What did she say

It has become a very common catch-phrase for anyone who dislikes or loathes President Bush to attack him for a seemingly incomprehensible manner of speech. He continues to demonstrate why some people should not be allowed near a microphone. He cannot speak, probably does not read, and is generally ignorant. Granted. After all, what else would you expect from a hard drinking cowboy Yalie.

After all, such behavior would never occur among people who have any class, among people who speak well for Bush is the poster child for the antithesis of all that spoken language should not be. We expect our politicians and leaders to speak and make sense and Bush seems to mess it all up.

We all accept that, but why then does Hillary sound like a bat with a mouth full of cotton when she explained her position on an Iran vote as:

"In my view, rushing to war we should not be doing that but we shouldn't be doing nothing. And that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons, and the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front."

And that means exactly what? Distinguish that mumble jumble from Bush and his stumble mumble.

She had not had enough and spoke to the Boston Globe saying that she didn't "know what, if anything, would come from such negotiations, but I am confident that our failure to engage in them is a terrible miscalculation."

So for the sake of negotiation we should negotiate whether or not it is useful or accomplishes anything. We should just talk because talk is good regardless of outcome.

That is something to chew on. It is also not diplomatic nor is it smart nor is it useful and it is certainly not rational.

Unfortunately, the other dwarfs have let her get too far ahead and she is near unstoppable. Sad for the Democrats when 50% of the American people say they will never vote for her and she does not have all Democrats on board. Watch for her to win the nomination and take Obama on as VP. Gore will get an Ambassadorial position - UN or something equally as useful. Edwards could be offered a cabinet role and the whole dwarf factory is taken on board ship. Well, except Richardson who would not accept nor would he be offered. Possible Gore wouldn't accept - he walked behind one Clinton for eight years - unlikely to do it again EXCEPT the opportunity to get in the UN may be too great a whale to lose. Edwards - he may piss her off and find himself out in the cold. Obama has the VP slot and its all race all the time. She would never offer it otherwise - pandering before it even begins, that's Hillary.

Conversations

I thought the following was interesting for its various perspectives.

Three characters: Bob, Sam, and John.

John parked his car and began walking toward the orchard.
In the orchard, Sam and Bob ran in to each other after many months of not speaking and Sam began ranting and raving about insane ideas - Sam was a follower of conspiracy theories and was explaining why September 11, 2001 was an inside job. he explained the roll Bush played, bin laden was really a puppet for Bush, that it was all fabricated to allow the US to invade a middle eastern country to seize its oil and ... and Sam kept going, explaining all the holes in the official story until finally, after twenty minutes, Bob interrupted him. At that moment John was making his way through the orchard and was in time to hear Bob exclaim: '...believe that Bush did it all, he caused it all to happen, he was the mastermind and it is all a fabrication, a lie, and Bush killed 3000 people to get gold and oil ..."

John stopped then continued forward into the opening and Bob stopped in mid sentence, John believed it was because he was trying to hide or prevent anyone from hearing what he had previously been saying aloud. Bob dropped the conversation and began talking to John, telling him that he though Sam was a bit nutty.

When john got home he called Bob's wife and expressed his concern to her over Bob's erratic behavior. He told her that Bob was trying to cover things up and if he was covering up wacko beliefs, who knows what else he was trying to hide.

******************************

I thought that was a reasonably interesting story. My thoughts on it are - John should immediately apologize for being an idiot, for wasting another persons precious time, for being so childish and foolish and for appearing so to everyone. Then John should cease being annoying and make every effort to not annoy anyone ever again.

Whats Sexy? Whats on TV?

After watching several social-dramas / love stories on HBO or On-Demand, a few points become clear.

For whatever it is worth, the following gets added because, believe it or not, in some form or another, it is relevant.

Sexy is honesty. Sexy is truth. Sexy is direct and straight forward answers. Sexy is being considerate and treating others with respect.

It is not very passionate - granted. It is not exciting - granted. It is healthy. It is better for you and will bring you more happiness than all the rest of that crap combined.

