Them Kinda Assholes

Hmm mmm.

You know what and who I mean. Narcs. Tattletales. Natural Born Assholes. Hate them!


Now, I might not have been the paragon of cool, or the "Born to be Bad," seed, any of those cliches. I was a fairly normal, even if socially a little reserved, smart kid. Smart kid (not the smartest but one of the smart kids) not one of the smart asses.

Smart asses will easilly narc if that protects their status as king or queen of the sand box. If you are an adult and haven't learned that lesson yet, you need to repeat 3rd grade. Anyway . . .


It is one thing to be conniving. Sheee-it I connived a little in grade school but that was partly because I was mostly a "good kid" and sought approval (and the teachers were all female up till 7th grade.) But I got a pay off for my conniving.

I got the attention of ladies. That seems to have always been and still is my prime motivation in life.

But was I ever a narc merely for the perverted joy of being a narc?

Frack that!


So I have no sympathy for adult narcs. I have no empathy for some one who's body might be adult but who's brain is still in that twisted, warped, backward frame of mind to process the thought:


"I can tell on Jane, Joe. Then I will be a good boy/girl."

Screw that. I was a good boy because I could out think, and academically out perform more than 90% of my classmates.

Now if I were a more generous person, I guess I could feel sympathy for them that had/have nothing more going on in their life, no talent, no skill, no value but for being a source of tattle tales against their peers.


But I am not feeling that generous.

So this is why I have no sympathy or empathy for people who tattle tale to get attention. In short they should actually do someting of worth, if they want to be noticed. It is that simple.

Granted, there are genuine wrong doers in the world who deserve to be ratted out, but if all you got for a skill-set is being da rat?

Da-yam skippy. It must SUCK DEEPLY to be you.

And I will leave you to that.

Screw Current Events. Time for some Eye Candy.

Presenting the women of NCIS (CBS TV).

The first Steamy Brunette is Pauley Perrette. She plays Abby, the goth forensic specialist/scientist. Now the actress actress has a funky enough history, herself. She is big on civil rights and is "currently shooting and producing a documentary on legendary civil rights attorney Mark Lane." My kinda gal. Smart and passionate about protecting the life and liberty of others.


Next Steamy Brunette is Cote de Pablo. She plays Ziva David, former Mossad agent, tasked to NCIS. Not only does the character kick serious butt, but the actress looks like she can do if for real. She is Chilean. She attended Carnegie Mellon U. She is a Scorpio. She can put a dog collar and leash on me and make me beg (sorry if anyone is offended by me saying that, but she is THAT HAWT!! So say I!!!)

Last, is Lauren Holly. She plays NCIS Director Jenny Shepard. I am not in love with the character, even if it is a strong female (and I am a sucker for REAL strong females; phonys can just step-off, but a convincing strong woman is appealing to me.) I think she is doing the best with the scripts, but the writers have yet to flesh out her character, enough. Granted, she gets less screen time than others, and they have given her character more involvement in story lines this season, but shoot, we need more about the person, not just the "vocational" crap.

As far as the actress goes, I have had a crush on her since her stint on "Picket Fences."

She is still HAWT, even if I have some complaints with both the Art Director and Lead Cameraman. Use the right lenses and collaborate with the lighting director for crying out loud. Just because she is supposed to be the SERIOUS DIRECTOR, does not mean you all should shoot her in a crappy frame (Damnit!)

What the hell is next? What biblical disaster will be unleashed when the other shoe drops?

Chief Justice of the United States Roberts is an Epilectic?


"By definition, someone who has had more than one seizure without any other cause is determined to have epilepsy, said Dr. Marc Schlosberg, a neurologist at Washington Hospital Center, who is not involved in the Roberts' case."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070730/scotus-roberts/



Ya, ya. I know that that is not necessarilly evidence of cognative impairment.

His written opinion in the "Ya can't use race as a factor if you are desegregating schools," case (I am sure I complained about that already) is the evidence of decreased thinking ability.

Don't Jump to Conclusions. Now Remember Kids. Just Because . . .

someone tends to heap violent abuse on others, breaks the norms of regular social interaction, totally disregards community standards, is majorly obsessive (in the clinical sense of the word, not the street meaning), is easily bored, and likely to go to perverse extremes to avoid boredom, at best is ONLY superficially "decent" a human, is manipulative, and uncaring, tends to be an attention whore, actually admits to enjoying doing all the above, behaves at the emotional development level of a particularly badly affected 9 year old, and furthermore, is a screamingly paranoid bigot,


does not necessarily mean they are

(a) suffering from an antisocial personality disorder, and as well a
(b) borderline psychosis, and as well suffering from
(c) paranoid delusions.

(Or said otherwise . . . a spectacularly self destructive douchebag. )


I mean really. They may really be high on PCP or Meth.

Don't be so judgmental. Or say it the way I do:



"Either that one is off their meds or is on the wrong stuff, for sure!"

