Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

looks like krugman was thinking along the same lines.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Krugman:

"There is, however, one important thing that the D.H.S. report didn’t say: Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

And at this point, whatever dividing line there was between mainstream conservatism and the black-helicopter crowd seems to have been virtually erased."

auto portraits d'artistes

http://portraits.webif.net/

the many moods of Vincent: control by hovering:

http://jeanluc7411.free.fr/VanGogh/VanGogh.html

You know who listens a lot to these radical right wing nut jobs? People in jail/prison with nothing else to do and already pissed off at society because they have a tendency to blame everyone else for all their woes.

There are a couple of things that help to counter the effects of these guys on the prison population. One is that they also listen to Coast to Coast AM at night or early morning. George Noory's programs tend to have a calming effect.

Second is that I think many are pretty cool with having Obama as our President, all those except the white extremist groups.

And since health care is a big issue these days, I would like to mention that I think these guys on the radio most likely contribute significantly to the increase cost of healthcare. If anyone did a study, I just bet that whether you agreed with these guys on the radio or disagreed with them, your blood pressure is going up.

While your speaking of Terrorists is it true that Herr Lindsey Graham and Herr Joe Lieberman want the new Torture Photos blocked from the public because there are members of Congress in some of them?

Perhaps Graham or Lieberman themselves or other Congress persons or Senators?

I can see no other reason to pass a law to block them unless to cover up crimes by Congress People or Senators. That would be proof of there involvement in War Crimes.

I hope this law is challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court to finally force the release of these unseen Torture Photos.

Lets see which members of Our Government are in them.

repost of comments on and the link to that dhs report:

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us.html#comment-234532

and here's the washington times article on it when it came out. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

isn't he who shouts "fire" in the theatre held accountable for deaths that occur from the tramplings of the fearful mob trying to get out? not just the tramplers, but also and more importantly, the instigator.

craig, i know i know, we don't need any stinkin wati just like you said re wapo. :-)

well..... yeah....
was there anyone here who actually thought once the government created the Dept. of Homeland Security and came up with the Patriot Act that it wouldn't eventually be used against American citizens....

even if the Democrats ruled....

But Craig, MoJo says it's not right wingnuts, but lefties. Can we just blame morons who act out? Both sides are free to say what they feel. Would tempering their speech keep someone with emotional/mental problems going through a rough patch in his life from acting out?

If the DHS is so concerned about protecting us, maybe they should have a talk with the FAA about their little test proposal.

http://www.star-telegram.com/238/story/1424387.html

"Quite frankly, we cannot believe such a reckless idea has gotten this far. The public needs to know that if put into place, this plan would directly and negatively affect the margin of safety for the air traffic control system..."

theirs' is a dream,
a heinous scheme,
turn hateful theme
to effective meme.

as far as politicians going on those late night shows.... they do it because people watch....

Palin will go on Letterman if she thinks it'll be a political gain for her....
she won't if it doesn't..... simple as that....

and I think Tony has one of the healthiest attitudes I've seen about discrimination.... he's fighting to have equal rights for gays made into laws...
as far as the ugly hurtful things people say about them.... he knows you can't stop that kind of thing .... he doesn't let it get him down.... prejudices will always be with us.... and we all have them....
maybe if we evolve into a different species this will change....
just my 2 cents....

and oh yeah..... I love Patsi also....

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235540

AP, why do you insist on making inflammatory charges that only the demented would believe? Are you trying to incite equivalent violence by the lunatic left?

Now, I recognize that you have an absolute right to say what you wish about public figures, even if they don't represent you. But, what you are saying exceeds the bounds of tasteful, thoughtful speech that we've come to expect here.

Renee, I feel most fortunate being able to read Tony's posts. I think he is truly 'one-of-a-kind'! Armadillos or not.

"... what you are saying exceeds the bounds of tasteful, thoughtful speech that we've come to expect here"

uh oh, flatus, now you've done it. you've thrown the gauntlet and now we'll have to run thru it. to the barricades, tmrs!

You've bee somewhat provactative yourself lately, Mr.Crawford; Hannity-esque, if you will. That's one way to get your own show, I suppose. Funny, I was thinking the other day you'd do well in more of a Charles Kurault capacity.

"provocative". You haven't been provactative at all.

"Palin will go on Letterman if she thinks it'll be a political gain for her....
she won't if it doesn't..... simple as that...." I totally agree Renee.

Renee,Flatus
Thank you so much! I love you guys..Its a pleasure reading your thoughts and opinions.I have learned much from you.

"as far as the ugly hurtful things people say about them.... he knows you can't stop that kind of thing .... he doesn't let it get him down.... prejudices will always be with us.... and we all have them....
maybe if we evolve into a different species this will change....
just my 2 cents...."

This is 2 cents worth of brilliance!! Its so true and if you live realizing this it makes life so much easier.Still as I told Carol keep fighting the fight and never give up...

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235549

I never pass a dead armadillo on the road that I don't smile and think of Tony (with the greatest affection, that is.)

(^_~)

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235545

So, Joe is today repeating the Rush's inversions from yesterday? One is a parasite, and the other is a parakeet.

Flatus.... I want to be associated with your 8:13 remarks....

Tony.... I love Carol too.... and thanks for the compliment....

Ivy.... who you calling a parakeet there, girl.... don't go insulting no birds.... :0)

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235557

Renee --

Poor analogy on my part. A parakeet would have more original thoughts.

The Big Hate
".... Today, as in the early years of the Clinton administration but to an even greater extent, right-wing extremism is being systematically fed by the conservative media and political establishment.

Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence, despite Bill O’Reilly’s declarations that “some” called Dr. Tiller “Tiller the Baby Killer,” that he had “blood on his hands,” and that he was a “guy operating a death mill.” But they have gone out of their way to provide a platform for conspiracy theories and apocalyptic rhetoric, just as they did the last time a Democrat held the White House.

