Back In NYC

So you think I’m a tough kid
Is that what you heard?
Well, I like to see some action,
And it gets into my blood.
Well, they let me out of pontiac
When I was just seventeen
I had to get it out of me
If you know what I mean,
what I mean.

No....I didn't go to Mexico; I went to North Carolina. I got taken up in the spirit of Jimi Hendrix and started rambling some lines from "Hey Joe". Anyway, I'm back, having survived a twelve hour ride all the way up I-95 to get back to the dirty city.

I'll be posting some thoughts of a bit more import in the next day or so, specifically when I've managed to gain back some of the energy that this long road trip has drained me of. I must say that that is was nice not to have to be exposed to 24-hour news and some clean beach air.

See you soon.

News You Can Use

I wanted to post this because it really is worth reading. Really.

Croatia Rocks!

Linda is some kind of pop star in Croatia. Worth checking out. I can try to describe, but it is better you see it for yourself.

Here's Linda!

(Note to the legions of fans that read this blog: I will not be blogging 'til after August 28th. I'm going down south, way down to Mexico, where I can be free. But unlike "Joe", I'll be back.)

Bob Moog

Word reached me via a friend that the inventor of the synthesizer, Bob Moog, passed away at the age of 71 a few days ago. His imprimatur on pop music cannot be underestimated; by my estimation (and probably the estimation of many, many others), Moog's impact was tantamount to that of Les Paul, who was the inventor of the solid body electric guitar as well as multi-track recording, and Leo Fender, who revolutionized the solid body electric guitar that Les Paul started. In a word, a giant.

I first came across the sound of the Moog sythesizer when I was but a wee lad, listening to "Here Comes the Sun" on The Beatles Abbey Road. It really didn't make a big impact on my ears (I was probably seven or eight years of age), but I remember it. It was also featured on the song "Because" on the same album, a song that I really loved at the time. I think it was on "Maxwell's Silver Hammer", too. However, the time when I really was blown away by the sound of the Moog was perhaps a year or two later, on listening to Rick Wakeman's solo turn on Yessongs, a live album by Yes recorded in the early 70's. The sound of the Minimoog synth Wakeman was using was nothing short of amazing. Wakeman had his Moogs (he used minimally two at any one time onstage) doing everything from multi-octave glissandos to powerful explosions and air-raid sounds. The sound of these early Moogs cut through everything in ways even the most aggressive lead guitar sound could not. To this day, I've never lost my fascination with those sounds. Judging by the high re-sale value of those old Minimoogs today, I'm probably not the only one.

A year or so back I went to see Keith Emerson at B.B. King's in Manhattan. I'm still a huge ELP fan, and it was one of the best shows I've ever seen anyone play. But what was really cool about the show was the fact that Keith Emerson brought his old Moog cIII, a huge modular sythesizer. (The sound of it can be heard in the solo at the tail end of "Lucky Man".) Every time Keith stepped up to the big Moog modular, people went bananas, standing up, pointing at Keith, and screaming, "Play it! Play it!!!". And the sound, well...there is nothing comparable, even with today's synths that are 50 times more technologically advanced than Keith's 35-year-old Moog. As Keith's tech Will Alexander put it, the Moog is an "icon". Just seeing this huge modular monster on stage thrills people. And the sound is powerful and incomparable.

The Moog synthisizer had a tremendous impact on funk music during the 70's as well. Acts like Parliament Funkadelic and Herbie Hancock had the Moog sound all over their recordings. These days, that sound has become the staple of many (most?) Dr. Dre productions, particularly The Chronic and Doggy Style, where the Moog is pasted onto every track.

Well done, Dr. Moog.

Mick Jagger

Mick Jagger, despite his alleged "bad boy" routine, never had any balls. After the Bush-bashing lyrics to a new Stones song, "Sweet Neo Con," were released, Mick told Extra, "It’s not really aimed at anyone." Sure thing, just like the Stones aren’t trying to gin up enthusiasm from the under 30 set in the hopes that the kids will not only attend their upcoming concerts but also purchase CDs from the band’s enormous catalog. Let’s remember that Jagger acquiesced to CBS execs back in ’67 when the Stones appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show and changed the lyrics of their hit "Let’s Spend the Night Together" to "Let’s Spend Some Time Together."

--Russ Smith, New York Press

Russ Smith got it right. For all of The Stones, specifically Mick Jagger's rebellious appeal there beats the heart of a "suit". Now, it's fine to be a "suit", meaning an establishment person who doesn't rock the boat and thinks of commerce before all else, but there is something lame about being a "suit" when you package yourself like an anti-establishment rapscallion. In Neil Peart's book, Traveling Music, he points out the differences between Jim Morrison and Mick Jagger in regards to the Ed Sullivan Show. Both singers planned on singing songs that had objectionable lyrics. In the case of The Stones, "Let's Spend the Night Together" had a title lyric was entirely too suggestive for America at that time, and the Sullivan people pressed Jagger to change it to "Let's Spend Some Time Together". The Doors, who planned on playing "Light My Fire", ran into problems with the line, "Girl we couldn't get much higher...", which clearly had a loaded drug reference in it. The Stones obliged like good little corporate suits that they are, whereas Jim Morrison actually yelped the word "high-yah!" noticeably louder, while at the same time looking into the camera to make sure everyone heard it. The net result? The Stones were asked to come back, and The Doors were banned from the Ed Sullivan Show. As Peart correctly observed, in the sweepstakes to see who the real rebels were, The Doors showed who was the genuine article and who was the fraud.

I have a real gripe against The Stones, not the least of which involves all the accolades that are showered upon them from everyone like Rolling Stone Magazine to countless baby-boomers. Sorry folks, but The Stones can't come remotely close to the stellar The Who. I also think it is disgusting that The Stones charge the exhorbitant prices that they do for their shows. I'm a believer in capitalism, but this is ridiculous.

Mick Jagger wrote his silly little "Sweet Neo Con" song as a protest piece. Fair enough. But he should have the balls to play it live now that it's out there. The Stones also have a very large contract with the NFL to play some gigs in some kind of cross-marketing scheme they cooked up to get even richer. Bully for them, but as Russ Smith said, Mick has no balls. Standing up for what you believe in means that you might lose an endorsement or two. It even means potentially losing a cross marketing gig with the National Football League. If I were a bettin' man (I'm not), I'd wager that you'll never hear that anti-Bush song anywhere on tour from The Stones. They might trot it out here and there, but they most certainly won't play it during an NFL telecast. Mick is a "suit". Principles aren't to be traded for money. Unless of course you don't have any.

"Packaged like a rebel or a hero,
to target mass appeal..."

