Sunday, December 12, 2004

Black on Black

On White


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
Manning Marable, an African-American historian at Columbia University, summarized the case against (Clarence) Thomas at the outset of his court career: "Even though he is black in terms of his racial identity, Thomas in terms of his political program, in terms of his repudiation of civil rights, is arguably . . . the whitest man in America." . . .
What does that mean?

Is black, or being black, an issue of skin color and genetics, or is it merely defined by a social agenda? Is being white more about what position one takes on an issue, or is it about a lack of melanin? Is being 'black' or being 'white' that simplistic?

Or are 'black' and 'white' politicized concepts that no longer contain meaning beyond opportunistic rhetoric? Where it is actually to the benefit of certain groups or persons to attempt to stabilize and solidify racial disharmony in the interest of their personal agendas and aspirations. Where their personal success is more important than racial harmony. Or, subtly, where their success and livlihood has become dependent on the maintenance of the status quo of racial tension?

I am taking Mr. Marable's comment out of context, and am now running with the ball in that direction. I am not at this point saying this is how Mr. Marable feels. But there are a lot of questions raised in my mind by his comments on Clarence Thomas.

If it is just a matter of social agenda, why do we not ever hear about a white man being the most black man in America? Or can't white people have a social agenda? In terms of actual numbers, there are more downtrodden poor and un or under educated white people in American than any other race.

Why is it that when Black people 'act white' it is generally defined (by blacks) as being successful and having their own opinions that don't toe the race line, but when white people 'act black' it is generally defined (by blacks and whites) as being a rap singer and grabbing your crotch continuously?

And why are 'being white' and 'opposed to affirmative action' two phrases that go together like Ham and Eggs?

Can you not be considered successful by the black community in any fields besides sports/entertainment, religion, education or public service and still be considered black? What does that mean, "to be considered black" and why is it that being downtrodden and unsuccessful, but 'still black' is preferable to 'acting white' as a successful and productive scientist for example?

And why do some black people seem to want it to stay that way? fb

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

NoWriMoFo

I be a Novel Writing Mo Fo!


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Official NaNoWriMo 2004 Winner!


Yes, it is true. I have written 50,096 words. However, my opus is not yet completed. I have probably another one or two k worth to write to get to the end.

So, this will end up being about 53,000 words, or so.

It's been... interesting. Frankly, I wondered if I would be able to do it. That is until the first 2000 words of pure literary tripe oozed from my fingers like ripe bananas. Or something. Then I knew I had the gift. Er, curse. You know, that muse thing, ragged little bitch that she was scrabbling over my shoulder.

Anyway, I shall now embark on my next project: Clean up my novel, now titled
At the Sign of the Screaming Monkey's Head - Sylk:Beginnings
and see how many rejection slips I can generate.

Until whenever, fb

Sunday, November 21, 2004

Clinton Adult Bookstore Opens To Public


Palm Harbor Homes Proud of Clinton "Library"
Amid much fanfare, the Clinton Adult Bookstore opened to the Public earlier this week.

Pictured above during construction, a Palm Harbor spokesman commented on Post Modern Trailerhome design used to build the Clinton Adult Bookstore, colloquially called a Library, and defended their design as being consistent with the content of the library, and with the state that bore Clinton.

The spokesman also went on to say that they are very excited about the sales potential to future homeowners, as they do own the full rights to this particular design.

Friday, November 19, 2004

Quick Hits

1. Enough with the Monday Night Football intro already!! As conservative as I am, I have to say “big freaking deal!” I am quite certain that our country’s morals aren’t going to go down the toilet over this incident. In fact, two weeks from now, we will all be griping about something else.

What we should be complaining about is that the idiots in Arlington, Texas voted to spend shit-loads of money to build a rich-man’s palace for the Dallas Cowboys. They should send some of the money to Nicolette Sheridan so she could afford some clothes! Maybe a box of rubbers would be more appropriate.

2. Another stupid lawsuit. A man in a Lexus SUV doesn’t see his two year old daughter behind him and accidentally kills her when he backs out. What does he do? He files a lawsuit against Lexus. Why? Because the vehicle was too big. Two suggestions for this guy – a) try looking behind you before you back out and b) by a Mini Cooper!

I am deeply saddened by the fact that he lost his daughter, especially by his own doing, but IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE CAR MANUFACTURER!!! This case should be thrown out and he should have to pay the attorney’s fees for LEXUS!

3. The election was over two and a half weeks ago and still the world hasn’t collapsed as some have predicted. Hmm… interesting. Maybe the sky isn’t falling after all?

Thursday, November 18, 2004

NaNoWriMo, 29k plus

58% done. Success Imminent


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
Hola. I no be here long time cause writing novel. bye.
fb

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Quote a Blogger

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.


Regarding the trumpeted FACT that the NASTY Republicans only won because of the non-reality based method of herding the STUPID Republicans into voting by SCARING them with the issue of Same Sex Marriage:

Do I have have any other offerings of proof? Sure. The measures passed in many states by margins larger than Bush won. In Michigan, for example, the measure passed with 60% of the vote. Bush lost Michigan and Kerry won it with 51%. That means that Kerry voters HAD TO HAVE VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT.

From The Queen

The New Official Brew of The Global Exclaimer

Skittlebraü


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
Homer: "Got any of that beer that has candy floating in it? You know, Skittlebrau?"
Apu: "Such a beer does not exist, sir. I think you must have dreamed it."
Homer: "Oh. Well, then just give me a six-pack and a couple of bags of Skittles."

fb

Thursday, November 04, 2004

The Electoral College

Shut Up Already


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
Now that the election is over, and this particular election does not have the ludicrously phrased issue of 'the moral weight' of the popular vote (said phrase used in the 2000 election to indicate Gore should be President) I'd like to point out something.

The Electoral College does register the popular vote -- State by State. We are, after all, The United States. A very deliberate decision was made to allow these sovereign states the ability to retain some impact in National Elections regardless of population. Alaska has like 12 people in it. But it is a huge state, larger than Texas and California combined, with a wealth of natural resources. The 12 people that choose to live there have rights as citizens of the State of Alaska. So, they vote as a STATE for the President. That vote is based on the popular vote IN THAT STATE.

Moral Weight. What a phrase. There is nothing moral about taking the voice of an entire state and simply telling that state they don't have enough people to matter. Who is going to speak for the needs of Alaska? People in New York? People in Texas? Nope. I don't care about Alaska, and neither does Hillary. Alaska people are supposed to care about Alaska, it's their state, not mine.

But if we do go to a nation wide popular vote situation, then the last vestiges of States Rights will soon dissolve. We won't be the United States of America. This is perhaps too subtle a point for many. So look at it this way.

How would you feel about every issue germane to your state being decided by someone in Nevada? Hell, legalized gambling and prostitution are good for Nevada, let's make it a national policy! Or, how about the farmer in Iowa having decisions about crops and farm aid and etc., made by retirees in Florida? Does that make any sense?

The people that choose to live in Nebraska, have rights in their state. And the needs of the people in that state must have some weight in national politics, or they will simply be ignored.

If you think States Rights matters, then you have to be in favor of the Electoral College. Do you think any party would have spent any time in Arkansas otherwise? And for all the people whining in New York about the popular vote in 2000, what they were saying, in a very self-centered manner, is this: "People in New York matter more than people in Nebraska." Hell, the probably believe that.

The people in Nebraska don't feel that way. Don't they have rights as well? Where is the morality in saying "You just don't have enough people to matter?"

Couldn't the same thing be said to African-Americans? They're only 13% of the population, who cares? Ignore them.