..... the worst terrorist attack in our history was perpetrated by a foreign conspiracy. But the second worst, the Oklahoma City bombing, was perpetrated by an all-American lunatic. Politicians and media organizations wind up such people at their, and our, peril."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/opinion/12krugman.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

mornin'

Been doing this and that, and have finally gotten around to checking in.
-
So how do you spell moron? Is it C-u-p-p or H-a-n-n-i-t-y?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/conservative-columnist-bl_n_214655.html

Craig,

In my dictionary, the word above polemic/polemicist is polecat. It seems that Webster's has given Rush and Sean a double-entry.

bbc and guardian coverage on detainees to bermuda story

"Pressed on whether the US had told the British government, the unnamed official was quoted as saying: "We did talk to them before the Uighurs got on the plane."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8096335.stm

"At the heart of the dispute is whether Bermuda had the right to agree to the transfer of four Chinese Muslim Uighurs from US custody without consulting Britain, its colonial power."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/12/bermuda-accepts-guantanamo-detainees

oops?

Well, what do we do now with those "once suspected but now cleared of having ties to Al Qaeda end/or enemy combatants" for whom we can't find a nation to accept them?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/11/AR2009061101210.html?hpid=topnews

What a monumental mess GWB has visited upon us. M-O-R-O-N. Apparently he and CheneyCo never thought far enough forward to realize that they might be WRIOMG about some of the detainees and might need to have some plan for those who were wrongly snatched and held for no f-ing reason on no or flimsy suspicion of ties to terror, OBL, AQ or "terror".

And Renee is right ...

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235544

...who in their right mind didn't think the ironically named "Patriot Act" wouldn't be used against us? I said it then, I say it now - it is unconstitutional and if the courts or Congress or the Obama Administration had any balls at all it would be declared so and scrapped.

There's a clip of Letterman here too.... although I can't listen. I've heard enough.

Did David Letterman get a free pass?
"If there was any question that a stubborn strain of old-school sexism persists in Obama's America, one has only to look at certain leaders of what the right wing loves to call the "liberal media" but which is sounding and acting, recently, more like the frat-house media. There, like a virus hiding in the body before, perhaps, staging a comeback, misogyny has found a place to lurk almost undetected, at least by the usually sharp eyes of progressive feminists.

Imagine if, say, Michelle Obama, or Rachel Maddow, or Nancy Pelosi became the target of similar invective. The outcry from the left would be deafening. Shouldn’t liberals exhibit the same sort of decorous treatment we demand for ourselves?"
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/06/12/letterman_palin/index.html

Re: Bermuda - from the fount (Wiki):

"Bermuda, settled in 1609, is the oldest and most populous of the Overseas Territories, and most executive powers have been devolved to the head of government, known as the Premier. Its system of government is very similar to that of a sovereign Commonwealth Realm. The UK government retains only minor powers, exercised through the Governor, but most of those are handed to local ministers for day-to-day purposes. Bermuda's Parliament held its first session in 1620, and Bermuda has been largely self-governed and self-sufficient since then.
The Turks and Caicos Islands adopted a new constitution effective 9 August 2006; their head of government now also has the title Premier, and their autonomy has been greatly increased."

They don't have to ask.

pogo:

A rule of thumb that is true 90% of the time - whenever someone says: "I am not saying this to be [insert adjective]" - that is precisely what they are doing. No need to be defensive S.E. - you are supposed to be inflammatory when you go on Hannity's show!!

***

Cupp, who is a contributor to the Washington Post and Politico, fumed:

"This is the enduring legacy of the Obama campaign. I'm not saying this to be inflammatory, I blame Barack Obama because he allowed his surrogates in the media and Hollywood and everyone else on the left to do this dirty talking for him."

chloe:

This is a good point from the article you posted:

"'Slutty flight attendant' is not just a sexual put-down; it's a socioeconomic one."

"Imagine if, say, Michelle Obama, or Rachel Maddow, or Nancy Pelosi became the target of similar invective."

chloe, pelosi has, but nobody seemed to care.

re pelosi as a target of scorn...well, maybe not the s-word, but there have been some rather demeaning barbs in the disguise of humor sent her way.

chloe, one thing Letterman hasn't gotten is a pass. The liberal media let Palin come on and try and articulate her outrage (which was typical Palinspeak)- Letterman went on to try and explain his jokes (which while articulate, rang hollow) - and Palin has gotten more airplay since to rebut his explanation (more of the same). On balance, I think Palin has won (if that's an appropriate characterization) the issue. But I don't buy this "Obama's America" stuff. That's a Faux news meme to try and pin every apparent misstep by the left or lack of outrage against any criticism of the right's stars on Obama - as if the right hasn't screwed the pooch or has ever been outraged about attacks on the left's personalities. See the link in my 10:44 post as an example.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235570

Has everyone forgotten the charm of the Hillary nutcrackers among other delights of the recent campaign? That was probably the nicest of the right wing filth hitting my mailbox.

Letterman was wrong and the Palins have every right to be upset as parents, but for anyone on the right to claim innocence when it comes to despicable treatment of women is ludicrous.

"The liberal media let Palin come on and try and articulate her outrage."

pogo, this wasn't done imo out of fair play or the goodness of their insensitive little hearts tho.... they smelled drama, blood, a cat fight so to speak.

"one thing Letterman hasn't gotten is a pass"

Pogo, Now that you say that, I know you're right. Just the amount of outrage on this blog should have told me that. This kind of outrage is something we didn't see in the past.. Americans are getting less tolerant of any kind of prejudice and that's a good thing.

"there have been some rather demeaning barbs in the disguise of humor sent her way."

Patd, I guess the 'disguise' is what made it 'seem' more tolerable. But in some ways that's even worse (more cowardly), and harder to deal with.

ko, tweets and the like are doing the same thing most of the time for the same reason as rush, hannity & their ilk. attention, money, pundit power...it's their job.

Just saw a lovely video

Rules For Being Human

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2wopO178LQ

"..buying makeup at Bloomingdale's to update her slutty flight attendant look"

Warren, I didn't really focus on that the first time (Emma's keeping me busy this morning).

What a bizarre thing to say. Not only criticizing women wearing makeup, which is customary (as though that makes them slutty), but also mentioning Bloomingdale's in the same sentence. I'm glad you pointed that out.