Six Feet Under

Though excrutiatingly annoying at times, HBO's 'Six Feet Under' has also been an intelligent, unpredictable drama these last five years. Last night's finale was, in all likelihood, the most memorable final episode of any show I've ever seen on television. It was in equal parts triumphant, melancholic, and truly sublime. It was, in short, an emotional roller coaster the likes of which I've never witnessed on television. (Though I have through film.)

I became invested in this show way back because I was looking for some kind of substitute to satiate my Sunday night 'Sopranos' fixation. Though at times I thought the worse of it, I couldn't leave 'Six Feet Under' because I wanted to finish what I started. I'm glad I did.

And On A Lighter Note....

How many drummers does it take to change a lightbulb?

Five: One to screw the bulb in, and four to talk about how much better Neil Peart would have done it.

Sheehan On Hardball

Cindy Sheehan on Hardball With Chris Matthews last night. Draw your own conclusions:


Chris Matthews: If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

Cindy Sheehan: I don't think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing.

Chris Matthews: But Afghanistan was harboring the Taliban, was harboring al Qaeda, which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

Cindy Sheehan: Well, then we should have gone after al Qaeda and maybe not the country of Afghanistan.

___________________________________________________________________

A few days ago I asked who said these quotes. The answer to all of them was Cindy Sheehan. Some of them predate her August antics down in Crawford, Texas. Here they are again, for your perusal:

"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."

"[The U.S. government] is a morally repugnant system. We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington!"

"[Lynne Stewart, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's lawyer who was recently convicted of aiding and abetting Islamo-terrorists] is my Atticus Finch"

"We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden..."

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

"In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Walter Kirn, guest blogging on andrewsullivan.com:

I saw yesterday that Norman Pearlstein, an editorial honcho at Time Inc., just recently told a New York audience that the guarantee of anonymity granted to Karl Rove in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle wasn't justified by the value of the info that Rove disclosed, confirmed, or whatever. He's right, I suppose, but that's not what interests me about this whole affair, whose very presence in the news - and especially on the front pages and magazine covers and at the top of broadcast after broadcast - wasn't justified by the underlying info, as evidenced by the cessation of this coverage before most of the main issues have been resolved.

The story got the play it did, I think, because it cast the journalists involved in a coveted, heroic, old-fashioned role - as crusading truth tellers, researchers, and promise keepers. They dig for the facts, and as they dig they stand up to the highest powers that be, meanwhile putting their words of honor on the line as a way of reassuring anxious sources. This is a flattering notion in a period when the reality is just the opposite.

What big-time Washington journalists largely do these days, in my experience, is to get as close as possible to power, socially and in every other way, while maintaining the legal fiction that they aren't implicated in its workings. They send their kids to school with power's kids, they marry it, they go to parties with it, they jabber with it on the phone, they watch the game with it from adjoining seats, and, as a natural result, they keep its confidences - until, that is, some secret leaks out anyway and they have to pretend that they didn't already know it but will get to the bottom of it immediately or that they knew it all along and just weren't telling their audiences because they were bound by some lofty code of ethics that allows them to do the jobs they rarely do. They're profound double-dealers, is what I'm saying, who pay for their access, influence, and by going along and getting along until it's simply too embarrassing not to. They reserve their best stories for one another, publishing them only when they have to and feeling very nervous when they do, because it might screw up the Great Arrangement. And afterwards, once the secrets are on the street, it often comes out that they were common knowledge among the people whose jobs it was to tell them.


Quick story. In the mid 1980s I went to a fancy Fifth Avenue party for Senator Ted Kennedy. There were journalists there and lots of other bigwigs. The only time I'd seen Kennedy before was at a campaign stop in 1979 when he'd been seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. He might have won, but I realized at the party that it would have been a terrible thing because he was the drunkest human being I had ever encountered in my life, and chances were that it hadn't just started that night. Sure, he already had this reputation, but it was a vague reputation, all myth and gossip, while the intoxicated wreck in front of me was as vivid and specific as a car wreck. How many thousands of times, I wondered, had such behavior as I was witnessing been quietly countenanced by journalists, and how much other wild, scary stuff pertaining to other movers and shakers who had a shot at ruling the free world, say, had they deftly slipped into their back pockets in return for the right to attend such parties as this one?

I was a kid then, in my early twenties, and I couldn't answer that question. Now I'm older, I've seen more, and I can. A certain kind of job in journalism can only be kept if its holder, for the most part, refrains from doing it.- posted by Walter

Quote Of The Day

"The vacation is a potent symbol in French society, a visible sign of a certain social standing. Not going on vacation can cause people to lose confidence not only in their own future, but also in French society in general."

I culled this quote from an article I read on cnn.com. You can read the whole thing here. I'm simply blown away by the language. "Vacation is a potent symbol of French society"!?!

Bullets (And Naval Boats) Over Broadway

Interesting story regarding the use of ten tons ("tonnes" to you British, Canadian, New Zealander, and Australian readers) of steel removed from the World Trade Center site to be used in the construction of the new Navy warship New York. There's a tradition of this type of thing in American history, for a statue of George III was pulled down five days after the singing of the Declaration of Independence and turned into grapeshot for the Continental Army. The statue used to sit on Bowling Green, the last downtown Manhattan stop, and less than a mile from the World Trade Center, at the end of Broadway.

Modern Medicine

I'm always fascinated by the ways and means with which modern medicine arrives at certain treatments and cures. The latest example of this is this story, which say that the cure for HIV might be found through some form of crocodile blood extraction. Wow....never mind that they might be on to something; who'd have even thought to experiment with crocodile blood in the first place!?! I had a similar reaction when I found out that there were experiments being done with rocket fuel (yes, rocket fuel) to see if it had any effect on cancer patients. I've not heard anything about this since the late 90's (not that I've been keeping track of it), but it has always been a source of amazement to me that medical researchers would even come up with the concept to use a certain arcane source to cure the world's ills. What a tremendously imaginative time we live in.

File This One Under "Law Of Unintended Consequences"

"Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist--they're straight men. . . . The two--both of whom were previously married and both of whom are still looking for a good woman to love--insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all. 'There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through.' Pinn said."--Toronto Sun, Aug. 6, 2005

Women Control The World

So says a British television journalist. It is a refreshingly politically incorrect diatribe the likes of which America would gasp over. Let me put it to you this way: I don't think Dan Rather would ever say something like this. Whether I agree with it or not isn't really the point. What is the point is that it is worth a good chuckle. Read up.

Clinton

“I desperately wish, that I had been president when the FBI and CIA finally confirmed, officially, that bin Laden was responsible for the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Then we could have launched an attack on Afghanistan early. I don’t know if it would have prevented 9/11, but it certainly would have complicated it.”