Just in Case I was Way Off . . .

my prediction the other night. I gave Gonzo 90 days. That is to say, I said I did believe he would not still be our Atty. Gen'l in November. Granted, I couched my prediction with the qualifier that if I were that good at predicting things I would have made a fortune playing the ponies by now, but point is, I was giving a longer than shorter time frame.

Maybe I should not have been so chickenshit.


This, from Crooksandliars:



Not Even FOXNews Can Find Someone To Defend Gonzo

Alberto Gonzales is done. First Newt Gingrich stabs the
Attorney General’s chances by saying that Bush must replace him
because the highest legal office in the land should be filled by
a person with the highest perceived sense of ethics. But the knife
is twisted all that more painfully by Chris Wallace’s
admission at the end:

By the way, we invited White House officials and Republicans on the
Senate Judiciary Committee to defend Attorney General Gonzales.

We had no takers.


If you have a chance, take a look at the vid. Wallace seemed a wee bit pleased with himself as he said that.

Makes me wonder if he really is Right Wing Partisan Hack, or just plays one on TV?

If a Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

An insightful comix is worth a posting.

I said it before, and I will say it again.

I did not think the first Gulf War was worth a single American suffering a single paper cut.

I did not think the Second Gulf War (a/k/a The War in Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom) was worth a single American getting a single paper cut over, either.

At least I am consistent.

It is not like I actually want Iraqis to die. I would much prefer for all of them people in the entire region to become, overnight, as strict as pacifists as the strictest of Buddhist Monks.

But barring that? I say let them kill each other, and we as a nation should not care, and do NOTHING about it, if the alternative is to get in the middle and place our good INNOCENT Americans in the middle of that shit.

I am willing to stand before the moral authority of the universe if and when the time comes as I will declare soundly:

Sorry if I am wrong to say so, but them Mid-Eastern bastids? (and if you have reviewed my file you know I am from Joisey and 'bastids' ain't a cuss in Joisey at least!) Them bastids have been killing each other over totally meanigless crap for thousands of years, and I did not think there was a good reason, Christian Based, or on account of Atheistic Process of Raw Logic & Reason, for doing jack-squat for them.

Hey, it is not like I am one of those ding-bats who remember Scripture and just fail to understand it. I know what Jesus Lord meant by 'Turn The Other Cheek.'

He did not mean be a punk-ass, and take the beating, but he meant don't make it easy for someone to punk-ass you if you can avoid it, as much as you should not punk others, so . . . .

my analysis?

Getting involved in the Mid-East cycle of brutality, psychopathy, and hate is the OPPOSITE of turning the other cheek.

And if you will permit me (hey I am from Joisey as you know) I would have to say that getting involved in Mid-East psychosis is far closer to spreading one's cheeks, than turning one's cheek.

Either part of the human anatomy we are talking about, it makes sense.

Involvement in Mid-East Psychopathology is going to lead to one (as opposed to the other set) set of cheeks getting abused, and abused badly.

Swear!!!

This is not me speaking as a Dem. This is just a declaration of the freaking obvious!

For the good of the nation, Gonzo must go.


Pardon his perjury and perhaps other crimes. Just send the boy packing ASAP?

He makes me ashamed to be a lawyer.

Ok. I will be honest here.

He makes me WAY MORE than usually ashamed to be a lawyer!!

I have been reading a book about Ancient Greek Classical Culture.

Now is there any way that could not inspire me to dig for some quotes?


"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. "

"Men acquire a particular quality by constantly acting a particular way... you become just by performing just actions, temperate by performing temperate actions, brave by performing brave actions."

"It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen."

"A state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange...Political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship."


-Aristotle.

I am SO Sick to Death of the War Mongering, American Killing Chicken Hawks . . .

To explain.

I just now watched some vid of David Brooks (who sometimes I can marginally respect) bullshitting about how a pull out of Iraq now may result in ten thosand dead Iraqis a month, as opposed to to about 150 dead Americans a month if we stay. HORRIBLE MATH I say (as I care way more for innocent Americans than Iraqis. What ever is wrong with Iraq no matter the extreme level of American meddling, is still basically locally caused.) Anyway Brooks (in this 'debate' x Bob Woodward, on Meet the Press) did admit that when it is all said and done, that he basically (I am going large here so there is no misunderstanding the point) :

pulled the figure out of the air
without data to support it.


So here is what I would have said to the douche if I were there.

"Hmm now Mr. Brooks. Now I am not really a tough guy but I am damn sure I could break your neck here and now despite your resisting, so I ask you. If I am as (baselessly) sure that by killing your punk ass now I can save 10,000 lives do I have your permission to break your damn neck?"


Now we know that he would not give me permission to do him like that.

But still, I would like to know how he or any other pro war partisan can justify other Americans dying for their certainty of the worthiness in that sacrafice, but how it would not be as good if it was their freaking necks/lives being sacraficed for the people of Iraq.

Damn Hypocrites.



(Ok I came back and cleaned the language up some. And after that, I did some trimming. I hope I am still making my point.)

How much of a Partisan can one be?