Yes, the right has mercilessly pummeled Pelosi about every aspect of her life since she emerged as the frontrunner for Speaker. Most of it has been unrelated to her political philosphy or actions as Speaker. The false outrage is astounding. Fact is - Letterman isn't a pundit or a spokeman of the Obama administration as the idiot Cupp asserts or of the left, he's a comedian, it was a joke (tasteless and sexist arguably, but jeez, what's unusual about that?), and it made fun of either A-Rod, Willow or Bristol (depending on whether you believe Letterman that he was referring to the daughter who had been knocked up or the one at the baseball game or not), or both or all three, and it certainly had a sexist slant. The right has pummeled John McCain's daughter because she dared to call them out on their hypocrisy about sex - and what have they made fun of her for? - her size. Of course (m)Ann Coulter (thanks KC) denied that was what she meant despite her clear reference to the contrary, but was she called out? Nope. They mercilessly made fun of Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter because they didn't have a model's good looks. God, can't we give this a rest?

Is there misogyny in the US? Sure. Was Letterman's joke part of that? Probably. So criticize him and don't watch him - he'll lose sponsors, which defeats his whole reason for being.

"Asking why it is that liberal women do not often take liberal men to task for these attitudes is well worthwhile. Maybe we don't want to appear shrill and humorless, unable to take a joke. Or maybe it's thought that conservative women are too ideologically reprehensible to merit a defense."

What, doesn't this woman read the blogs?

Pogo,

There are two too many words in your last sentence.

chloe:

"Patd, I guess the 'disguise' is what made it 'seem' more tolerable. But in some ways that's even worse (more cowardly), and harder to deal with."

This is one of the things that frustrates me in this type of debate. I don't like when people try to get away with mean-spirited and hateful language - simply because they used "proper" language.

For example, the right being mystified that there is anything wrong with the sneering use of Obama's middle name by his opponents.

The use of innuendo can be very destructive. And at least with Dave's comments - they were blatant and up front. And we can have a frank debate over what is and what is not appropriate.

Whereas many of the smears from the right are dressed up in "proper" language or are a very "loose interpretation" of facts - and thus the right will not even engage in a substantive debate - because they will refuse to admit that they said anything remotely improper.

Jamie, LOL - which one(s) should I have left out?

Good morning all,

Two questions for you Craig...

1. With regards to your post today, what do you think the Fox Network reaction would be should the unthinkable happen and there is an attempt on the President's life, especially if it comes from a group they have been cheerleading for? Though he is a public figure, would his family be able to take a civil action against the network and that group?

2. Just to throw this out there, does the enthusiasm of the Iranian electorate serve as a sort of vindication for President Bush? He professed a goal for democracy to be the root of the Middle East. Granted this may be an election with little actual governing consequence in Iran but doesn't it hearten the Democracy wing of the Bush administration to see the fervor with which the Iranian people are embracing it this time around?

"Has everyone forgotten the charm of the Hillary nutcrackers among other delights of the recent campaign? "

I don't think anyone has forgotten Jamie. Carol said yesterday, that the reason the misogynist remarks bother her so much is because it open the old wound. I think Hillary is a big part of why this is even being discussed. It may seem petty to criticize comedians and humor, but these guys have a strong influence on society and our culture. Like Sturge said, you don't want to piss off someone who speaks to Americas 5 days a week for years (paraphrasing).

If these same guys came out and made graphic racial or culturally inflammatory remarks, we'd sure hear plenty of outrage. I tend to want to let this pass, as I know the same thing has been discussed so much in the past, that there doesn't seem much left to say. But I know that it affects womens self image, as well as whats acceptable for the way men treat them. Maybe younger women don't quite see it that way yet, but we've lived with worse in the past, and know where it can lead.

"don't like when people try to get away with mean-spirited and hateful language - simply because they used "proper" language."

I completely agree with you Warren.
"....dressed up in "proper" language or are a very "loose interpretation" of facts" is much harder to deal with. And it is done in a much different forum.

We expect comedians to be outrageous, and can deal with it. But when it comes from a politician, for instance, who dresses up what he says with language we can see through, it's harder to deal with openly.

Lots of insults have been launched hiding behind humor
Certainly racial cliches were considered ok at one time but are now off limits.

It is important to keep speaking out but one must wonder why certain people are such slow learners. It is tiresome and boring to keep explaining why the Palin jokes and general treatment is inappropriate.

"The Alaska governor appeared on NBC's ''Today'' show Friday, continuing a feud with the CBS ''Late Show'' funnyman over his joke earlier this week that Palin's daughter got ''knocked up'' by New York Yankee third baseman Alex Rodriguez during their recent trip to New York.

Palin also said she doesn't believe she should be automatically considered the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Asked by Matt Lauer whether Letterman owed her daughter an apology, the former vice presidential candidate broadened it.

''I would like to see him apologize to young women across the country for contributing to kind of that thread that is throughout our culture that makes it sound like it is OK to talk about young girls in that way, where it's kind of OK, accepted and funny to talk about statutory rape,'' she said. ''It's not cool. It's not funny.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/12/arts/AP-US-TV-Palin-Letterman.html?_r=1

". It is tiresome and boring to keep explaining why the Palin jokes and general treatment is inappropriate."

I agree with that whole post KGC.... and it is tiresome.
You know, it's one thing if an unknown comedian, in a bars, says something similar to what Letterman said, and a total different thing for the influential Letterman to say. A lot of people listen to him--I would imagine he sets standards for other comedians. He actually has an affect on our culture as a whole. And we have to keep in mind that he was demeaning teenagers, whose mother happens to be a politician.

Hey Bear - good to see you again.

"Just to throw this out there, does the enthusiasm of the Iranian electorate serve as a sort of vindication for President Bush? He professed a goal for democracy to be the root of the Middle East."

No. The idea that Democracy is good for stability is not unique to W - and it is something that has been articulated for many years.

But I will give him credit for not buying into the notion that people in the Middle East are savages - and are not ready for Democracy.

However, W's unique spin on this theory is that Democracy can be spread through the barrel of a gun. And that has not worked out so well in Iraq or Afghanistan. And of course we did not invade Iran.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235584

Bear,

There was just a piece on CNN that I'm sure they will repeat, but it showed the young people in Iran and the way they are using Face Book, Twitter, Flicker, and Blogs. The old line Iranians just can't shut down all of the technology.