Is that what we really want? To ignore people because there just aren't enough of them to qualify as 'moral weight'?
fb

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

The Greatest Day


By Daver

In my mind, there is o greater day in America than Election Day. Finally, after months of discussion, spinning, arguing, debating, name-calling, mud-slinging, sniping, whining, lying, heritage questioning, etc., we have the right and the duty to select our own leaders peacefully.

Today was even better than usual. As I left my neighborhood on my way to work this morning, I passed my local polling place and saw that there were virtually no parking places left. Now, this was at a fairly large church, so parking should not have been a problem. As I drove by, I was thankful that I had voted early and also mused on the following items:

1. Where else in the world can you be so free and open about your opinion? If you think Kerry would be a failure, say it. If you think the President is a bumbling fool, go a head and say it. You will find some who agree with you and some who think you are the bumbling fool. What you won’t find is a bunch of thugs hired by the President to rub out your children because of your opinion.

2. How wonderful is it that, no matter who wins the election, this is still the greatest country on earth. So what if your guy doesn’t win? Despite what many politicos will have you believe, America will not go to hell in the next 4 years. It didn’t spell doom for us when Nixon disgraced the office in 1974 and it didn’t spell doom when Monica went down on Bill in Oval Office. Thankfully, our founding fathers put a system of checks and balances in place to keep one person from sinking the country.

3. A peaceful transfer of power if Kerry wins, and a peaceful transition into a second term if Bush wins. We have never had bloodshed or a coup in this country.

4. Finally, how great is it to fight, argue, name-call, etc., with fellow citizens over political views? I may be right, you may be right, we both may be wrong on any given subject. However, at the end of the day, we are still Americans and we still live in the most wonderful country on this planet. We will unite when it is needed and we will argue and debate when we can. My view has no more merit on election day than any one else’s opinion.

Thank God for the United States of America! May we all come together after today and work with the President Elect to keep this the greatest country on earth.

Today We Vote

Tomorrow We Look To The Future


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
Once again, an amazing thing will happen in our country. The people will choose their servant-leaders. I marvel again at the wisdom of our Founding Fathers. We are governed by a document, The Constitution of The United States of America. Our Nation voluntarily subjected itself to a document. Something in writing which remains today as a legacy of our past. The sheer genius astounds those that contemplate it carefully.

We pledge no allegiance to a person, as persons are corruptible. We pledge our allegiance to a flag, and a republic for which it stands. Something thus far incorruptible.

Tomorrow, we are Americans, first, last, always.
fb

Sunday, October 31, 2004

An Open Letter Back To Lefty

Being a promised response to his open letter


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
That small group of relatives and friends that read the Glob Blog have noted with interest the political nature of the blogging going on, and the interesting group of people that stumbled across The Glob and actually came back! And, they even let me post to their blogs and don't erase them or anything!

Even more interesting, and actually invigorating, is the nature of the political debate. It is heated yet mostly courteous. The ones styled as on the left are erudite and more than capable of supporting their arguments. These are Lefty Jones and This We'll Defend, and you can link to their blogs in my blog list yonder.

During these last days before the election, I posted a somewhat whiny comment to one of Lefty's posts. He correctly identified the emotion behind it, and graciously responded with an open letter to me. He then posted specific thoughts regarding the war in Iraq.

I said I would reply, and do so now here in this post. PLEASE NOTE: I have attempted to incorporate a table into this post. For some reason, it doesn't work just right. It's down there somewhere. It is a Point/Counter Point, so, in the spirit of these things, I shall start with "Lefty, you ignorant slut..." (Anyone not old enough to know the Saturday Night Live reference here, please understand, that was a joke. I do not think Lefty is a slut. ;-)

Typos abound. Sorry. Scroll down please. Way down. Keep going... Down down down, to that burning ring of fire...





























































































Lefty's
thoughts are here on, well, the left.
Frater's
thoughts are here on, the middle of the page. OK, the right side of the table (Nuance, fellas, nuance.)
Bush wants Bin Laden and vows we will get him "Dead or Alive"
I think we can all agree with that

Invasion of Afghanistan- Bush warns that " Bin Laden can run but he can't hide" and "that we will smoke him out of his hole"
I think everyone wanted this to be true.

Bush claims, "you're either with us or you're against us" as a general threat to the countries of the world. As a general threat, or as a general policy shift? This war against an ideology rather than a state requires different tactics. At the time this was said, I agreed. My interpretation was, if you are housing
terrorists, than you are against us, and we are going to do something about it. The problem with that is the very nationalistic/jingoistic mindset that entails. It also limits your diplomatic options, making everything an issue of force.
Fall/Winter of 2002- The build up to war with Iraq no comment beyond, Hussein had options to prevent this, had he only allowed UN inspections to carry on unimpeded. You can't blame Bushfor the fact Saddam miscalculated.
January 2003- Iraq is a clear and present danger according to the administration This issue can and will be talked about for years. Personally, I think Iraq was a clear and present beachhead in a strategic war agains terrorism; the only nation we had any pretense of legal recourse to go in and take over. Yes, I know what I just said. I didn't say I agreed with it. The whole WMD thing was a marketing ploy, to put it plainly.

Yes, I have huge problems with this.

This is not the kind of war we are used to fighting. History will tell if the right decisions were made.
We are warned and shown the locations of the weapons that are known as WMD's and that are a direct threat to our security. I now make the tired and long expressed argument that everyone thought they were there. Intelligence failures to be addressed below.
America Invades Iraq

Occupation begins
true
No WMD's are found true to date
Bush photo op's onto a plane in flight suit- you know......"Mission Accomplished" and declares the end to major combat. This was, in my opinion, for the troops, not for you and I sitting in our easy chairs. It had the intended effect on the troops. It was misguided, in my opinion. It was certianly premature, but that is easy to say with our new glasses on.
Still looking for weapons. yes
Sadaam Hussein found in hole. yes
Factions of resistance become harder to put down By this time, I more or less expected this. We are seeing why Hussein ran his country the way he did. I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that it is apparently necessary given the socio/politico/religiotico(?) circumstances. By our standards of evaluation, everyone over there is crazy. Hussein ruled with an Iron Fist in an Admantium Glove.

Once his enemies were certain he wasn't coming back, they began their own power plays.

This demonstrates a very fundamental misunderstanding of who we are dealing with over there.
hostages being taken by terrorists/resistance groups Yes. Terror is the primary weapon.
No " 911" link between Iraq and Bin Laden found.


Tenuous links between the group are found at all.
I put these two together as they are contradictory. Tenuous is one word. Potential is another. Limited is another. Few is another. Non-existent is another.
They all modify 'link'. In this situation, there are either links, or there are not. You can't have a 'tenuous' link without having a link.

So, there was a link or two of some sort.
The 'evidence' is contradictory. Enough evidence to go to war? I don't think so. Leastways, not by the usual methods of determing whether to go to war or not. But, see above, I don't think that is why we went.
Intelligence flaws are bandied about, smaller players in the administration admit that our intelligence wasn't as good as it should have been. This is pretty much an accepted fact. This is the result of Clinton's shortsighted administration foreign policy decisions. I make that statement because the decisions of a president that don't clearly focus on 1/3 of his constitutionally defined job (foreign affairs) affects all of us for years to come. Still, it is now an easy target. We can all point and say Bush is an idiot for not having better intelligence before going in.
Terrorism inside Iraq is now flourishing....around 1100 American
soldiers are dead, over 7000 wounded and.....

uncounted numbers....thousand upon thousand of Iraqi's are dead, maimed,
disfigured, charred. Children without hands, legs, parents, homes or a future.
This is a product of going in to Iraq. No doubt.
Among Kerry's more interesting statements about how we are in the wrong war, blah blah, and he would have not gone in, but if he did, blah blah, is the IGNORANT assumption that if you are going to fight terrorists, they will not fight back.