--Former President Bill Clinton, in full damage control mode

I'm not a Clinton-hater, contrary to what some may think. The man had tremendous political gifts, smooth elocution, and he was probably the most charismatic president this country has had since JFK, and before then, possibly FDR. And to be fair, I profited a great deal personally during the bull market of the 90's; whether Clinton was directly responsible for that is a subject of debate for some, but I'll give him a small pinch of credit on it. (Sidenote: We used to have a joke back then that went something like this: "Yeah....Bill and Al are responsible for this market. Bill Gates and Al Greenspan.") That said, there are two things about his presidency that are awfully hard to refute. One, that he failed miserably in getting his administrative agenda through, save tax hikes in '93 and NAFTA (which was started by his predecessors). Secondly, that his personal charm extended only so far is his person. In other words, nobody was capable of riding on his coat-tails, not the least of which was his party. (Hillary notwithstanding.) There's very little room for debate on these points, as the record speaks for itself. After all, if this wasn't the case, how come his party is out of power in every branch of the federal government, and has a minority stake in the state governorships and state legislatures?

As for Clinton's post-presidential work, he has at times infuriated me and at other times impressed me. His speech a few years back on the roots of terrorism was so ridiculous and historically inaccurate I had to shake my head with disbelief that a Rhodes scholar such as he could make such silly statements. (However, I'll set aside dissecting that speech for the moment.) On the other hand, he has impressed me with his tsunami fund-raising work and his statesman-like grace, at least in regards to this effort.

Clinton recently gave an interview in the New York magazine. I haven't read the entire interview, but I have read a few excerpts. And from the excerpts that I've read thus far, it appears that Clinton is doing his level best to disconnect himself with his culpability in regards to the 9/11 attacks. The above statement is indicative of this effort. According to Richard Clarke's assessement of the situation at the time, Clinton knew very well that Al Qaeda was behind the USS Cole attacks, but Clinton swore off retribution in the fears that it would sink the Palestinian-Israeli peace settlement that Clinton was working on. (It subsequently failed, through little fault of Clinton's.) Clinton has also stated that he warned the incoming Bush Administration that Osama bin Laden was the biggest threat to national security at that moment. That might or might not be the case, and pending any documentation that shows that such a warning was given, I'm a bit skeptical of the charge. Either way, Clinton had a good eight years to nail down bin Laden and al Qaeda, and chose not to rock the boat in the Middle East. Additionally, I'm still very interested to find out what the documents that Sandy Berger destroyed were about. And now we have the Able Danger controversy brewing. To my knowledge, I recall very little rhetoric coming out of Clinton's mouth regarding the growing threat of Islamo-terrorism, despite repeated acts of terrorism on American interests and Americans citizens. Additionally, I recall little to no retribution for these acts of terrorism, save the cruise missle attacks on bin Laden's camp, which were futile to begin with because the White House informed the Pakistani government that they were sending them, thereby giving bin Laden plenty of time to vacate the premises. (Remember that Pakistan was one of only two countries that recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.)

Let me make one thing very clear: I do not blame Clinton for 9/11. The people responsible for 9/11 are the people who hijacked the planes, the people who trained them, funded them, and directed their operations. But if Clinton is going to shoot his mouth off about how diligent he was when it came to terrorism, he's going to have to answer the one simple question that comes back in response: What were YOU doing for eight years? Defenders may contend that Clinton was distracted by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Without getting into who was ultimately responsible for the impeachment (Clinton or the GOP head-hunters), that also begs another question: How was Clinton able to wage a war in Yugoslavia, but not against Islamo-terrorists, during the impeachment crisis? I think Clinton knows he dropped the ball on this terrorism issue, and he's doing a lot of ex post facto damage control. I'm fine with that, but he needn't slime his successor to do it, particularly since his successor could very easily do the same, and with more devastating proof.

Guess Who Said The Following?

Make your guesses and judgements accordingly...


"America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for."

"[The U.S. government] is a morally repugnant system. We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington!"

"[Lynne Stewart, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's lawyer who was recently convicted of aiding and abetting Islamo-terrorists] is my Atticus Finch"

"We might not even have been attacked by Osama bin Laden..."

"We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

"In their secret hiding places, while celebrating newly won fortunes with their fellow brass, these men must surely congratulate themselves with orgies of carnal pleasure as they mock the multitudes who are yet so blind as to mistake them for God's devoted servants."

Man's Nature

Nature is what we are put on earth to rise above.

--Old English proverb

VJ Day

Today marks the 60th Anniversary of the surrender of Japan in 1945.

Let Kim Jong Il Insult You

Here.

What's In A Name?

Having just gotten finished with Ron Chernow's epic biography of Alexander Hamilton, I was struck by the vitriolic divisions in American politics early into George Washington's first administration; alas, they were much more splenetic and more violent than I had originally thought. As I've written in past postings, the Founding Fathers really didn't like each other very much. Despite being somewhat ideologically sympatico, Adams loathed Hamilton, which was probably the result of Hamilton's superior political talents, as well as the fact that Hamilton was, without a doubt, Washington's favorite subordinate. Adams hatred for Hamilton was personal, but Jefferson's hatred of Hamilton was both personal and ideological (as was Hamilton's for Jefferson's). The ideological division between the Hamiltonians, who favored strong central government with superior legal authority over states, and Jeffersonians, who favored weak central government with strong state government influence, led to the two party system we now have today. But what of their titles? For the Jeffersonians, they picked the name "republicans", which was picked for the purpose of semantically boxing-in the Hamiltonians and affixing in people's minds that the Hamiltonians were monarchists and for aristocratic rule, since they weren't "Republicans". Well, they were all republicans, they just had different views of republican government. Mind you, in the days following the American Revolution, the worst type of ideologue you could be was a monarchist, therefore, if you're not a republican, if would naturally follow that you're a monarchist. That was the point. The title of the party was a declaration of war, with words as the weapons. The Hamiltonians became Federalists, a title which prior to its assumption by the Hamiltonians actually meant a loose confederation of states. However, when Hamiltonians co-opted the term, it came to mean dominant federal authority. The title of the new-born political party came to mean the opposite of its original, intended meaning.