The pictures they showed of the young people hitting the streets to vote. What was fun was seeing young men with arms around each other. Girls wearinga Hajib, but also adorned with symbols painted on their faces. Peace symbols displayed all over the place. The commentary is more towards Obama while agitating for more democracy. They all looked so darn happy, that we can only hope they get what they want.

chloe:

"You know, it's one thing if an unknown comedian, in a bars, says something similar to what Letterman said, and a total different thing for the influential Letterman to say. A lot of people listen to him--I would imagine he sets standards for other comedians. He actually has an affect on our culture as a whole."

This is what makes this conversation so political. I believe a big part of Dave's problem with Palin is her politics. There is no doubt where his allegiances lie - and he is not afraid to get out there and mix it up with politicians. (He really laid into McCain during the election.)

So while I agree that he used sexism as a tactic - I think his motivation was to tear down - or make light of - someone he sees as an opponent to his political views.

And of course anytime you spread Democracy through the barrel of a gun - you provide an almost insurmontable advantage to nationalistic candidates that oppose the "invaders" in any election that follows from this.

(But using force often does make things happen a lot quicker - and Democracy is a beautiful thing since we can throw out the old leaders and (try our best to) wash our hands of them....)

This is what happened during the election. Someone takes a jab at Palin & it's Palin, Palin, Palin, to the distraction of everything else. However, if the comment had been made about someone else, KO would've done a "special comment." (Did he?)

Is this a two-sided pass? One side, because it's Palin and not someone else? The other side, Letterman because he can get away with more than, let's say, Don Imus?

Has the flight attendants' union come to her/their defense yet?

It was a stupid, unfunny joke that would've played well if Carson had done it in the 1970s. Substitute naughty librarian...it's the same thing. A madonna/whore-reference-all-in-one.

If Letterman meant it in a politicians are self-serving sense, which would be poven if she appeared on the show, then it was poorly worded.

Apologize, sincerely, and move on.

Been there, done that, during the primaries.

I recall wondering where the outrage was from NOW et al during the Lewinsky affair. Pun intended. Clear cut case of sexual harassment in the workplace.

Great Leader
Dear Leader
Brilliant Comrade

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090612/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_nuclear

The South Koreans seem to be downgrading. What will the next successor be called in 30 years or so?

Posted by: newpogo.myopenid.com | June 12, 2009 10:58 AM : "...who in their right mind didn't think the ironically named "Patriot Act" wouldn't be used against us? I said it then, I say it now - it is unconstitutional and if the courts or Congress or the Obama Administration had any balls at all it would be declared so and scrapped."

Counselor, I disagree. Robespierre was the foremost proponent and user of the guillotine. There was a type of karmic rough justice at the end of his political career when he was graciously allowed the privilege of experiencing the same bite that so many of his opponents had felt.

I do not think that it is wise to shred the "Patriot Act" until it has done the work it was designed to perform upon those who invented, promoted, and operated it. In my opinion, until those who are responsible for the "Patriot Act" and its original use declare it to be illegal, immoral, and unjust, there will always be a right-wing argument in favor of such unAmerican devices.

Further, it would be altogether fitting if rumdumb, gonzales, et al were allowed to experience the exquisite sensation of being kidnapped, flown to an unknown destination, tossed into tight cell epuipted 24/76 with loud grunge music, and anally raped with broomhandles in the name of Heimat ... er, Homeland Security. However, I don't actually insist on this sort of ugly atrocity. Not really. Heh heh heh. It merely tickles my fancy to imagine the Security terrorists getting their own brand of lawn ordure.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235597

Hypocrisy in the name of "our side" is no vice :))))))

"I think his motivation was to tear down - or make light of - someone he sees as an opponent to his political views."

There are more appropriate ways to do that though. If his problem is her politics, then go for it. Attack her beliefs. Now maybe he thought he was pointing out hypocrisy in her behavior, as opposed to what she preaches, but still, he's a smart guy (as well as his writers), he can be a little more original and creative, than to repeat what we've all heard already anyway. There's plenty of material there, without needing to make it personal.

You could look at it in another way. It's not her he dislikes as much as her beliefs and the way she presents them. So go after what she believes and preaches, but leave her own family out of it. I'm sure a lot of people see her as a danger, a threat, and want to see her gone. But this isn't the way to do it.

lol@kgc, I think that was respond then too.

"Clear cut case of sexual harassment in the workplace."

Yeah, but which one was doing it? Clinton or Lewinsky?

Chloe, It was definitely hers for wearing that thong. :-)

Bingo! LOL Rez.

Hey Chloe, don't be saying that word. . you know how that excites me!

LOL I'll remember that Rez

Hammer and thongs ......... er a tongs.

Looking into my kristol ball to view the future....

I see Letterman holding up a copy of the NYT. Page 4 has a story discussing Sarah Palin's second daughter's impending single parent status.

Zoom in on Letterman's face. He grins broadly. The lips part to reveal America's favorite cleavage.

"I told you so," he says with a deeply self-satisfied chuckle.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235597

Rez,

Who was harrassing whom? Flicking your thong at the leader of the free world would probably be considered a direct invitation. That Clinton was dog enough to take advantage of the offer is true, but I would hardly call it harrassment. He certainly didn't threaten her.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235598

Hey there Good Buddy?

Had to leave to help my parents after my last post this morning.... been playing catch-up....

lots of great posts..... KGC.... tiresome and boring to keep explaining.... you got that right....

and I keep forgetting to mention that last Sunday... June 7th... was the 4th anniversary of this blog.... happy anniversary everyone!

xr,;-) then we will disagree. lol. The US Patriot Act goes even further to violate the 4th amendment's unreasonable search and seizure provisions and 70 years of SCOTUS precedent (which included 3 wars of much greater import and scale than the two or three we are currently engaged in) and the Federal Wiretap Act, which is somewhat anachronistic technologically, than the FISA court, which is a functional rubber stamp for electronic eavesdropping on US citizens. It's original purpose, while laudable, has IMHO been achieved. But its purpose is no excuse for its unconstitutional nature - except of course when it is doing "the work it was designed to perform upon those who invented, promoted, and operated it."

Workplace harrassment has one critical word - unwelcome. I don't think that anything that went on between the big dog and Monica was unwelcome (well, except by Hillary).

Human interest story on CNN. Larry is 107 and has outlived his savings account. This happened before when he was 105 and donations kept him living in his senior living facility. Now he needs help again.

http://www.savelarry.org

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235548

flatus...

