillary pulls in 60%-ish of white people in most states (which means Obama is winning 40%-ish) and the story is: Why can't Obama win the white vote?
Doesn't that line of thought marginalize the black population? Am I out of my mind on this one?
What happened the last time the "other-half" elected the C student that they would like to have a drink with?
Oh yeah:
I am ready for a President that is smarter than I am. I am ready for a President that knows more than I do. I am ready to look at my President and feel confident that he did not fall asleep earlier that morning when the Secretary of State was briefing him on the next international crisis. I am ready for a President that can watch a football game without choking on a pretzel.
I am ready for change.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