Today we have two major parties, Democrat and Republican. They're not entirely honest names for them, either. A Democrat, of course, subscribes to the concept of republican government, which by definition is rule by a non-monarch. A Republican, of course, subscribes to the concept of democracy and thus could ingenuously be called a democrat. (Although the Left can't stop calling them fascists, but I digress...) But the titles of these parties do not successfully denote what they stand for. The titles of British political parties are much more honest and self-explanatory: Conservative and Labour. Labour is for labour, the working folks, and Conservative are for a slow implementation of reform when needed, and if not needed no reform necessary. Even the term "liberal" isn't really an honest political term anymore. It now means one who is a quasi-socialist, a peacenik, and inevitably, one who calls conservatives "fascists". 'Twas not always so. Liberal, in the original sense of the word, means one is open to new ideas, new concepts, and an exploration of a wide range of alternatives to battle social ills. Unfortunately, a liberal in today's sense of the word typically is dogmatic, close-minded, and more times than not, noxious and hateful of anything that is not socialist or pacifist. (Just ask Michael Moore.) Conversely, conservatives are still conservatives: they're still reactionary in most matters, some seriously religious (although I don't come across those types in these parts), mostly hostile to social engineering and the de-stigmatization of taboos. Fairly consistent with the original meaning. Then there's neo-conservatives, who essentially are for social engineering but through private (as opposed to governmental) means. They're for pro-active nation building, by force if necessary. They've essentially co-opted Harry Truman's foreign policy. Progressives, on the other hand, can be classified as somewhat reactionary. They're still touting the same socialist prescriptions for the nation's and world's woes. And they're stuck having to defend the status quo of socialist programs that already exist in this country from the neo-cons. And how can one be a "new" conservative? Is that not in essence an oxymoron? And what is so "progressive" about defending old socialist programs, most of which have already been implemented, or have been tried and failed already? Language has been co-opted, twisted, and re-assigned new meanings, while the original meanings have been bleached. Orwell warned about this stuff in Politics and the English Language.

A neighbor that lives across the street from my father has a son who became a priest. I happened to have witnessed an interesting conversation between his brother-in-law and him. The question was a simple one: why does the Vatican still speak Latin? The answer was one I'd never thought of, but made perfect sense. It went something like this, "In popular culture, hot becomes cool, cool becomes hot, and essentially the words, which are opposite of one another, become the same. Latin is a dead language save the Vatican, so the meanings of the words never change. 'Hot' in Latin will always mean hot, and 'cool' will always mean cool." As for me, I'm still trying to figure out how they came up with the term "home economics" to describe a curriculum class that essentially teaches you how to bake a cake.

Canadian Splinter

I nominally follow Canadian politics and current events, as I have family in both Quebec and Ontario, and thus feel some need to keep track of what's going on north of the border. In all likelihood, I'm probably one of the few Americans that could tell you who the first Canadian Prime Minister was (John A. MacDonald). I'm also one of the few Americans that can tell you that the reason for the initial formation of Canada, culled as it was from its various disparate provinces, was to ensure a stronger Canada in the event that the American Civil War somehow spread north of the border. (You can look it up!) I can also tell you that Canada didn't gain complete independent constitutional power from Great Britain until 1982, when the Canadian constitution was put in place to replace the British North America Act. And....I can tell you that Canada has never been a particularly strong federation. And it still isn't. The Quebecois are still agitating to secede from the union (well, they're French; what can you expect?), but now so is a large chunk of Western Canada. Read up, Americans!

Spitfire's True Porno Boy Stories Continues....

Porno Boy came home in a state of intoxication, decided to make a vat of spaghetti, then promptly fell asleep. Whilst asleep, the stove remained on, and the spaghetti remained in boiling water. Then the water evaporated and the spaghetti strings wound up burning on the bottom of the vat. This must've went on for hours, as the next thing Porno heard was the sound of something forcefully beating his door. Thinking nothing of it, and still terribly drunk, he remained semi-unconscious. Shortly thereafter, a fireman with full oxygen gear on was attempting to revive him from his sleep, and the apartment was filled with yellow smoke. "Sir...sir, are you okay?!?" said the fireman. Porno came to, then the fireman figured it out. "Awwww....he's f*ckin' drunk...." he said to his comrades. They promptly turned the stove off, opened a window, and left Porno to his own devices. "F*ckin' idiot..." they said to each other, as their voices trailed off down the staircase of the building.

When A Pundit Loses Credibiliity

I'm a fairly avid reader of op-ed pieces, and I pretty much read most of the big names on the opinion journal business, as well as some of the lesser names. On a daily or weekly basis, I'll read far-left, slightly barmy Eric Alterman, David Corn (The Nation), Jonah Goldberg (NRO), Victor David Hanson, George Will, Mike Barnicle, Tom Friedman....you get the idea. Opinion journalism is just that, someone's opinion. But the facts with which they arrived at their conclusions have to be credible, or they lose me. Case in point, John Podhoretz.

I've been reading JPod for a couple of years now. He's usually somewhat incisive, but he did something that made him lose major credibility in my eyes: he let his politics color his facts. After writing about the first presidential debate between Bush and Kerry, Podhoretz gushed about how Bush trounced Kerry. Hey, I'm a Republican, but there's no way that happened. I watched that debate, and Bush was just awful. He had a scowl on his face, he kept repeating himself, and with the exception of jumping on Kerry for his "global test" comment, Bush scored almost no points. On the other hand, Kerry was smooth and his elocution was superior. Mind, he made absolutely no sense, straddling every issue and obfuscating his positions with his overblown verbiage. But Podhoretz wrote that Bush trounced him. No way, and to this day, ten months after, I've lost my ability to take Podhoretz seriously, despite being ideologically sympatico with the man.

Then there's the case of Maureen Dowd. Dowd has brought dishonesty and sheer idiocy to an amazing level. Not content to analyze things in a cogent, mature manner, Dowd resorts to cute little derogatory nicknames, like Rummy (Rumsfeld) and Shrub (George W. Bush). But this isn't what knocked her credibility out for me. What did destroy it was when she deliberately cuffed a Bush quote to make him look unserious about al Qaeda. Bush exclaimed a while back that "70% of al Qaeda's leadership has been either captured or killed. Let me put it this way: they're not a problem anymore." Dowd's version of the quote went like this: "al Qaeda....they're not a problem anymore." Dowd took this quote and proceeded to write an entire column slagging Bush for a quote that she herself fudged. I never found Dowd particularly insightful to begin with, as she is a juvenile, cheapshot artist...which is probably why she's won the Pulitzer Prize. But when you cuff a quote from a sitting president, a quote that he never said within the sentence structure that it was presented, you've lost all credibility in my eyes. Unfortunately, that journalistic standard (credibility) doesn't extend to her when it comes to covering a Republican. Kind of explains why the Times is under fire all the time, and its circulation is dropping. But there you go.