Let's not all be amazed that they are fighting back, OK? I mean really.

The terrorism that is there is not really the issue, is it? Isn't your main point that we should not have gone in when we did, or at all?
Claimed hope that elections will occur after new year.....significant
portion of the country is not under coalition control.
This can still happen. Whatever the war situation is over there, you aren't getting enough relevant information from the media to comment.
Skipping a few statements of accepted fact
Against 225 years of history and precedent we attacked a nation,
and KILLED a lot of people because we believed that this nation posed a
threat.
This is an important statement by you. I was concerned about the concept, and stated to friends and family that I felt this was a bad precedent to set. We had never been in the business of regime change in the past. The long term repercussions are unforseeable. The WTC attacks have changed the face of national defense. The rush to war in Iraq I basically opposed. The concept of Hussein giving WMD to terrorists made me think, well, maybe this one time we need to.
The intelligence was wrong at best. We now use the ends to justify the means. This is one way of looking at it. The ends justifying the means. I don't believe the ends justify the means, but historically, a lot of people have died for just that reason.
The intelligence was wrong. We can talk about whose fault that is, and we can talk about Bush's use of what he had available, etc. But the ends don't justify the means. That does not mean the end may not be a favorable outcome to our nation.

It does mean we have blood on our hands.
You're either with us or against us.

You don't support the troops

Sadaam was a bad man, he gassed his own people

It's either over there or it's going to be over here

You have to stay on the offensive in terror

The most offensive thought out there is that if somehow you don't support
this war that you are unpatriotic or a threat to our own country!

Maybe the worst of these comments is,:

Hey...I agree it's a shame that Iraqi's are dying but you know, freedom comes at a cost, it's not free and besides, imagine living how terrible living under Sadaam Hussein was.

I have heard the democrats say that the Republicans say all these things. I don't say them, and none of my friends or associates say them. Bush said it about countries housing terrorists, not about American citizens.

When Kerry says some of the things he says, in his political position, I think it harms the world's perception of the solidarity of our country, and that does affect the war effort.

But, he can say what he wants, this is a free country. I don't have to like him for it. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
--Thomas Jefferson

That is an American viewpoint, and it is assumed that the people yearning for freedom have decided to do something about it.

He never said, "Go ye, and find ye the oppressed and kill ye them to set them free." That's kind of their job, not ours.

I disagree fundamentally with our role in regime change.

Of course the people don't want war.

But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy,
and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a
democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy.

All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."


-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials



This is chilling. And used to good effect by you in this context. I'm
adding it to my list of quotes on the side.



I added this, Lefty didn't put it in:


Therefore Vote Kerry.


Not so fast Lefty! See commentary below.

So, some may be thinking "Well, he kind of mostly agrees with Lefty, it appears, so why is he supporting Bush?" Valid question.

This war is something new. We have never before embarked upon a war of preemption on what amounts to an ideology when said ideology was not attached to a specific State. The closest thing would be Communism. Those were state philosophies. We are dealing with a religion that cuts across political boundaries. There is no State to deal with. There is not clear cut leadership to deal with. All the norms for waging war are suspect. All the norms for protecting your citizenry have been called into question.

But we are treating this war like there is a finite enemy to go after (Osama Bin Laden) and one place to go (Afghanistan) and declaring anything else WRONG. Fine. Except Osama Bin Laden is the flavor of the month in Islamic Terrorism.

Why did he order the attacks on the Pentagon, The WTC, and (probably) the White House? *crickets chirping*

What could we have done to prevent someone from hating us for liberating Kuwait? *crickets chirping*

Some would say, our support of Israel is the cause. So, who believes that Islamic Fundamentalists would not try to kill Americans if we walked away from Israel? Or to put it more succinctly, Is There Anyone That Islamic Fundamentalists Are Not Willing To Kill For Their Obscure Causes? *crickets chirping*

To win a war, you have to know the Climate, if you will. The Terrain. The Opponent.

The fundamental and unappreciated fact is that this war does not share the assumed Climate, Terrain, Opponent, etc., of past conflicts in our recent history. Most commentary and debate about this war is coming from the perspective that this is just another war, like any other in the last 100 years.

That flawed assumption renders all of Lefty's points above as suspect in their inception, and probably irrelevant. We are fighting a religious ideology with no recognizable political identity. There is no head of state to address. No one to demand an accounting of. This is a brand new situation to all of us living today.

Kerry does not understand that his basic assumptions are irrelevant. Therefore, all his thought, nuance, careful consideration, etc., are worse than useless. He is preparing to play a football game. But the game is baseball. The rules are different. The field of play is different. Offense and defense are different. And he has failed to recognize that.

Bush does recognize this, in my opinion. He is not perfect, and he has and will make mistakes. Let's all quit pretending that every war, every conflict, every attempt to safeguard our nation has not had monumental blunders in the past. Let's all quit allowing Kerry to basically state "I will never make a mistake. There will be no blunders on my watch. All is forseeable. All can be planned for." So, the big deal now is that 0.06% of the known Iraqi arsenal was looted. So what. Yes, I said So What. Anyone that thinks that all of the ordnance in Iraq was securable while in the process of invading the country and attempting to take it over is not living in the real world. That is the mindest brought into court by trial lawyers, as they sue some company because someone cuts their own hand off with a chain saw. The fantasy world of Edwards, which Kerry apparently subscribes to, is that there is no such thing as a mistake. There is only incompetence, and someone should pay. Preferably someone with a big bank account.

Well, that may play in the courtroom of today here in the USA, where idiots that cut their hands off are treated as victims. But the rest of the world doesn't care.

Bush is in uncharted territory. Iraq is a strategic outpost in that territory. A beachead in the war on terror. The Native American Indians in the war on Terror, if you want to put it that way. Yes, I know what I am saying. It sounds cold blooded.

It's war. But, it's not your grandfather's war, our your dad's or your's. This is new. To us. The rise of the Nation State is relatively new in human history. This type of war, being waged by barely connected groups tied together solely by religious ideology and family ties is centuries and centuries old, and has been waged on local levels for those thousands of years. Modern technology makes it possible to export this formerly ignorable type of war.

Kerry does not understand. Bush does.

I now go into seclusion to write a science fiction story. Everyone go vote. I don't care who you vote for. Just Go Vote.

Afterward, I will not move to France regardless of who wins. I will not wail and gnash my teeth. I will trust in our Constitution, and our People. God Bless America.
fb

Friday, October 29, 2004

Self Proclaimed President-Elect John Kerry
Has Cake, Eats It Too!

"There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction, but the ones that were there Bush failed to Secure!"


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
OK. "The Weapons have left the Building", says John Kerry. At times describing these as WMDs. Which is it? Were there WMDs in Iraq, or weren't there? Does it matter? Not to Kerry. He's been saying all along they were never there. Yet, I read one quote where he called them WMD.

Look at what facts and the truth mean to Kerry. He runs his campaign in a fluid shifting foggy world of Drive By Opionating. The Truth May Be Out There, But He Doesn't Care.

What matters to Kerry is whether or not anything, any soundbite, any bit of unsubstantiated random bit of information, will provide him with a WMD* against Bush. Information is sought and evaluated solely on what potential harm it can cause the President's campaign in these last few days. Truth? Careful evaluation? Bah! Who needs it? Not Kerry, who seems convinced the American Public has a combined IQ even lower than GW, and the memory of a gold fish.

At present it appears very likely that large quantities of these munitions were not there when our troops arrived, having been spirited away by the Russians into Syria (or Libya? does it matter?) a month or more before we got there. These things were tagged by UN inspectors. Why? What were they? The types of detonators used to ram two pieces of weapons grade fissionable materials together, creating a nuclear reaction?