First of all I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I ask if it was true that they both put forth a bill blocking the release of those yet unseen Torture photos. That is true.

Graham and Judas Iscariot Lieberman both cheer leaded the War in Iraq as well as defended the interrogation methods instituted and authorized at the highest levels of the Government.

They also along with the majority of Repugs and yes some Democrats voted for the MCA of 2006 Act which granted immunity to all involved in War Crimes under our laws.

There still liable under International Law though for the War Crimes instituted, authorized, condoned and carried out by those in the previous administration. Including members of both houses, the Congress and the Senate.

So it is entirely possible that there could be some members of our Government caught on film or memory cards participating or watching those in our custody being Tortured.

We already know that Rumsfeld was reportedly on hand to witness the methods being used on detainee's so that would be more evidence that he was complicit in War Crimes. So why not other members of our Government including Congress People and Senators?

Pogo is right about the photo's being released or even leaked in the future, just as I feel sure that someone, somewhere has pictures yet to be seen that may one day make it into the light of day.

If those photo's are no worse than what is already out in the public domain as President Obama says then why are they being blocked from public scrutiny?

Only reasonable explanation would be that members of the Government are in some of those pictures. Of course we will never know if they are or not unless there made public.

Have a good day.

By the way Flatus....

Bush\Cheney has destroyed the Honor and Integrity of Americas Military and brought dishonor upon all those who served during this illegal War of Aggression and Crimes Against Humanity we call the War in Iraq.

Bill Clinton should not have gotten a free pass for what he did.

I was not blogging back then - but I was outraged.

Anyone is a position of power - is really crossing the line when they start sleeping with an intern. That is grounds for dismissal in most jobs.

But what really got me was the stupidity and lack of sel-control. You are the President of the F*cking United States for godsake!

That sideshow diverted all of Washington from doing the people's business. It also came at a crucial time in terms of hunting Bin Laden.

Finally, Bill Clinton engaged in immoral and irresponsible actions and then lied about it - which is far worse in my book than telling some stupid, tasteless jokes.

"He certainly didn't threaten her."

I actually agree Jamie and I don't care or know much about it myself, except that I was mad at Slick at the time for being so stupid.

Beyond that, I once sat on a jury (US Dist.C) in a third party suit from a co-worker of someone who was carrying on an office affair with their boss. It seems the fact that she was even aware of the affair was enough of a "hostile environment" to bring the suit. Go figure, maybe she was just jealous.

btw, I was selected the foreman and she didn't prevail on the third ballot.

Booksmarts are fine and dandy if you are looking for a good grade at school - but street smarts and savy counts far more in the court of public opinion.

Democrats underestimate Palin at their own peril.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0609/Palin_defends_flight_attendants.html#comments

"Only reasonable explanation would be that members of the Government are in some of those pictures."

"Only reasonable explanation" is an overstatement. And there are plenty of legitimate arguments to make re: the release of the photos that do not rely and speculation and slanderous assumptions.

Warren,

I'll give you stupid and irresponsible about Clinton, but the actions that stemmed from it and the impeachment were a Republican witch hunt from beginning to end conducted by men who at one time or another in their lives had done much worse. It did injure the country, but I blame that totally on the hypocrits who impeached him.

They're back.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/supreme-court/2009/06/conservative_pr_firm.html

Of course, this was inevitable.

"If those photo's are no worse than what is already out in the public domain... Only reasonable explanation would be that members of the Government are in some of those pictures. "

Posted by: anon-paranoid Author Profile Page | June 12, 2009 1:30 PM

The content supposedly IS WORSE than what's out in the public domain.

That Letterman/A-Rod joke is funny, by the way, because A-Rod dates so many women, for those who don't follow baseball. Letterman beat Conan in the ratings for the first time after that broadcast, also.

West Virginia names coal as its official state rock

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/06/12/west-virginia-names-coal-as-its-official-state-rock/

Just how bad has the coal ash situation gotten in the United States? So bad that the Department of Homeland Security has told Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) that her committee can't publicly disclose the location of coal ash dumps across the country.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/coal-ash-spills-too-dange_n_214739.html

Jamie:

"It did injure the country, but I blame that totally on the hypocrits who impeached him."

I don't think it is fair to "totally" blame the GOP when their actions were based on the President of the United States committing adultery in the White House with an intern - and then lying about it to the American people.

I think you are being way too easy on Bill.

polemicists? I had to look that one up, But things with numbers are more my speed.

So this is all a new phenomenon - and until Janet wrote about it - wow great catch.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235628

Pogo,

That group is so unbelievably disgusting. You wonder if they were born souless or just sold them to the highest satanic bidder.

As smart as Bill is - could he of expected anything less if he got caught?

Mike Murphy to Republicans - to save the party "Build and arc." heheheh

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1904136,00.html

CB, is there any other rock of note in WV?

Coal ash, now tell me, does anyone think of coal ash dumps when they consider what sorts of things the Department of Homeland Security has purview over? Yes, they are toxic, but really.

jamie, CRC makes money hand over fist. And oddly enough, they are a PR firm with standards - as long as you are criticizing anything remotely Democratic, they'll take your money and turn on the slime machine.

btw, you never told me what word(s) were too many.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235630

your darklordship, have you watched Conan? It isn't just because of the Palin joke.

uhhhh, that should have been "Build AN arc." My bad.

BB Video: Maker Faire Selects - CandyFab, DIY Screen Printing, Electric Music.

http://boingboing.hexten.net/2009/06/12/bb-video-maker-faire.html

Sorry Warren,

Agree to disagree. There was no reason for Lewinsky to be dragged into the initial court case. That Clinton lied under oath seeking to protect what - family, reputation, career ... still nothing there to warrant impeachment.

He didn't betray the country. He didn't commit any traitorous acts. He carried out his job even under the demands of the hearings. You can call him a fool. You can fault his morals and judgement, but that impeachment was disgraceful as the not guilty verdict in the Senate showed.

As far as I'm concerned, the ones that engineered that travesty were lower than slime since they were acting totally for their own political advantage rather than any moral outrage (most of them had cheated on their wives, divorced to get a younger model, or played hanky panky with the secretary when they weren't selling their votes)... Never forgive them!!! Never!!