Andrew Sullivan is another op-ed columnist I've since given up on. I still peruse his blog from time to time, but his credibility is shot with me. He blew it last year when he decided to back Kerry in the election. Fair enough, though shocking, as he was a stone Bush fan for the previous three years that I'd read his work. But it's a free country, he can back who he wants. But he wasn't honest about his choice, for he said he was backing Kerry because he felt that Bush was mismanaging the war. This was entirely disingenuous, for I doubt that anyone out there that voted for Kerry did so because they thought he would to a better job in Iraq. Anyone I ever talked to voted for Kerry because they were against the war, not because they thought he'd prosecute it more vigorously. Sullivan, you see, is gay, and openly so. Being a gay quasi-conservative can't be an easy thing, mind. But Sullivan turned on Bush not because of the Iraq enterprise or the way it was being conducted, but because Bush was pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment, which sought to federally ban homosexual marriage. Sullivan posted daily about this, frothing at the mouth with rage over the social conservatives that were pushing the president on this issue. Which was his right. But he was dishonest about his change of heart right to the very end. Sullivan kept insisting that it wasn't FMA, but the prosecution of the war. No one out there really honestly thought that Kerry would or could do a better job prosecuting the war; they voted for Kerry to END the war. I subsequently tried to read Sullivan regularly thereafer, but he lost me. I couldn't come back. I didn't trust his credibility anymore. I still don't.

In conclusion, I don't mind opposing views, and I actually seek them out. It pays to know what the other side is thinking politically, be you left or right. But when a columnist of any stripe resorts to slander or dishonesty, I just can't read 'em anymore. I just can't.

Spitfire's True Porno Boy Stories

Jay is the bartender on Saturday afternoons at Kenny's Castaway. An educated guy and multi-lingual (French, German, Flemish) despite being an American by birth (how many Americans you know who speak Flemish?), Jay was brought up in Switzerland by his older sister and her husband. Jay is also a very funny guy, and occasionally does stand-up around the city and in Jersey.

I was introduced to Jay by Porno Boy, who about eight or nine years back struck up an acquaintance with him. We used to go down there on Saturday afternoons to hang with Jay, who was always wise-cracking and always good for a real laugh. (Sidenote: I learned from hanging at Kenny's with Jay on Saturdays that Chinese are terribly addicted gamblers. Waiters and deliverymen from the restaurant next door would stop in on Saturday afternoons, look at the TV screens (which always had ESPN on), then storm out cursing in Mandarin (or was it Cantonese?). ) But as I usually would refrain from getting liquored up on a Saturday afternoon, Porno would get good and sloshed....which would be fine, were it not for the fact that he'd act like an idiot and say something fresh to one of the patrons. After putting up with this for a few years Jay finally cut him off. But it's not as if Porno didn't stop trying to get back into Jay's good graces. One of the last conversations Jay had with Porno went like this:

Jay: Kennys...

Porno: Jay, it's me.

Jay: Hey, what's going on [recognizing Porno's voice immediately].

Porno: I wanted to come down and watch some football.

Jay: Okay...but no drinking.

Porno: Why?

Jay: Eh.....it's just better that way.

Porno: Awwww....c'mon....why?

Jay: It's just better that way.

CLICK![Porno slams phone down. Dial tone ensues.]


Later that afternoon, the phone rings....

Jay: Kenny's....

Porno Boy: You're dead to me. [CLICK!]

Wow. A Glowing Review Of The Rolling Stones. In Rolling Stone Magazine. Shocker.

The Rolling Stones played a surprise show at a club in Toronto. Rolling Stone Magazine gave it a rave review. Color me shocked. This is the same magazine that gave Mick Jagger's solo effort Goddess in the Doorway a five star (as in "classic!") review, while every other music reviewer in Britain and America panned it. Either Jann Wenner has more finely tuned ears than the rest of us, or he's in the tank for the Stones. Which one you think is true? (For the record, Jagger's solo outing wasn't too bad, but it was far from excellent.) I've seen some semi-interesting articles in Rolling Stone over the years, but by and large, I found it to be nothing more than a glorified Teen Beat Magazine. I haven't bought an RS in well over a decade, and if I do see something in it that interests me, I'll usually read it at a newsstand or a Barnes and Noble. It certainly isn't easy to find good new music these days, and frankly, I haven't been trying very hard lately. But if I do decide to sniff around for something good, Rolling Stone Magazine would not be the place I'd start. It wouldn't be the place I'd end, either.

Jimmy Carter (Again)

I've long contended, and continue to think, that Jimmy Carter was the worst president of the United States in the latter half of the 20th century. I was young when he assumed the presidency, but I recall seeming rather impressed with him. (Ah....youth....) He certainly had a considerably more sanguine disposition than the lumbering Gerald Ford, and he didn't have the baggage of Watergate, either. (I recall being aware of Watergate as a child. It seemed weird to me that the president was in so much trouble for letting all the water out of the gate. Did he cause a flood?) But Carter's tenure at the White House turned out to be so bad that the world (and specifically the United States) is still paying for his ineptitude. Sure the Shah was an autocrat, but was Ayatollah Khomenei preferable? It was Carter, not some random twist of fate, that put Khomenei in power. If Carter had followed American policy in regards to backing the Shah, a policy that stretched back to the Eisenhowever Administration, there would not have been an Islamic revolution in Iran. There wouldn't have been 52 American hostages held for 444 days, and more importantly, there wouldn't have been Hezbollah (which subsequently went on to take over Lebanon (along with the Syrians)). Hezbollah was responsible for killing 241 of our Marines (sent there as UN peace-keepers, might I add) in Beirut, as well as kidnapping many, many western journalists, clergymen (remember Terry Waite?), and diplomats. (Hezbollah once sent a videotape to the American embassy in Beirut which found its way to CIA Director Bill Casey. The contents of the video was the murder of a CIA agent who was one of Casey's best friends. In the video, Hezbollah killed him by shoving a tube down his throat and attaching it to a hose, thus drowning him to death. On viewing this video, Bill Casey was inconsolable and purple with rage. He started to formulate the plan to get the release of all western hostages, a plan that would later take shape as Iran-Contra, therafter.) They're still wreaking havoc throughout the region, not to mention perpetrating various acts of mass killing throughout the world. It is not out of the realm of possibilities that had Hezbollah never come into existence, there might've already been a real settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis. Mere speculation on my part, mind, butI can't see how their existence makes it easier. The loss of Iran also resulted in losing a key CIA listening post while the Cold War was still burning hot. I needn't get into the problems Iran is causing at this moment, with its nuclear ambitions and its support of the jihadists in Iraq. Bad policy has long-term consequences, eh?