Well, I'm going to say that is exactly what they were. I don't need proof. If a man aspiring to be President of the United States of America won't verify something before presenting it to the American People as fact, WHY SHOULD I?

Anyway, if I am proved to be wrong, I'll just change my mind, and explain that I was misquoted, and that my readership failed to understand nuance, or parody, or irony, or whatever the hell else pops out of my mouth.

fb

*Weapon of Mass Disinformation

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Classic Global Exclaimer

or The Glob Re-gurgitated



By Daver
Chief Cynic and Sarcastic Bastard

In an effort to return the Global Exclaimer to its inane roots, we present the first in an occasional series of Global Exclaimer Classics. This is especially important now as Mark has decided to participate in some bizarre Nanu Nanu Rhino thing and may not be posting regularly.

The article below is the original Daver rant, first published (on paper) in December 2002. At the time, we were reading and hearing about the ridiculous possibility that fast food restaurants might be liable for their fat-ass customers inability to mix in a salad every once in a while.

Enjoy!


A poem of a Big Mac, a sandwich so large.
I’ve had so many of them, my friends call me McBarge.
My body is big enough to cruise the Mississip,
because of the burgers that went past my lip.

Who would have known that those twin patties of meat,
would soon cause me to lose sight of my feet.
I have a special craving for that sesame seed bun,
that has pushed my mass up to a quarter ton.

Listen closely now, I don’t want to sound snooty,
but someone’s responsible for the size of my booty.
It’s not my fault that I look like a blimp,
I guess it’s a good thing there is no McShrimp.

Some McDonald named Ronald has created the need,
and provided fatty foods on which I can feed.
They manipulated me into thinking that I,
had to have Big Macs, milkshakes and fries.

I’ll show that McDonald, here’s what I shall do,
I’ll find a scumbag lawyer and together we’ll sue.
This would be sad if it weren’t so freaking funny,
my bulk will soon be buoyed by Ronny Mc’s money!


What has this great country come to? This idea that McDonald’s is responsible for obesity in America’s children is so stinking ridiculous that it sounds like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch, except that Lorne Michaels, producer of such crap such as SNL, Here’s Pat, The Hot Chick, A Night at the Roxbury, etc., would surely pass on an inane sketch about suing a major corporation because of personal stupidity.

Where are the parents in this entire scenario? Were they held at gunpoint by a red-haired clown? I can see it now – Ronald McDonald carjacking a soccer mom and her minivan of preteen girls and forcing them to go to Mickey D’s for a load of fat grams. I think this all comes down to weak parents who are afraid to be parents to their offspring. Instead, they want to be buddies with the kiddies and allow them to eat crappy foods. Heaven forbid that parents might actually see to it that their children get good food to eat!

Really, how responsible is Mickey D’s in this whole thing? I don’t seem to remember seeing any advertising ever that touted ANYTHING on the menu as being good for you. Their sign doesn’t exclaim “Billions of Healthy Burgers Served.” I do remember that they tried once to serve a McLean burger, but it failed miserably. Why did it fail? The McLean failed because of supply and demand (coincidentally, one of the foundations of this great land). Nobody wanted to go to McDonald’s and eat something good for them. The public demands fast, inexpensive, fatty foods and Ron McD is happy to supply it. America, what a country!

The real problem here is that there are lawyers in this country who prey on poor, simple-minded citizens. You see it everywhere – no matter what happens to you, there will be a lawyer ready to convince a jury that it was not your fault. You’ve got cancer because you smoked two cartons a day for twenty years – RJ Reynolds is responsible; you’re as big as a house because you eat fast food for every meal – McDonald’s and Burger King should pay; you’re teenage son goes on a shooting spree because you’re clueless about his life – you should sue Marilyn Manson. The list could go on forever!

If I were in charge (and I should be), I would make these responsibility-dodging parents pay the court costs for McDonald’s and immediately disbar the lawyers involved. Until something like that happens, we are going to continue with these types of lawsuits.

This is just more proof that not everyone should be encouraged to be fruitful and multiply! Maybe lawyers should be spayed and neutered as soon as they pass the bar (hmmmmm?).

That’s it for the rant! I’m off to find someone to sue. God bless America, home of the Oldsmobile 455 cubic inch internal combustion engine!

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Public Service Announcement

From Time to Time all Responsible News Outlets publish free Public Service Announcements (PSA) for various deserving non-profit organizations and/or the public at large.

The Glob is no exception to this fine journalistic tradition. So, our first PSA:



The First Annual
Run For the Cure
For Procrastination

Has Been Postponed

Sunday, October 24, 2004

NaNoWriMo - The Gauntlet is Thrown

NaNoBlogMo - The Glob Editor takes up the Gauntlet


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
I have decided to enter the National Novel Writing Month challenge of writing 50,000 words of drivel during the month of November. And so, since all my creative fires shall be spent at The Forge of Novelty, there may be nought but a spark available for commentating here on The Glob. Until November 1, I shall continue to write something here, possibly daily; commentary and news stories, etc. After Nov 1, I leave it to my fellow Globsters, Uncle Buck, Daver the Raver, and possibly writings from our Interns, Paddy and Chip for the month of November. Mayhaps Madame Bovarie will add something unusual, and Tiffany, the Haikuiste. Or not, they are a fickle crew.

I shall be blogging all or parts of this event. I'm thinking I'll be writing in Word or something, then maybe post word counts and bits and pieces of what I wrote from each day. Or I may be posting the whole thing to the blog. As you can see, my plan of attack is as well developed as the plot and major characters -- hmmmmm

The blog is reachable by clicking on that little brownish button up there that kind of looks like a malformed humanoid. It is in fact the head of a screaming monkey, though that monkey's gene pool appears to be unclean. Or perhaps that monkey is simply of dubious parentage.

Which, a fuller representation of the Sign Of The Screaming Monkey's Head may be better appreciated by clicking on that link. You will see an artist's rendition of the Actual Sign (Yes, it exists). The artist is TeeVee Aguirre, and whenever he gets his web site up, I shall post a link to him that you may admire his handiwork.

So, wish me luck. I'll try to poke my head in from time to time during the month of November, but I shall be attempting to vomit up 2000 words per day. All that may remain for The Glob are pitiful dry heaves void of content.

fb

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

War and Preemption

The below linked post is extremely well written and deserves honest review and criticism. I find that I am unable to disagree with anything written. It is very worth reading as it was written before we went into Iraq; much of the noise and hyperbole was still to come.

As I read his post, and thought about what we are doing, I am of the opinion that our current action in Iraq fails the posted standard of the "just war doctrine". (And NO, please God NO, let's not talk about Kerry's 'Global Test' as this point. Let's just drop it, shall we? Please?)

I find I am completely in agreement with the concepts and principles of the Just War Doctrine, for reasons I will address later if it seems relevant. For now, just read his post and see if you agree with the concept.

However, this doctrine does not provide for the option of preemption. And so, I am in a moral quandary as I consider the "rightness" (no pun intended) of preemptive war.

This is something subtle and important, and, of course, totally lost during this political campaign. But, preemption is a potentially dangerous concept. A double edged sword, if you will.

Preemption could be the beginning of Empire. The US thus far has sidestepped overt use of power for the purpose of empire building. Nationally, we have not been interested in Ruling The World. And so, I hoped, we had sidestepped the historical inevitable end of all empires. But, the siren song of preemption would justify all kinds of military action all over the world. In fact, wouldn't the world be safer if the US just ruled the whole world? Hmmmm?