Did somebody push a button? :-)

Posted by: newpogo: June 12, 2009 1:52 PM

Actually, I like Conan, and don't understand how anyone watches Letterman, but no, I haven't seen Conan's new show.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235642

Pogo

Your sentence was, "What doesn't this woman read the blogs?"

I said you used two words too many. The question mark should have been after "read".

"they were acting totally for their own political advantage"

Jamie..... and you think this applies only to the right?!!......

BTW.... I agree with both you and Warren.... the Big Dawg should have known better to keep "it" in his pants..... and yes.... Repubs were acting on purely political motives....

and of course.... we all love to trash Linda Tripp.... :0) :0)

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

And I am not saying that impeachment was warranted - or that the extent of the GOP's actions were justified.

I am just saying that by many on the left - Clinton was given a free pass.

And if people are going to get outraged at the message that a comedian sends by telling off-color jokes - then they should be even more outraged by the message sent by the POTUS cheating on his wife with an intern and then lying about it.

Renee,

I don't think it applies only to the right. The left has pulled some real prize shenanigans, but this was an impeachment of a President of the United States. Sorry "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" for new uses for a tobacco product? I don't think so.

jamie - heheh. NOW I understand. (I read right through the "two". duh.

warren, I never thought Clinton got a free pass. The Dems did circle the wagons against the abuses of Starr, the Gingrich led house (actually I know Hastert was Speaker during the impeachment, but Gingrich drove that wagon) and the Lott led Senate. It was not an approval of or ignoring of Clinton's transgressions as much as it was a reaction to the BS from the Republicans.

pogo:

I talked to plenty of people who said - who cares - everyone cheats on their wife.

And I think that kind of attitude sucks.

I agree with your sentiment, and granted, some folks didn't consider his transgression a significant one. Who hasn't been there or known someone they loved and respected who did the same thing? And lying under oath about it? Bad, but hardly unheard of. But most of what I heard was reaction to the Repubs, probably in large part because of that "who cares" attitude. You may be right about individuals giving Clinton a pass on the bjs, and the dishonesty of his testimony about them. That was not what I saw as the dominant consideration of that time, though - what I saw was the utter disbelief that our government spent $70 million and virtually wasted a year to try and kick a president out of office because he got a few blow jobs. And check out the votes on impeachment in the senate - a grand total of 0 democrats voted guilty and a grand total of five repubs voted not guilty (well, Specter voted "Not Proven"). Jesus Christ, imagine if Monica had been Maurice.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235643

Thank goodness for Nightline and Jimmy K !

Letterman needs to man up.. maybe that is not possible - as he screwed up.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235669

dishonesty of his testimony !
Foundation of our system and must be punished, but not if you are in a certain class.

Chloe,

Yesterday, you objected to my lumping all "conservatives and republicans into a monolith of racism, religious bigotry, sexism, classism (I forgot that one yesterday) and xenophobia. You used the word 'generalization.'

1. The very fact that the spokespeople for the "conservatives" and republicans use such invidious and sweeping generalizations as a tool to Bangla Desh-ize the planet, seems to legitimize using the same tool on them.

2. republicans flacks like limbaugh, kristol, hannity, o'reilly, savage, coulter, reagan (mikey), prager, scarbrough, krauthammer, robertson (pat the pro-Mormon), will (george the thief), podhoretz, cupp, fleischer, rove, ad nauseum, rant that Muslims aren't standing up to Muslim extremists, and that Americans of Mexican descent are not opposing the 'invasion' by 'illegal aliens' (take out will, rove, and fleischer on the latter topic). However, throw them back in with pat buchanan that Blacks are responsible for not holding rev. wright and dead old lou farrakhan to account.

Shouldn't republicans uphold the standard that they demand of others?

To be continued.

Dog Gets Stoned At Seattle Park

SEATTLE (AP) -- A dog that ran off from its owner in Seattle's Seward Park found and ate some marijuana and got high. Owner Jen Nestor Waddell told KING-TV the 11-year-old black Lab mix named Jack was "just stoned" May 12 after they returned home from the park. The dog's eyes glossed over and he had trouble walking.

sorry about ad up front.

http://video.ap.org/?t=By%20Section/Offbeat&p=&f=KING&g=0611dv_dog_marijuana

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235669

Pogo,

I love the "Scottish Verdict". It really should have a place in the American judicial system. You have to wonder how many juries would love to bring in that finding

pogo:

I am going to have to walk away from this soon - but I would be surprised if you had such a casual reaction about this if these acts were committed by a President you did not admire:

"Who hasn't been there or known someone they loved and respected who did the same thing? And lying under oath about it? Bad, but hardly unheard of."

And I agree with Ping. Honesty is one of the foundations of our justice system. Unfortunately - if you are willing to lie under oath - and don't get caught - you have a huge advantage in our court systems.

So I think this was a horrible example set by the most powerful man in the world.

This was not just some guy getting a "few blow jobs" - it was the POTUS cheating on his wife, coming on national TV and lying to America about it, and then lying under oath.

...in the Oval Office.

"Polemcists are just below polecats." Hmm. Like this ?

1. Pepe LePew

2. Paul of Tarsus

3. Augustine of Hippo

4. John Milton

5. John C. Calhoun

6. george f. (the thief) will

Warren... I'm with you.... although I admired Clinton for his political savvy....
(and still do) he showed profound disrespect for the office of President of the United States by his actions concerning Lewinsky....

so Palin was on the Today Show this morning.... and I just heard she will be on Blitzer's show on CNN this afternoon.... oh yeah.... she's not doing this for political advantage.... she's not using her daughter(s) for political gain.... she's just an upset mother.....
hey.... anybody wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn...

It's like the '90s all over again! Time to load up on dot-com stocks!

Jamie,

The Scottish verdict was so unsatisfying that even the Scots got rid of it.

Hominids are only satisfied by the thumbs up or thumbs down verdicts.

Btw, I recommend the recountings of great Scottish murder trials by William Roughead. In the old days Scottish juries could knock off for lunch and drinks at the local, followed by a long nap, all in the middle of vital testimony.

XR

Sorry, They haven't gotten rid of it. The "not guilty, but don't do it again" verdict is rare, but still in use. The Scots are quite fond of what Americans would call "Jury Nullification". One area where it pops up most often are cases involving mental illness or where the jury feels the acts while illegal were justified.