Carter also embarked on "reforming" the CIA. Positioning Stansfield Turner as director, the CIA was then turned into an affirmative action experiment, with obvious results. Michael Ledeen relates a story about an East German spy who had made contact with the CIA in the hopes of defecting. He told the CIA in Berlin that he would meet at a cafe in West Berlin with his newly-minted contact, but to make sure that the contact was germanic in appearance and demeanor. Inconspicuous was the watch-word. The CIA sent a young black man, who needless to say, stuck out like a sore thumb. The East German spy turned around and walked out of the cafe when he realized who his contact was, never to be heard from again. No wonder Brehznev invaded Afghanistan without reservation. Look at who his geopolitical opposite was? (In case there's any question as to why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, take a look at a map. Afghanistan in and of itself is strategically insignificant; it is land-locked. But over the border was Pakistan, where the Straits of Hormuz ran through. The significance of the Straits of Horuz? It was and continues to be a major artery for the shipping of petroleum. Secure Afghanistan, subsequently conquer Pakistan, and the Cold War would be won....by the Soviets.)

I've vented my spleen about Carter enough for one day. I'll let George Will take it over. To quote Jonah Goldberg at NRO in regards to this column, "Carter should be on all fours searching for his teeth after this one." It's a good rip job, but honest as well.

(Note: Might need to sign up for the article.)

Unexpected Distress From My Mistress

I've been listening to quite a bit of Peter Gabriel-era Genesis as of late, and while I'm more a "music" guy (as opposed to a "lyrics" guy), I've actually taken the time recently to read the lyrics out of context of the music. What I've found is that Peter Gabriel was a heck of a lyricist, and tremendously original one at that. Below I've cut/pasted the words to a tune called "Counting Out Time" which I think are pretty indicative of the man's lyrical abilities. I think it more than humorous that anyone would want to write a song about a kid's inability to successfully apply sexual techniques that he learned in a book, but that's Peter Gabriel for you. Read it, and hopefully you'll enjoy:

I'm counting out time,
Got the whole thing down by numbers
All those numbers!Give my guidance!
O Lord I need that now.
The day of judgement's come,
And you can bet that I've been resting,
For this testing,
Digesting every word the experts say.

Erogenous zones I love you.
Without you, what would a poor boy do?

Found a girl I wanted to date,
Thought I'd better get it straight.
Went to buy a book before its too late.
Dont leave nothing to fate
.And I have studied every line,
every page in the book,
And now Ive got the real thing here,
I'm gonna take a look, take a look.This is Rael!

I'm counting out time,
hoping it goes like I planned it,
'cos I understand it.
Look! I've found the hotspots, Figs 1-9.
Still counting out time,
got my finger on the button,
Dont say nuttin-just lie there still
And Ill get you turned on just fine.

Erongenous zones I love you.
Without you, what would a poor boy do?

Touch and go with 1-6.
Bit of trouble in zone No. 7.
Gotta remember all of my tricks.
There's heaven ahead in No. 11!
Getting crucial responses with dialation of the pupils.
Honey get hip! Its time to unzip, to unzip. Whipee!Move over Casanova!

I'm counting out time,
reaction none to happy,
Please don't slap me,
I'm a red blooded male and the book said I could not fail.
I'm counting out time,
I got unexpected distress from my mistress!
I'll get my money back from the bookstore right away.

Erongenous zones I question you-Without you, what would a poor boy do?
Without you, mankind handkinds thru the blues.

More Porno Boy Stories

Alluded to in the last post was the fact that Porno Boy essentially got himself excommunicated from my erstwhile circle of friends. (Erstwhile due to the fact that almost all have gotten married and moved out of the city, or have gone in a different direction life-wise, but I digress...) The reasons for his excommunication will become apparent shortly. This next story involves all the elements of Porno Boy's execrable traits: drug taking, alcohol intake, racism, and an abject lack of accountability for all of them.

It was St. Patrick's Day, approximately ten years ago. Everyone was smashed (natch). Five or six of us, all young Wall Street types, go to El Dorko's (not his real name) apartment on 5th Ave. and 9th St. to party a bit more. On the elevator ride up, two young Asian fellows get in with us. Porno Boy, in his best (unintented) Archie Bunker-like manner, proceeds to commence on the following verbal attack on them. It went something like this:

Porno-Boy: Youse chinks...you come to our country, you take our jobs....(etc...etc...)

During this entire malignant diatribe of his, all of us kept on trying to shut him up and implored him to cool it with the racist language. His response? "What!?!? What are you on their side!?! (Which prompted one of our group to sardonically exclaim, "Wow...I had no idea there was a race war going on, Porno....") The two Asian fellows, both in suit and tie, just stood there taking it. They were in shock, but I'm sure the reasons for their failure to respond in kind was due to the numerical disadvantage. Probably a wise choice on their part, though the chances of them popping Porno in the mouth and any one of us rushing to his aid were pretty much nil. But they didn't know that. About a half hour later at El Dorko's apartment there's a tap at the door. Lo and behold, two policemen, with the two Asian fellows behind them, all of them with scowls on their faces. To make matters worse, one of these officers was Asian. To make matters even more precarious, there were illegal substances in the apartment, and they were in plain view. Intoxicated though we all were, we all had the presence of mind to stream out of the apartment and shut the door to the apartment before the cops saw the green and white piles of, er, substances. The conversation between Porno and the cops went something like this:

Cop: Who's the guy who said racist comments to these gentlemen?

All Of Us: Tell 'em, Porno [or something to that effect]

[Porno steps up to take his medicine.]

Cop: You know I could book you for a hate crime right now? I'm half-Asian too, pal. So what do you have to say for yourself?

Porno: [Speaking in the direction of the two Asian fellows] Wha?!? C'mon guy, I was just kidding around....you don't have to take things so seriously....

Cop: Buddy, if I have to come up here again, or get anymore complaints about you from anyone else, I'm booking you. Understand? I work in this precinct. I'll personally find you. Got it?

Porno: Yeah...but I was just kidding around...jeez....

After all of this was resolved in the hallway, Porno took a lot of crap for the rest of the night. His normal response was something like, "F*ck youse, youse chink-lovers...." But that was nothing compared to what Porno wound up doing to El Dorko, the guy who lived the building where the event occurred.

The next day after the incident, El Dorko went down to the apartment where these two fellows lived, and apologized profusely. He explained that Porno wasn't his friend, but a friend of his friend (true), and he in no way condoned what was said to them. The two fellows accepted his apology...or so he thought. For the next few days after the incident, El Dorko kept on getting weird looks from his neighbors in the building, if not outright dirty ones. People who normally would make small talk with him in the elevator refused to even acknowledge him. Eventually, one of his neighbors told him that the two guys in the elevator had made a flyer and slipped it under everyone's door in the building, cleverly refraining from putting one under El Dorko's door. The flyer said something like, "El Dorko, the occupant of apartment 605 is a racist!" The rest of the flyer proceeded to recount the whole incident, only it painted El Dorko as the perpetrator. Needless to say, El Dorko wasn't very pleased that his good name had been defiled by Porno, in his building no less. When Porno was told of what had happened to El Dorko, his response was this: "Wow....that El Dorko's a racist, eh!"