The concept of preemption as the primary standard for going to war needs careful examination. Meanwhile, as a springboard for discussion, I offer, from the loyal opposition, this post:

buggieboy: hapless soldier's sigh

fb

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Quote a Blogger

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.
On those rare occasions when pressed on what he would do about Iraq, John Kerry says, "I have a plan." He won't disclose what the plan is so he should more accurately say, "I have a secret plan."

From Ronald Watkins

You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble When...

You have nothing to offer but lies, even when there is actually an opening.

Bush hasn't said much about how he's going to deal with Social Security. And Social Security needs attention. So, Kerry is going to step up to the plate and hit a home run, outlining Bush's failings with regard to Social Security, and give yet another of his "I have a Plan" speeches, right?

Nope. All he can do is tell lies.

From FactCheck.org: Kerry Falsely Claims Bush Plans To Cut Social Security Benefits

fb

Monday, October 18, 2004

Successes in Afghanistan

An Excerpt from an article in OpinionJournal:

Meanwhile, the U.S. troops are testing an ingenuous high-tech way to ensure that proper medical care continues even after they're gone:

U.S. Army physicians in Afghanistan will test "talking" prescription bottles to ensure children receive their proper medications after physicians and other humanitarian workers leave a village. The workers typically leave behind a supply of medications with a village elder, who may forget instructions given for specific medicines. The prescription bottles, from Rochester, N.Y.-based MedivoxRx Technologies, are designed for use by blind or illiterate patients. At the press of a button, an embedded computer chip programmed in the local language describes the name, dosage, frequency, warnings and refill instructions for the medication.
These types of things go unheralded. Worth reading.

OpinionJournal - Extra

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Surreal Dilemma

There is the real, and there is the unreal, or surreal.

The extremely bizarre and fanatical desire for embryonic stem cell research to be the cure for everything (thus making abortion something sweet and pure and well, godly) causes people to simply ignore facts. The fact is, adult stem cell research is where all the benefits are coming from, and can continue to come from.

To those who say "Well, we haven't been given the green light to fully utilize the potential of embryonic stem cell research..." I have to ask, "So, are you in favor of giving the green light to using medical research developed by the Nazis from their torture and murder of human beings? Or, do you think there might be other options, other approaches to research, that don't violate human life or our sensibilities or our humanity?"

Wesley J. Smith on Stem-Cell Research on National Review Online

Thanks to Jeff at Dawn Treader for the link. fb

Thursday, October 14, 2004

A Cautionary Tale

Wherein what I thought was an original idea was in fact done before - multiple times


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
OK, I was going to do this whole thing on how following the dark path, and going after the brass ring, or, maybe, the golden ring, was a sure fire way to destroy and waste your life. Then I was going to talk about how a young man, with his life before him, and talents to offer the world, basically became a willing thrall to a power that consumed him, and then tossed him aside, leaving him a broken wastrel; someone barely alive, feeding off his bitter memories of the loss of what was once most precious to himself, namely, himself, though he somehow never figured that out.

And then I was going to show this tremendously funny and hilarious juxtaposition of pictures, and comment on how once he was powerful and the mighty trembled, and now he is simply pathetic, repeating the same nonsense over and over, and the only response is annoyance. Then you were going to follow this link to see outrageously hilarious before and after pictures of:
Wasted


The Price of Surrendering Your Soul to Darkness

However, in my quest for photos (the one above I actually went and found separate pics and joined them together myself) I found three different examples of someone doing the exact same thing, though not with the same story line. They were basically of the "separated at birth" variety.

Anyway, it was funny to me when I started it.

See Wasted on Page C 3

Daver's blood pressure goes up

Just a few debate quick hits -

I have heard John Kerry mention several times that "This President didn't fund this program... This President didn't fund that program..." Unless I am misinformed, The President needs Congressional approval of his budget. Did John Kerry forget that he is a Senator, and therefore was part of the approval process?

Last night he said that "The President made it illegal to..." Several times. I seem to recall from my studies that Congress makes the laws, that is why it is called the Legislative branch. It seems odd to me that Senator from Massachusetts conveniently skimmed over that fact.

How about the "This President has lost 1.6 million jobs" line again. What exactly has Bush done to lose those jobs? Case in point, my employer has let a lot of people go over the past calendar year, and there is nothing the President did to cause that. There is nothing the President could have done to change it, short of teaching our micro-managing COO how to let his people do their jobs. Of course, it might have helped if Bush made Wal-Mart illegal to give everyone else a fighting chance, but since the President doesn't work in the Legislative branch, I guess he could not have done that. Maybe he should have called William Jefferson Clinton to find out how Clinton "created" so many jobs?

I did like the President's line about Ted Kennedy is known as the Conservative Senator from Massachusetts. Funny.

I thought the President should have reciprocated John Kerry's gracious opening statements, but he didn't. Disappointing.

The debates did nothing to sway my vote one way or the other. About the only thing I learned is that neither candidate is a stand-up comic.

Finally, just once during the debates I would have liked to hear one of them say "This is my position because..." without mentioning what a scumbag their opponent is.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Senator Edwards Reaches Out

Edwards Reaches Out To The Religious Right


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

During a Political Rally / Tent Revival, newly ordained prophet of Kerry, Reverend John Edwards, exhorted the crowd to vote Kerry because: "When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again."

He then looked straight into the camera as he held his hand up and intoned, “Put your hand on the TV screen. That’s right”, he said earnestly, a tear glistening in his eye. “Feel that? That e-e-electricity just as your hand touched mine? That was the power of GOD. Yes! YES!! Brothers and Sisters, The Power of GOD - OF GOD - is commanding you to vote Kerry. Feel the power. FEEL THE POWER!! Now, with your right hand on the TV screen, take your left hand and reach around to your back pocket or into your purse, pull out your wallet or check book, and donate to God’s messenger, John The Kerry! Every dollar you donate is a vote CAST IN HEAVEN! A VOTE FOR KERRY!!

After the rally, some reporters quizzed Rev. Edwards regarding Reeve, noting that he was recently deceased. Reverend Edwards exclaimed “Even Better!” and dashed off. "Wooowooo" he said. "WoOOOO--WOOOooowooo!"
We interrupt this article for breaking news:
This afternoon a brief was filed in Reeve’s home state, naming The US Government and George W. Bush as co-defendants in a charge of negligent homicide in the death of Christopher Reeve. “The prevention of stem cell research sentenced that man to death. A sentence with no parole, no reprieve, no trial, and no charges filed. We will have justice in this country” said Senator Edwards, smiling boyishly into the camera. "Someone is going to pay for this. A lot."
Ψ

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Quote A Blogger

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.
The talk show I watched surveyed people on what they were doing to ensure a long life. I say to hell with LONG life – I want a full life. I want my life to be what it was supposed to be, what it was designed to be. If that means living for another 60 years, or merely another 60 minutes, so be it. I just want to live the way I’m meant to.
From storyteller

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Noted Conspiracy Theorist Dismayed, Pensive

Duelfer Report: No Weapons of Mass Destruction

Conspiracy Theorist Scratching Heads


By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Top Conspiracy Theorist/Blogger, Man Mountain Mike, is at a loss to explain how this story was allowed to 'get out' especially right before the town hall debate.
"Since the Bush Administration covertly took control of The Press as part of the Patriot Act in reponse to the Fiction of 9/11, it is passing strange that this report ever saw the light of day.

"This indicates a major meltdown within the Bush Administration. They are coming apart at the seams. There simply is no other explanation that leaves intact the truth that Bush is altering the environment for Alien takeover. For that to have the success it has had to date, the control of all media outlets has been a pre-requisite. That control precludes any possibility whatsoever for any derogatory or denigrating news to be made available for public consumption. This news leak about no WMD (while we all knew it all along) is very difficult to explain since the aliens MUST have Bush in the White House for 4 more years due to the super nova which imminently threatens their world.