The wiki is somewhat incomplete, but gives you a fast read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Chloe, continued,

Where was republican outrage over republican mel gibson's decade long dribble of anti-Jewish insinuations ? When limbaugh called little Chelsea Clinton "a dog." Where were 'responsible republicans' when george herbert walker bush ran the racist willy horton campaign ? I'm sure, I was the only Minnesota republican embarrassed by AgSec earl butz' remark on "the 3 things n*gg#rz care about." Where'd republicans go when ann coulter called for the forced conversions of Muslims and Jews, when trent lott said America'd be better if we'd elected racist rapist strom thurmond in 48, when willard, old dead fred, and reps hunter and tancredo tried to whip up hatred of Mexicans and Americans of Mexican descent ? What of the republicans who refered to ragheads ? Where were righteous republicans when falwell said the ant-Christ is alive and Jewish ? Where were they when the swift boat cowards lied about John Kerrey's service ? When nazi-simp buchanan hosted the holocaust deniers on his blog ? Where was the outrage when the newt suggested taking children away from single moms and incarcerating them in Big Government Institutions ? When john mclaughlin promoted serbian and croatian genocide in Bosnia ? Didn't every republican in the country callHillary Clinton "the lying, scheming bitch, who murdered Vince Foster and Commerce Secretary Ron Brown" ? If I didn't imagine all this crap, which republicans denounced all that republican hate speech ?

My rant is not intended to make you the bad guy, or to make you feel bad, Chloe. Far from it.

Decent and kind people like you, who stand for polite discourse on issues of importance, are absent from todays republican party. I wracked my brain since last night, and the last sweet and kind republican of national stature that I could remember was Shirley Temple Black. Maybe you know someone who showed up later, but I can't think of a single one.

To be continued.

warren, well, we'll disagree on this one. First, he wasn't impeached for lying about Lewinsky on TV. He was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice because he tried to be too cute by half when answering whether he had sexual relations with Monica. On the perjury charge, he was acquitted 45-55, with 10 republicans voting for acquittal. On the obstruction charge, he was acquitted 50-50, with 5 republicans voting for acquittal. So let's be honest, it wasn't about sex and it wasn't about lying - it was about politics and only politics.

Bad example? Sure, so he won't be named a saint and won't get the lawyer of the year award for 1999 for the ABA. I hear Obama smokes - another bad example. Ronald Reagan left his first wife Jane Wyman for Nancy -bad example- I wonder if he and Nancy commmitted adultery - he's dead so he can't be asaked - lucky him. Bad examples abound and they aren't the basis for impeachments. Bush lied us into a war then lied about torture and violating the constitution he swore to preserve and protect and lots of things that actually were part of his presidency, and wasn't impeached though he should have been, and he's lionized by the idiotic right.

Presidents are people, too, and I hear that some of the greatest of them screwed around. The lawsuit that served as the basis of the impeachment had nothing to do with Clinton's presidency, or with having sex with an intern, and he should not have been treated differently because he held that position. What he committed is not even chargable as perjury in most states, and while I have listened to literally hundreds of people lie after being placed under oath, and about matters that actually were not collateral to the matters at issue, I have never known of a single one to be pursued criminally for false testimony in a civil matter - except Bill Clinton - so give me a break. You and Ping are holding Clinton to a standard that is higher than just about any other litigant in the history of civil justice has ever been held to. (There are probably a few folks who were prosecuted for lying under oath in civil matters, but I'd be willing to bet you won't be able to show me a parallel case). The only impeachment that should have resulted was having his deposition testimony impeached at trial by that of Monica Lewinsky, had the line of questioning passed 403(b) muster (which I seriously doubt), which might have led to a verdict in Paula Jones' favor if that was sufficient to get a jury to disregard other testimony that actually had some bearing on whether or not he did what Paula Jones said he did. That is what happens is lawsuits, and nobody is prosecuted for it.

Yes Clinton was held to a different standard. Rather than get the pass for lying about sex in a deposition that almost every other person in the history of the legal world who has done so was given, he was impeached. It was stupid, it was political, and it was built up to make a federal case out of and removing from office the president for lying about a pecadillo. Sorry, I didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now and I doubt I ever will.

pogo:

"So let's be honest, it wasn't about sex and it wasn't about lying - it was about politics and only politics."

That statement is dishonest.

I have never said that I agree with the rabid partisan response from the GOP. But you need to admit that the Republicans acted on a political opportunity created by "sex" and "lying."

And all I am asking is that the Dems be outraged about BOTH the misdeeds of Clinton and the cheap politics of personal destruction played by the GOP.

Instead, the sentiment I get from your posts is that the Republicans were the real bad guys - and Clinton's actions are understandable.

(And the belief that it is "understandable" to cheat on your wife - or - "a lot of people do it" is a horrible self-fulfilling prophecy that makes a lot of young men think it is OK behavior.)

Oh - and yes - the President of the United States is held to a different standard. Comes with the territory.

That is a statement of opinion, warren, mine, and it's not dishonest - it's based on what I believe the facts lead to. "[Y]ou need to admit that the Republicans acted on a political opportunity created by "sex" and "lying." "the Republicans acted on a political advantage - that is your description, and that is political. That is all it is.

Yes, his actions were understandable, not honorable, and not something I'd like to see repeated, but not impeachable in any rational world. Remember - impeachment is the POLITICAL analog of an indictment, and the trial in the senate is the POLITICAL analog of a criminal trial.

And yes, the republicans were the real bad guys. They cheapened the impeachment process at a minimum, but in the clear light of day misused it.

You're attempting to put words in my mouth about what's understandable and equate it with acceptable - the two are not equivalent. And yes, a lot of people "do it" - that doesn't make it right, it just makes it common. The point is, a lot of PRESIDENTS do it. Clinton was held to a different standard than any others were.

Was his decision to diddle Monica stupid? You bet. Was his decision to try and show he was smarter than the lawyers asking him improper questions stupid? You bet. Should he have answered honestly if compelled to do so by the judge over the objections of his counsel? You bet. Those were his transgressions - they were of stupidity.