Playing games, lies, obfuscation, half truths, refusing to answer questions, indirect and vague answers - NOT sexy. In fact, people who make it a habit to do more than one of the above listed deserve ignominy. I understand public ridicule may be a little extreme for someone who tells half truths, but (generalizing here) they are most likely to do more than just one hence the satisfaction of my requirement for ignominy.

It has nothing to do with the physical age of the person - that behavior is learned and it is unhealthy to get involved with those people. My suggestion - listen to them, talk to them, and put off ever being alone with them for fear they could turn mad as a hatter. Never let them know you will never meet them anywhere except at church and in public with hundreds of people around. Never let on because they will become easily offended and call you a hypocrite or worse.

Do not waste time on such people. Walk on the other side of the street when you see them. If Catholic, make the sign of the cross to ward off evil tendencies that may creep your way. Do not try to fix them or accept them - simply let them go off and drown in their miserable lives.

It may not seem that they are miserable BUT in most cases they are even if by all appearances the facade they show everyone is anything but unhappy.

Only they can help themselves and until they realize that games and lies will never make them happy nor will it attract the right people to them, until then - let them drown. The day will come when most of them will wake up - they may be too old, or used up, or thrown away, but many do wake up. You are permitted to pray they wake up sooner than later.

When they grow up (and I do not mean their physical age) be willing to give them the chance to prove it.

Some indications they have grown up:
1) they will not raise the names of people from their past.
2) they will not place demands on you, if they do not meet the smallest requirements you have asked of them (call on the phone or be willing to acknowledge feelings or mistakes)
3) when plans are mentioned, they keep their word or contact you when they cannot.

Those 3 points would be a start. Even if they get offended and claim you are at fault consider the following: if you have analyzed your comments and actions, perhaps consulted with 1-2 people, and provided them with the comments and consulted them for opinions, and if after all of that you seem to be the one who is less of a problem - stick to your requirements and do not give in. They may huff and puff and hiss - let them and say goodbye. One day if they are honest with themselves, they will understand what happened and will return and apologize. Until then you really do not need them near you. All of the above suggestions DO NOT MEAN, INTIMATE, SUGGEST, IMPLY, CONNOTE that you are not madly head over heels for them and may always be - rather - you do what you do because you must, for your own sanity.

Let them be angry, calm down, and get back to you when they feel better - or switch channels.

Liars, Scoundrels, and Scaliwags

Often the posts are in response to an article, event, or a comment made by a student or anyone else for that matter, and I feel the need to respond.

This is one of those cases.

In 2004, 2005, 2006, we, the people, heard from many Democrats, talk of impeaching Bush. These Democrats ranged from the far left (Moveon / Soros) to the left (Feingold), and more moderates who refused to comment but left the idea blowing in the wind.

Liars, scaliwags, and scoundrels.

No rational, thinking person believes Bush can be impeached. No member of Congress believes he could be. No member of congress believes he committed any crime, at any time - other than to have humiliated the democratic party since 2000.

EVERY word from the mouths of any congressman is rhetoric at best and slander/libel ... but for a few perks Congress has that you do not. No right-minded member of conrgess believes impeachment is deserved, would or could be done or should be done - anyone who has said anything to the contrary is a liar or an idiot.

An idiot - they do not understand, never paid any attention, and are undeserving of the position they were elected to.

A liar - if they say anything inciting the idiotic notion of impeachment and know the truth.

I believe they are liars. Pathetic pathological liars who do greater damage to our social and political system than any good they have done or will ever do.


1

2

3
fuck ups

Why Not Surrender Now

I wonder whether the brilliant writers at the WP sit around and take much time and or imagination to dream up different ways to present the same tired refrain - attacks on Bush, War on Terror, and for that matter anything Bush has done ... I read the article I will link below and at first it was sailing right along and it was quite interesting until I was hit in the head with a brick from the WP - yet another attempt to undermine.

They may as well surrender now. What was it the French were called - Cheese Eating, Wine Swilling Surrender Monkeys.

The WP should change its name.