"If the aliens have somehow lost control of the Bush Administration, the consequences are quite seriously earth shaking. Their 'peaceful' takeover will of necessity become violent. You remember the Future Doc, Independence Day*? There you have it. Things are passing strange, my friends, passing strange."
While Mcubed, as he prefers to be called, slowly lost any coherency of narrative, we could not help but observe that he was, shall we say, Corpulently Naked.

His reply: "Bloggin' in pajamas is for wimps."

*A Future Doc is a representation of one of a number of available timelines, used by aliens to plan their actions in advance.
Ψ

Saturday, October 09, 2004

"Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

"Huh?"

"Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

(pause) "Honey, you're dreaming."

"No! Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

"Wha--(pause) you're dreaming."

"Don't you remember the fair?"

"The fair!? What?"

"Do monkeys go in 180 or 360?"

"You're dreaming."

"Don't you remember? Celia got a write up. For not taking care of the monkeys!"

"PuppyCat. You're having a dream."

"Oh."

Friday, October 08, 2004

What I Learned From Tonight's Debate

Santa Kerry is going to give me everything and it won't cost me anything.

fb

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Hours of Grand Diversion!

Go here and play with an interactive map to see what you need to get your man voted into office: Special: Decision 2004

I've Been Wondering About This

One of the most confusing things to me about Iraq was this incongruency: If Hussein did not have nuke and bio/chem weapons programs, why wouldn't he just let the inspectors verify that? It is largely because he refused to give them free reign, and generally screwed with them while they were there, that made me think it likely that he had something to hide.

Either that, or he was a sadistic madman, because why would you risk all out war, and the deaths of tens of thousands?

As it turns out, it may simply have been the macho need to be perceived as 'tough'. From The Christian Science Monitor:
The reason Hussein gave up his weapons program, the report concludes, is that the UN-sponsored embargo of oil exports denied him the billions and billions of dollars needed to keep them going. But in order to maintain prestige among Arabs and deter another war with Iran, Hussein kept secret for many years that he had abandoned the programs. (Emphasis mine.)
It also appears that the Sanctions prevented him from moving forward with his weapons program by cutting off necessary funding. Lastly, it appears his regime was able to last for these reasons:
He also tried to undermine the sanctions by exploiting the UN's Oil for Food program. He bribed leading figures in the UN, France, China, Russia and elsewhere with oil-export contracts to earn more than $11 billon to keep his regime afloat.
Follow this link: The Christian Science Monitor

fb

Why I’m Not “feelin’” John Kerry

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

A lot is being said, and more is being not said, about the candidates and why you should vote or not vote for one or the other. Unfortunately, a lot of conversation among friends and relatives revolves around what The Media has determined to be the core issues. I’ve been dealing with a huge amount of frustration because of this fact, and after a large Tex Mex lunch, and a 2 hour workout in a martial art called Silat, I drifted off to the sweet sweet oblivion of an apparently dreamless sleep.

And woke to a revelation.

So, I am going to share with anyone that cares, why I am voting for Bush. Most of the reasons have nothing to do with what has been on radio, TV, or in the newspapers. These are just the issues that matter to me.
Feelings
(continued from page 1)
First, I would like to delineate two ‘reasons’ for selecting a president over which people argue and about which I don’t really care. I’ll attempt to be brief.

1. Abortion. I don’t care. The president doesn’t write abortion law; I don’t care what his stance is. Yes, I am a man (thank you for noticing) and so some will think it is not surprising that this issue of a women’s choice means nothing to me.

Au contraire.

Gentlemen, if us men would act responsibly, the abortion issue would go away. I have never put a woman in a position where she might have to choose. And it’s not because it wasn’t hard. (Pun intended.) But it wasn’t right. No woman will ever have to choose because of my actions. That kind of makes it my decision, doesn’t it. My right to choose. I don’t need the US Government to rein in my dick. It goes where I tell it to go. Granted, men are pricks. Almost literally in some cases. And women are put in a position where they have an unwanted pregnancy. And, YES, the President will appoint judges to the Supreme Court. But, those appointees are subject to the approval of Congress. Relevant information about Congress is below. So, guys, stop being pricks, and the abortion issue will go away. And don’t act like it is impossible. Grow Up.

2. Economic policy. I don’t care. That is the job and arena of your local politicians and the Congress. If everyone would vote responsibly in their local elections, the perceived power of the President in these areas would diminish. Put people in the House and the Senate that represent YOU. That is their job.

The President’s job:

A) He is to Defend the Constitution.
B) He is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
C) He is to Receive Foreign Visitors.

There is a reason why it is called the Executive Branch. And there is a reason Congress is the called Legislative Branch. And a reason why Congress, NOT THE PRESIDENT, sets the budget. So, if you are worried about economic issues (or abortion issues), look to your Representatives and Senators.

When I vote for President, I look at his job description, listed above. Within that context, I will now delineate problems that I have with George W. Bush. I will write as if I were addressing him, as it suits my megalomaniacal mood right now. You may find this odd. But, the title of my post is Why I’m Not Feelin’ John Kerry. Bush is not perfect, and I’m not going to pretend I don’t see the warts. Let’s discuss them, shall we?

1) Defend the Constitution. Constitutional amendment to define marriage? You would support that? WHAT? Goddammit. You are supposed to defend the Constitution, not make a mockery of it. Besides, that is very arguably a States Rights issue, and not your purview. I’m ashamed of you.

2) Commander in Chief. The war in Iraq. You should tell the people the whole ugly truth. Iraq is strategically located. We are building 6 massive bases there. We will be able to instantaneously affect issues in the Middle East on a scale that strategists haven’t begun to think about. (I think I got that information from Cancer World) Someone in your administration is thinking long term. I am impressed with the fact that when you said War on Terror, you By God Meant WAR ON TERROR. But, that’s all been lost in the political sniping. Just tell the world the Truth: The United States Will Not Be Fucked With.

a) WMD. I don’t know who coined this phrase, but I cringe every time I hear it. I cringe because it is a made up term used to scare people. It lumps Chemical and Biological weapons in with Nuclear Weapons. You, or someone in your administration, knew that the evidence for Saddam having a nuke program was minimal. We also knew that he did have chemical weapons. He’s used them. Oh, and we sold some to him. So we had the bill of sale to prove it. But, militarily, Chemical and Biological weapons are primarily psychological in nature, and easily defended against. They are not capable of Mass Destruction. They just aren’t. It was a marketing term used to help sell a war.

I’m ashamed of you.

Especially since there were a lot of very good reasons for going to war in Iraq which have been shoved aside and not discussed because of the glaring fact that there were no nukes, and no nuke program found in Iraq. All the very good reasons for going to war are impossible to talk about now, you buffoon, because it just looks like an attempt to validate what you are doing there, and you have a credibility issue now.

3) Receive Foreign Visitors. Since (I think) the time of George Washington, this has been interpreted as setting foreign policy. On this issue, despite the whining about “The Coalition, My God the Coalition!!”, I really don’t have a complaint.

I would now like to address “Political side roads and distractions that are really cutting into quality political discussion.”

1. The Swift Boat Vets For Truth. Who cares? I don’t care. John Kerry was given three purple hearts by the military. THE END.

2. Kerry’s Viet Nam service is not an issue any more than Clinton’s dope smoking and draft dodging were. Viet Nam service is not a qualification for President of The United States. There are a lot of Vets from Kerry’s era that are living under bridges (a national shame completely ignored by everyone.) They’re obviously not qualified to be president. So, Who Cares about Kerry’s service? Not me.