The point is, the entire thing was political from the outset - it was funded by right wing groups - including the Paula Jones lawsuit. Ever wonder how an unemployed low level ex state employee from a backwater state in the south could afford to move to California, get plastic surgery and drive a late model Mercedes to her health club - all while her lawsuit was pending? The entire thing was political.

Well, as much fun as it is dredging up the past, I have to go to a soccer party for LP. Everyone have a good weekend.

You're both wrong. He was impeached because the republicans wanted to paralyze the administration and make Dems look bad. The put $70 M!LL!ON into the investigations. The immediate excuse given for the impeachment was Clinton's perjured testimony in a deposition for the Paula Hawkins case.

Sorry, make that Paula Jones. That makes all 3 of us wrong.

XR-

Whatsa matta U? With the-to be continued post's: Thats my gig. The long post. But now that you are on it. I love it when you manipulate the English language like you do. It is laugh out funny to me. Wish that I could do that!

Let me know when you had enough of the left. Just like you had enough of the right. We( the Indies) can use a mouth piece like you. HA

Clinton Lewinski-who cares they both suck. Still on the letterman. Good. the more that it is talked about the better.

Chole-

I would like to be associated with you-with this great post also. :-))

"I agree with that whole post KGC.... and it is tiresome.
You know, it's one thing if an unknown comedian, in a bars, says something similar to what Letterman said, and a total different thing for the influential Letterman to say. A lot of people listen to him--I would imagine he sets standards for other comedians. He actually has an affect on our culture as a whole. And we have to keep in mind that he was demeaning teenagers, whose mother happens to be a politician."

I have been saying these things for the past year. I hope that Palin keeps this in the news as long as possible. First-cos it's so much furn to see how the left is so easily shaken by someone that they don't consider worth while.

She is going to make you shake a lot more IMO in the future. She is here to stay. The more that you underestimate her the better she will be accepted by people that don't like the piling on. Like me. I hope that she kicks some ass along to another lose for POTUS.

The longer this stuff is out there. The more that his advertising clients will look at him. The next time that he f's up-it will be considered in a long line of F-ups. Jutst like it was for Imus.

I still would like to see someone find the dirt on him so it can be used to cruisify him like he did the Palin Family. For her to try to get the most mileage out of this-is like a roofer using nails on the shingles to nail them with. This is the kind of screw ups that they all wait for.

Bet someone in his family has been knocked-up: Betcha Leno has a monika some where in his past-or present. Than a Clinton look alike commedian can nail his ass to the wall.

It's a horrible indictment against the US masses that so many listen to Limbaugh and Hannity that Limbaugh can command nearly $60 million a year for spewing twisted hate, and when he signs off, Hannity takes the baton for the next leg of the race.
I have never understood why anyone would give those two clowns the time of day, until I study on it a bit, and then it becomes clear they are saying what the backwards population wants to hear. Sometimes it's better to shut the radio off. These two are never keeping us informed, just trying to brainwash us.
Sure, JN was correct, and expect more violence, inspired by Limbaugh and Hannity, but never expect them to even see the bllod on there hands. "What blood?"

Well, it's the weekend, and tomorrow we are having a reunion of anyone still alive who attended our rural 2-room Indiana schoolhouse, decades ago. I'm almost 60 and I'll be the youngest one there!

NEW THREAD.. http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/rev-wright-strikes-again.html

I would go and find Alex R. Ask him on camera. How it felt to be calleda
the rapist of the Palin teen. Why hasn;t he said anything about this. Maybe he will-I would at least tell Letterman that he did not appreciate being called a rapist . Ok Im finished with this. Really kind of a who care for me. Other than they keep after Letterman.

I hope that the people in Iran voted that skunk out of office. Yes did you all see the beautiful faces of out fellow humans in Iran. Kinda makes it a little harder to hate them when they show them up close.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/06/terrorists-among-us-part-two.html#comment-235675

XRepub

I'm actually sorry that I put your name on that post. That whole 'generalization' thing is just a pet peeve of mine. You're post merely set it off again.

You're entitled to your opinion and I always enjoy your posts. Please accept my apology.

"It may seem petty to criticize comedians and humor, but these guys have a strong influence on society and our culture."

chloe, bet dan quail said the same thing about the murphy brown show.

"Bill Clinton should not have gotten a free pass for what he did."

warren, those in power on the left didn't give him a free pass during the recent primary season. a lot of the kill bill stuff was motivated as much by moral vengence as by politics.

Dex, many years ago my grandmother and grandfather were sitting in their living room going through the Sunday paper.

Suddenly my grandmother says, "Justin, there's my classroom!". Indeed it was, it was her one room school that she rode her horse to every morning. It was being preserved and re-erected in the Western Reserve Historical Society's museum.

She didn't teach for long--just a couple of years after she finished college until she and my grandfather were married. My father was born a year later.

Grandmother told me about how the older boys would take care of her horse after she arrived, and how they would have him ready to go when it was time to leave.

She kept her languages, German and Greek for her entire life helping my sister with her college German.

She was quite a woman--all 4-feet 10-inches of her!

"bet dan quail said the same thing about the murphy brown show"

Ha Pat. I'm sure you're right.
I actually enjoy the whole pop culture thing. I'm not sure if the ones influencing us are just reflecting what's going on now, or are setting the trends. I'm sure it's both.

I used to enjoy the comedians a lot more before the last election when I really got turned off, and just haven't gotten back to it.

"Shouldn't republicans uphold the standard that they demand of others?"

... some of those 'standards' are what got them into the mess there in now.

NEW THREAD

Chloe, continued,

Those republicans who want to be treated fairly today, would have done well, while it was still in their power to be moral suaders, to have modeled the role for the rest of us. It's too late now. They may not be in hell yet, but they are in a state of limbaugh, er, limbo. As with any death, the death of the republicans' political power prevents them from repenting and recanting their bad behavior.

republicans set the tone of the 'political dialogue' since 1980, and thouroughly trained most Americans in the crude arts of hard-nosed, tough-talking, unforgiving, unrepentent finger-pointing and name-calling. If republicans don't like what America's 'political dialogue' became under their long tutelage, they should have thought of that earlier.

Solar, I don't know if you're still here, but I just noticed you were here (I do everything kinda backass backwards). I'm going to go back and read your posts now.