True story.

The Wit And Wisdom Of Porno-Boy

My erstwhile drinking buddy, Porno Boy, was known for saying and doing the unexpected. I subsequently distanced myself from him in the interest of saving my own life and limb. That said, he provided some major comic relief from time to time. Never in my life will I come across a character who'll say more outrageous things to more unsuspecting people. I was recently reminded of an encounter he had with a young lady about eight or nine years ago. The dialogue went like this:

Porno Boy: You know...you look like a friend of mine...

Young Lady: Is that meant to be a compliment?

Porno Boy: I dunno...his name's Jeff.

As I remember more, I'll post them. Some of them are not fit for public consumption, as they violate the wholesome ethic I seek to preserve on this blog. But I'll leave you with one more. This exchange involved a young lady who rejected his advances. Bear in mind, all of these encounters occurred whilst under the influence of massive amounts of alcohol:

Young Lady: I'm not interested.

Porno Boy: Hey...that's okay. But you might want to do something about that mustache, kid. That might fly in Romania, but it doesn't here.


Just be lucky you were never friends with him, folks....

Nagasaki

"Fat Man" was the name of the plutonium bomb dropped on the city of Nagasaki on this day, sixty years ago. One footnote in history has gotten lost in the story: that Nagasaki wasn't supposed to get the bomb. The city of Kokura was the original target, but due to heavy cloud cover, the B-29 carrying the bomb (Bock's Car) could not get a sighting on the city. As was the standard operating procedure of the day, when a bomber or bombers could not a get a fix on a primary target due to thick cloud cover, they had a secondary target already picked prior to the mission. That secondary target was Nagasaki. Talk about dumb luck...

Did You Know That Baseball Was A Lesbian Sport?

Neither did I. But Sharon Stone seems to think it is, along with golf and fishing. Based on this logic, my (now) casual affection for baseball renders me 1/3rd lesbian. What a relief.

Yes, You Too Can Create Your Own Conspiracy Theory!

I'm often asked by members of my voluminous fan base how I come across some of these esoteric websites. My answer is very simple: ancient Chinese secret. That said, I offer to the multitudes a new website, which enables one to concoct one's own idea of what kind evil endeavor the Bush Administration is cooking up, or already has cooked up. Enjoy.

Great Moments In Celebrity Idiocy

"I don't believe (monogamy) is realistic. But, I believe that we, as people, have the power to make it happen."

--Kate Hudson

A Few Thoughts On This Day

An interview with the navigator of the B-29 Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, this day sixty years ago:


SPIEGEL: Do you feel any regrets today about dropping the first bomb?

Van Kirk: I'm not proud of all the deaths it caused, and nobody is. But how do you win a war without killing people? If you don't want to kill people, you should not start a war. And I think people that go around and start wars for any reason whatsoever are crazy, but that's another story. When you have a war, there is only one thing to do in my opinion, and that is make damn sure you win it and expend any energy that you must in order to bring that war to a rapid conclusion with a minimum loss of life.

You can read it in its entirety here.

Sixty years ago today, a B-29 Superfortress by the name of Enola Gay (named after Cpt. Paul Tibbett's mother) flew over the city of Hiroshima, dropping a uranium-filled explosive bomb nicknamed "Little Boy". In one fell swoop, 60,000 lives were vaporized, 10,000 of which were members of the Japanese Imperial Army. (The Japanese 2nd Army was stationed there.) Strangely, the Japanese didn't immediately and unconditionally surrender. They didn't even do that after another B-29 Superfortress (Bock's Car) three days later dropped a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki, incinerating another 40,000 Japanese. No...the surrender eventually came on August 15, nine days after Hiroshima and six days after Nagasaki. Contrary to the writings of faux historians like Howard Zinn and other far-left historical revisionists, Japan had no intention of surrendering before or after the bombs. It was only after Emperor Hirohito, the only man in the Japanese government who's word was indisputable, capitulated did Japanese hostilities cease. In the interim between the Nagasaki conflagration on August 9 and eventual surrender on August 15, US forces lost the following: several American flyers were captured and subsequently decapitated, the submarine Bonefish was sunk (no survivors), and two Destroyers, the Underhill and the Callaghan, were sunk. In the Pacific Theatre of Operations, American casualties were running at an average of 7,000 a week. The last week of the Second World War was no exception to that average. In addition, the Japanese were holding well over 40,000 American POWs. The Geneva Convention didn't apply to the Japanese, for over 12,000 American POWs had already been decapitated, worked to death, or denied sufficient medical treatment...resulting in death. (Consider that the Germans had over 100,000 Allied POWs, of which only 2% perished in their custody, normally due to escape attempts or malnutrition.) Emperor Hirohito eventually gave a taped surrender address on August 15; in its wake, the Minister of War and all of the Japanese military high command, who had attempted a coup d'etat and actually imprisoned Hirohito to prevent him from surrendering, all committed suicide. The war was over. But even after two atomic bombs, it was not a certainty. The military high command had no interest in surrender; their actions revealed their intent.

Various theories as to why the bomb was dropped have been floated over the last sixty years, many of which attempt to depict the United States as the villain. Among them are that Truman dropped the bomb in Japan to impress the Soviets, that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway and it was dropped out of vengeance, and that the Japanese got it instead of the Germans for racist reasons. Let me take a moment to confront all three and eliminate the apocryphal nature of all three contentions: The bomb was dropped to end the war. Period. End of story. The alternatives to dropping the bomb were so hideous that they actually made the atomic bomb look humane. For one, Gen. Curtis LeMay planned to completely incinerate the Japanese home islands vis-a-vis incendiary bombing. Since the European war was over, he would've had an additional 10,000 B-17s and B-24s arriving to Pacific air bases within weeks. The British, with 1000 Lancaster heavy bombers, would've contributed 11,000 additional bombers. Considering that a firebombing of Tokyo, done a few weeks before Hiroshima and Nagasaki, claimed 150,000 lives, one can easily see what the toll would've been. Secondly, the invasion of the Japanese home islands would've cost the Allies 500,000 casualties. Faux historian Howard Zinn claims this number was concocted "out of thin air" and claims that an invasion of Japan would've cost "only" 46,000 Allied lives. One more Allied life would've been cause enough to drop the bombs, in my opinion. Zinn also contends that the war would've ended, at the latest, by November of 1945. A quick calculation of that, sixteen more weeks of war at an average of 7,000 American casualties a day, comes out to an additional 112,000 American casualties. (Amazing how Zinn so blithely makes these unresearched, poorly thought out statements. Food for the malignant, I guess. But I digress....)