3. Bush’s National Guard Service. See above paragraph, substitute Bush for Kerry, reread. Who Cares?

4. The Republican’s are trying to disenfranchise niggers. Oops, does that word offend you? Good. That’s what the Democrats are really saying. That Republicans don’t want no niggers votin’ (insert toothless grin).

Almost as offensive is the Democratic attempt to say that Bush wants to reinstate the draft. Rangel, a Representative from New York (Democrat) introduced HR 163 to reinstate the draft. He has his reasons. He is representing his constituency. Good for him. That is the democratic process.

So, why is the seed planted that Bush wants the draft? To scare voters. And why is the seed planted that Jim Crow is back? To scare voters. And why do they need to scare voters? And why aren’t voters offended by these heavy handed attempts to dupe them?

Don’t we realize the Democrats are calling voters stupid?

5. I have tried to come up with specific similar scare tactics being used by the Republicans, but have not as yet. I’m sure someone will assist me. ;-} But please, be specific, and be able to support it. Don’t say “Bush is trying to scare voters with the specter of terror.” I’m sorry, but the specter of the WTC collapsing still scares me. I don’t need any scaring there. And I have addressed the WMD issue above, so let’s not be repetitive. Well OK, maybe one:

6. Flip Flop. Without looking at the specific bill, you don’t really know what Kerry was voting for or against. I can see a lot of possibilities. For example, maybe the infamous vote regarding funding for the troops was 85 billion dollars for pink fuzzy Q-Tips. Or, maybe, he was in favor of a competing bill. Or, maybe, when he realized that the vote was going to be nearly unanimous, he voted against it as a statement, just so he could say, should it become politically expedient, that he was opposed to it. Regardless, you can’t be a politician without someone being able to pull soundbites that make you sound stupid, especially when taken out of context. This whole flip flop thing pulls minds away from things that matter.

So, what, in my lofty opinion, are issues that matter? Well, to me, it’s about the terrorism; to be specific, it is about the islamofascist brand of terrorism. I don’t use that word loosely. Those guys will detonate a nuke in the United States if they can.

Then what?

They have to be stopped. And I’m sorry, it is not like one of those jigsaw puzzles you got when you were a kid, where the pieces were different colored large identifiable plastic shapes, of which there were about 9. You know, you could almost just fit the pieces together as you picked them up.

No, this is a 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle of a cloudless summer sky.

In a lesser sense, it is also about oil. And, for me, it is about the United Nations as well, an organization that I have come to believe is illegitimate by any measure you choose to use, and has squandered it’s potential by choosing greed and vice over it’s lofty founding principles.

Ok, so, why am I not Feelin’ John Kerry? Fair question.

I have to start with an Exclaimer Disclaimer®. I have a sister that said, “I just don’t like Bush. Something about him bothers me, and I can’t vote for him.” And you know what? I’m OK with that. It’s a gut feeling, and she’s going with her gut. Which really means to me that for reasons she really hasn’t explored, and therefore has a hard time articulating, she just can’t vote for Bush.

Of course, I’m OK with that because it’s how I feel about Kerry. But, I will attempt to explain, using the criteria of the job of president, as listed above.

1) Defend the Constitution. I don’t have any specific issues with Kerry here.

2) Commander in Chief. I have a Problem with him here. Based on 20 years of his actions in the Senate.

THE BEST PREDICTOR OF FUTURE BEHAVIOR IS PAST PERFORMANCE.

His past performance scares the bejesus out of me. Political Expedience, thy name is John F. Kerry.

(For those that will say, Look at Bush and Iraq and his performance, all I can say is that Johnson thought we were losing the war in Viet Nam while looking at the three TVs in his office during the Tet Offensive. If you don’t understand the relevance, you’ll have to do some research. Suffice it to say, CNN is not telling me how the war in Iraq is going. And war, goddammit, is war. Anyone that thinks they understand that, that has not been in combat, does not know what they are talking about, and I don’t care what their opinion is. So, whatever their concept is on how things are going, BAH!)

Kerry has said nothing to me that makes me feel he understands the 10,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, let alone that he can even tell which side is the sky side. Some of his pronouncements on establishing a coalition are just naïve.

For example, the whole issue of the Coalition. It was never ever going to happen as he describes. There was too much self interest at stake on the part of Germany and France. Understand this clearly (and yes, this is my unsupported opinion, but you can’t prove a negative, and they have done nothing to indicate otherwise) Germany and France were never going to join in the Grand Diversion in Iraq.

Not gonna happen.

Kerry says he will not let any country have veto power over his desire to protect our nation. OK, fine. But, how long will you hold yourself in check, pleading with other nations before you decide to act?

This is my non-supportable position: Some people come out of war so horrified by it, that they believe that war is to be avoided AT ALL COSTS. I cannot in good faith elect a person to command our military when I believe he fundamentally disagrees with the very concept and purpose of that military.

3) Receive Foreign Visitors. Kerry has played at foreign policy. I have no doubt that when he says he’s been involved in foreign policy over the last 20 years, that he really believes he has BEEN INVOLVED. Kind of like the girl in the ticket booth is involved in a Broadway musical. She knows all about the musical. Understands how the staging is done. Rubs elbows with the actors. Brings coffee to the directors. Once, she was even asked for her opinion. She knows and understands the play. She even has the lines memorized. And, she believes that she deserves the lead role. She can do it better. She tells her friends she can do it better, and her friends believe her. After all she’s been working with the theatre for 20 years! She must have learned something about the process.

But Kerry’s fundamental misunderstanding, or else his deliberate misstatement, about a coalition and his belief that he could put together a ‘legitimate’ coalition, demonstrates his naïveté regarding foreign policy. He is overly impressed with himself, and would be a foreign relations disaster.

Kerry has also made it clear to me that he finds the United Nations to be a credible organization. I don’t. I find the United Nations to be a sham. Based on things like using ambulances to ferry missiles. Or the Oil for Camembert scandal (that no one seems to care about.) I simply don’t feel Kerry is qualified for the job of setting foreign policy.

So, in two out of three areas that I feel actually matter regarding the highest office in the land, I simply cannot vote for Kerry. And that is why I’m not feelin’ Kerry. Ψ

See Feelings on Page 9

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Kerry Caught Playing With Himself

Candidate Displays Flexibility; Ball Handling Ability


Monday, October 04, 2004

casablanca
"You must remember this, a kiss is still a
kiss". Your romance is Casablanca. A
classic story of love in trying times, chock
full of both cynicism and hope. You obviously
believe in true love, but you're also
constantly aware of practicality and societal
expectations. That's not always fun, but at
least it's realistic. Try not to let the Nazis
get you down too much.


What Romance Movie Best Represents Your Love Life?
brought to you by Quizilla


Straight Shooting Cowboy, or Politically Savvy Professional Politician?

Due to poor intelligence, the CIA and FBI had spent thousands of man-hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars to arrest a taxi driver with a stack of falsified immigration documents. The CIA's fabricating source was imprisoned and Mekki was on his way to being deported.
This excerpt is excerpted from WSJ's OpinionJournal a feature of the Wall Street Journal that is -- opinion. I kind of like that in a paper. That whole clearly presenting opinion as opinion thing. Rather Refreshing®.

The quote excerpted from the OpinionJournal is excerpted from Shadow War: The Untold Story of How Bush Is Winning the War on Terror, so, you can guess that it is favorable to the Bush Administration. Those of you pre-disposed against Bush, may find the article interesting to read anyway.

Our country's approach to terrorism has been complicated by expedient decisions made for political purposes. (Or is that political decisions made for expedient reasons?) This article points out (among many other things) how political expediency may save political careers, yet cost lives.

It is very long, but, it's worth a read. fb

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Creationists Out Breed Evolutionists

Evolutionary Theory Proved

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau
In what theologians are saying is proof that God has a sense of humor, evolutionary pressures are self selecting Creationists for evolutionary success, relegating Evolutionists to the back of the gene pool.

"The breeding habits of various religious groups such as Catholics and Mormons results in family counts of 15 or more", says noted evolutionary theorist, Dr. Chuck Derwin.

"Typical Evolutionists, with our non-viable species supporting birth rate of only 1.2 babies per family, are simply being bred out of existence." He stood for a moment, a bemused expression on his face.

"It appears - it appears that... that we're just another evolutionary dead-end", Dr Chuck stammered.

Ψ

Friday, October 01, 2004

Quote a Blogger

This will be a sometime feature of The Glob. Aren't you lucky.
Also, he wants to give nuclear fuel to Iran to see if they would use it for peaceful purposes.

WTF???

Why not just pass out grenades so we can shove them up our own asses? That would be quicker.

From the Queen

Debate Quick Hits

  • For the 2000 election, I felt that Gore had "won" the debate. Just purely from the "If I were judging a debate contest" viewpoint. To me it wasn't even close. But, public opinion seemed to find Bush more approachable, and Gore to be somewhat arrogant and even snippy. The 'sigh' seemed to hurt his image, making people wonder 'what kind of whiny baby is this?'
  • Last night it appeared a near draw to me, with Kerry looking more relaxed and possibly better prepared, and Bush sometimes looking like a deer caught in the headlights. However, I felt Bush had prepared good answers for some of the topics that Kerry was hoping would paint Bush in a bad light, specifically the issues of North Korea and 'walking away from treaties on the table.'
  • Where I thought Kerry did poorly (but which may not matter in the public eye) was in response to the question of what he would do with Iraq. He started by saying he had very specific things he would do, and he would list them for us. Then he talked about what he considered as mistakes Bush had made and ended with "I can do better." Which would be an 'F' in a debate, but probably played well to the public.
  • Kerry's biggest problem seems to be the 20 years in the Senate. 'SenateSpeak' requires you to say things that can be interpreted and re-interpreted as situations dictate. The problem with such a fluid view of what comes out of your mouth is that for the rest of us, it is easy to paint him as a flip-flopper. Glaring example last night: at one point he said Saddam was not a threat, at another he said he clearly was. You have to read the context of the answer to understand why it sounded fine either way. But, it is so easy to pull the soundbite that says "OK, which one is it?"
  • Bush doesn't speak SenateSpeak. This may hurt him, but I don't think so. When asked if he thought the lives being spent were 'worth it' he ultimately said "yes." SenateSpeak would not allow you to lay down a point that you can't retract. Bush doesn't care. If you disagree with him, vote him out. When asked about N. Korea, he simply stated that what he did was the right thing to do given the circumstances, and he was unapologetic. Kerry could only imply that he would have, again, convened some sort of coalition of some unnamed countries that are somehow more 'coalitionesque' than whoever Bush is dealing with, i.e., China.
  • The candidates' concepts of what a coalition consists of, are instructional. Bush says we have 30 nations involved, and we do have a coalition. Kerry says we don't have a coalition, or if we do, it is at best nominal and coerced and bribed. Apparently a Francophile, Kerry appears to feel that any coalition without France's support is illegitimate. That will not play well on the world stage, and Kerry may think he can bring people to the table, but that may be wishful thinking on his part. Kerry displays a certain naivete regarding what he can do on the world stage. As a senator, you may dabble in foreign policy, and your grand diversions with world leaders may seem successful, but in reality, you have no actionable clout; your only value is in how you may be curried for favorable votes in the senate. I think Kerry is over-impressed with himself in this area.
  • I am still left unclear on what Kerry will do about Iraq. If he was supposed to make that clear last night, he failed, notwithstanding his stentorian pronouncements that he will do better. He also made an odd statement regarding Bush's question of "how are you going to pay for all that" implying that it could all be paid for with the "tax cuts for the top 1%". That is an amazing statement, given that his programs have no budget attached at present. Anyone that thinks the 'tax cut for the top 1%' represents enough dollars to fund what Kerry was talking about is basically clueless. So, I'm left with, what is he planning to do, and how does he plan to pay for it?
  • Having said all that, I'd have to say Kerry came across well. I thought Bush could have done better. But I'm talking about style over substance. In the substance over style arena, Bush has an advantage simply because he can talk about what he has done. And he can talk about things that are being done, or being planned; Kerry only has a wish list at this stage. And when he says Bush is in the wrong place, etc., when what Kerry actually voted for and supported is in the public record, he is left with trying to state that if he were in Bush's position he would have done things differently. That is the problem with SenateSpeak.
  • And Kerry may have done things differently. He states that he believes in a global consortium, a consortium which apparently has no gravitas without the French. And he seems to believe strongly in the UN. But today, when many are questioning the relevancy of the UN and the oil for food scandal is in the light, his willingness to subject our country to the whim of the UN may not play well.
It will be interesting to see how the domestic debates come across. I have a gut feel that the Bush camp is spending more time on the domestic front, since that is where Bush 41 lost the election. And, the reality is that Bush's domestic agenda is surprisingly forward thinking and supportive of minorities and 'the common man'. We'll have to see how it plays out, and see what the polls are saying a week from now.

fb

Thursday, September 30, 2004

Vote With Your Stomach!

Gallup accused of 'cooking the books' by impartial non-profit non-biased MoveOn.org.

Those damn Gallup Polls run by that damn, Christian, Damn George Gallup.

"Damn It!" says MoveOn. "Just, Damn it."

The Glob asks, in response: What can be more important to the American People than basic needs such as comfort food? How better to gauge the President's true potential for making America better? Of course, by determining which 1st Lady has the greatest Mom potential! So, the highly scientific method below (unlike Gallup's faith based healing approach to polling) will clearly determine the most tasty candidate.

Make both recipes. Take them to work. Register how your co-workers really feel. At least this poll will be unbiased.

Family Circle Food Recipes The 2004 Family Circle Cookie Cook Off

Mmmmm Mmmmm. Taste Victory!!

Ψ

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Gender Bender

Does anyone agree with me that Michael Jackson is probably the ugliest woman on the planet?

Just wondering.

Bias Ply Media Hits the Ditch

By Mark Connolly
Editor, Dallas Bureau

Today's quote ripped from the internet:

If you use the bias type tires and like them, Great ! Just remember to move the car periodically to avoid the annoying flat spot pounding when you go down the road..............Bias belted tires will take a "set" if the weight is kept in one spot for any length of time. (Italics added by The Glob) Source

Ever ask anyone for their opinion on something, and get some mushy non-committal response? "Hey, Bob, whaddya feel like for lunch?" "Oh, whatever." "No, but, really, what do you want?" "Doesn't matter."

Or, "Hey honey, do you like sage or sea foam for the ceiling in the living room?" "Huh?, aren't they both green? Just pick one!"

Sometimes you want an opinion. You may not go with it, but you want one.

Other times you want some kind of fact, like, "What is the address to the hotel?"

Sometimes you want both. "Which hotel do you recommend, and where is it?" Or, "Do you recommend the flat or the glossy in the sea foam? Why?"

And then there is journalism. Sometimes opinions are easily spotted. "This movie is a snoozefest filled with the most strident attempt at relevancy I've ever seen."

Sometimes there are facts. "We had 3 inches of rainfall yesterday."

And sometimes what looks like a perfectly good tire has a flat spot that causes the driver to loose control of the vehicle. Bumped Story

Ψ