There is no reason to celebrate this anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. Some wars are justified, some are not, but they are without exception awful. The best that one can wish to do this day is give thanks that this horrible device, which claimed 100,000 people in two explosions, stanched the overwhelming additional carnage (which would've run into the several millions) that would've resulted had the bomb never been exploded at all.

If This Is True...

The Drudge Report has broken a story that claims the New York Times is looking into the adoption records of John Roberts' two children. I'll wait a few days before passing final judgement on this, but if this is correct, it would signify a new low in journalism. Arthur Sulzberger Jr's name will have been placed along side the names of other rotten figures in yellow journalism: James Callender, Benjamin Franklin Bache, Philip Freneau, William Randolph Hearst, etc.

The Times better not be guilty of this. They're already on thin ice as it is.

Weirdly Delusional

"This election is a shockwave of voter discontent that will be felt all across the country. Every Republican in Congress should consider himself put on notice. Tonight, we have seen rock-solid Republicans say that they have had enough of a Congress that is in the grips of the special interests, roiled by ethics investigations and doing nothing to help solve the pressing challenges facing the middle class."

--Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rahm Emmanuel


"The issues, political and ethics environment are good for Democrats, and Paul Hackett's campaign in a Republican district proves it. Republicans are on notice -- Americans are demanding a change. Americans will no longer tolerate the Republicans' continued abuses of power and catering to corporate special interests at the expense of the public interest."

--House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi

"The post-mortems will come in the coming days, but for now, I'm happy with what everyone accomplished in Ohio. It's a new day for the Democratic Party, one in which no Republican district is safe."

--Markos Moulitsas, Daily Kos

Clearly these quotes are referring to a recent election. The question I have is is how many of you think the candidate being spoken of won the election that is being discussed? Take a moment before you read further......got your answer in your mind? Okay...the election results in question are the ones in Ohio's Second Congressional District between Republican Jean Schmidt and Democrat Paul Hackett. Guess what? The Democratic congressional nominee, Paul Hackett, lost. But judging by the quotes above, you'd think that he won resoundingly. Now, I'm all for trying to find the positives in defeat, but these quotes seem to project a strange kind of psychosis, one not only of denial, but of outright delusion. How any of the aforementioned can spin this election, one of the few congressional elections this year, into a resounding victory, when in fact their candidate went down to defeat, simply compells me to shake my head. Was it a tighter race for this particular congressional district than in the past? Sure, but special elections don't usually draw out a large amount of voter participation. Do GOP candidates in this district usually blow out Democratic candidates? Sure. But a win of 52% to 48%, close though it may be, has to be put in context. Again, this was a special election called because the prior Ohio congressman left his post to take a position in the Bush Administration. Here is the voter breakdown in comparison to past election cycles:

2002-184,100 R-136,523 D-47,618
2004-310,000 R-227,102 D-89,598
2005-111,000 R-57,974 D-54,401

Make note of the totals. The 2005 election had appreciably less voter turnout than in last years election, and less than even the mid-term elections in '02. This is what has the Democrats excited, that their congressional candidate lost by approximately 4%, instead of getting blow out like theirs did in '04?

Weirdly delusional, indeed.

Abusive (Founding) Fathers

John Adams on Benjamin Franklin:

"His whole life has been one continued insult to good manners and to decency."

Benjamin Franklin on John Adams:

"He means well for his country, is always and honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes, and in some things, absolutely out of his senses."

Thomas Jefferson on John Adams:

"He hates Franklin, he hates [John] Jay, he hates the French, he hates the English. To whom will he adhere?"

Open letter to George Washington from Thomas Paine:

"...the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor, whether you have abandoned good principles or whether you ever had any."

John Adams on Thomas Paine:

" [He is] the satyr of the age...a mongrel between pig and puppy, begotten by a wild board on a butch wolf..."

John Adams on Alexander Hamilton:

"That bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar [sic]"

Adams later stated in regards to Hamilton:

"I shall pay no regard to his puppyhood."

Tidal Wave

"The tap-root of German mechanized power" was how Winston Churchill described the oil refineries located in Ploesti, Romania. He was not incorrect in this assessment; the Ploesti refineries accounted for close to 40% (some intel put it as high as 60%)of all German petroleum consumption during the Second World War. On August 1, 1943, 177 B-24 Liberator heavy bombers flying out of Benghazi, Libya, flew across the Aegean Sea to hit this extremely important target. The operation was code named Tidal Wave. For the purpose of avoiding radar detection, the bomber groups all flew 100 feet above the ground and maintained strict radio silence. (Consider that the normal altitude maintained during bombing raids during the war was 35,000 feet.) They probably shouldn't have bothered. When they arrived at Ploesti, the Germans were waiting for them, having been tipped off by eyewitnesses on the ground far from the target who radioed in. Additionally, contrary to the contention made by Allied intelligence that the target wasn't heavily defended, Ploesti was the most heavily fortified location under German control outside of Germany proper. The Germans had been expecting them for close to a year. And then the inevitable commenced: the German Luftwaffe squandrons and the ground defenses blew American bombers out of the sky virtually at will. Some bombers hit their designated refinery targets, but most didn't even get the opportunity. Of the 177 bombers that took off from Benghazi, only 33 made it back. The rest were either forced to crash land in Romania and became POWs, landed in Turkey and thus were interned (Turkey was officially neutral during WWII, and would detain any member of the warring factions), or were obliterated outright. Almost a third of the approximately 1700 bomber crewmen that flew the mission lost their lives. And the Ploesti refineries, far from being destroyed, were quickly repaired with little change in production output. American bombers would revisit Ploesti several times afterwards, but at 35,000 feet. Ploesti never ceased production until the Soviet Red Army overran Romania late in the war.

Five Medals of Honor were awarded to participants of the Ploesti mission. It remains the most amount awarded for a single mission. That this mission is largely forgotten today is the reason for this post, this first day of August. It happened this day, sixty two years ago.

No blood for oil. If only.

(Those interested in further study on this can see pics here and read more here.)

Quotes Of The Day

"For God's sake, my dear Sir, take up your pen, select the most striking heresies, and cut him to pieces in the face of the public!"

--Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to James Madison, imploring him to keep up all efforts to destroy Alexander Hamilton.

"No character, however upright, is a match for constantly reiterated attacks, however false."

--Alexander Hamilton, in his report to the House of Representatives regarding his alleged misuse of treasury funds; the accusations were fomented by the Jefferson and his minions.