And no, I am not turning into a vid-head. I just found this on "Crooks and Liars," and it is very funny. And you know what they say about how there has to be at least a germ of truth in anything really funny?

Well I am not saying a Gore Presidency would have been 1/2 that. But it is Peter's insistence on getting his own way over rest of the nation/world that makes me think of the driving forces behind the worst of the worst of partisans:

Selfishness, Greed, Avarice, Narcissism, Ignorance, Thoughtlessness, Infantilism.

These qualities can be very funny, when combined in a fictional character, like Peter Griffin. But in the real world? They can destroy a nation, take down a society.

Hmm now I can waste time and net space on political shite, or

Declare my undying reverence for the Goddess Chaka.

Let's run with the Divine Chaka (bless her divine voice),
Goddess of Da Funk'n and Da Groov'n.

Speaking of Marvin . . .

Lookie what I found. I would say enjoy but that is the wrong word.

Instead I will say, raise (or otherwise ReAwaken) your consciousness.

Ok. So I have been watching some documentary about the late 1960's.

Point One:

(Tying the insanity of those days to now a days) America seems to be going crazy again, and yet again we have a sociopath in the White House.

Point Two:

Marvin, Marvin, where are you when we need your soulful
truth-telling.

Well, we do at least have your recordings, and the lyrics to your most timely of 60's songs.

(And before I post it, I have distinct memories of this song from back in the the day. Word!)

Mother, mother
There's too many of you crying

Brother, brother, brother
There's far too many of you dying

You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here today - Ya

Father, father
We don't need to escalate

You see, war is not the answer
For only love can conquer hate

You know we've got to find a way
To bring some lovin' here, today

Picket lines, and picket signs

Don't punish me, with brutality

Talk to me, so you can see

Oh, what's going on - What's going on
Ya, what's going on -Ah, what's going on

In the mean time
Right on, baby
Right on
Right on

Father, father,

everybody thinks we're wrong

Oh, but who are they to judge us,
Simply because our hair is long

Oh, you know we've got to find a way
To bring some understanding, here today
Oh

Picket lines, and picket signs

Don't punish me, with brutality

Talk to me, So you can see

What's going on - Ya, what's going on
Tell me what's going on - I'll tell you what's

going on - Uh
Right on baby
Right on baby

I say again, Marvin, we miss you Brother.

Then the answer is, the Dems Won.

Remember Johnny Carson's Amazing Karnack routine? Johnny, wearing his Karnack turban and cape, would hold an envelope up to his forhead and first give the answer.

Then, he would open the envelope and read the question.

Ok, so I decided to comment about the death of the "redeployment" amendment, but did not want to type essentially the same shit most other (dem) bloggers likely would. So I am doing it like the Karnack Routine, if only to be different.

Anyway, imagine Karnack saying " the Democrats Won."

Then Karnack rips open the envelope and reads:

"What if the Democrats wanted to get out of the stink of so many of them having voted to authorize the Iraq war, and shift blame for the disaster on the GOP, instead of actually getting the amendment passed?"

Which is a slightly more complicated way of saying, I think the dems played the repubs as deftly and completely as anyone with one hand could play a sock puppet.

Hmm. That is perhaps less than fair. This game was sorta rigged. Either way, dems win. If they actually got the amendment passed then they would have done the will of 70% of the Nation. And since it did not pass, the Dems get to say,

"America. The Republicans have just sent you a loud and clear message. The GOP's message to America is as follows."

"Fuck you America. Sincerely, the Republican Party."


Like I said, The Dems won this round. Maybe more so then if the amendment passed. Now, for the upcoming Presidental election, the issue is not only going to be the war policy, but the fact that the Republicans were so stubbornly in support of Bush's record of failure, that they chose to reject America's actual desire on the matter.

Ya. Spin your way out of telling 70% of the Nation to Fuck Off.


Yea, right!

Most Intelligent Quote I have heard/read . . . EVER!!!!

"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

-- Anne Lamott

I am TRY-ING to not get close to politics . . .

It is so hard to avoid the topics of the day and discuss what might be some historic votes in Congress this week on the Iraq mess, and some other political issues coming to head, and, as well this thought.

After watching the Bill Moyers interview re why we should impeach Bush and Cheney (this idea wonderfully un partisanly endorsed by Republican Lawyer, Bruce Fein),

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html


and my thought, I had while watching this interview . . .

Now what would our National Founder and Hero, and First US President (who refused being King of America) think of George W. Bush?

My guess? Unfavorable, to say the least.


Anyway, I said I am not going to dwell on that.

Time then, for a pic of a hottie.

Why not. I like hotties way more than politicians.

Ahhh ... the lovely and multi talented Ms. Alicia Keys.

Mmmmmm. Good!

Some things bear repeating . . . .

"One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit," Harry G. Frankfurt writes, in what must surely be the most eyebrow-raising opener in modern philosophical prose. "Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted." This compact little book, as pungent as the phenomenon it explores, attempts to articulate a theory of this contemporary scourge--what it is, what it does, and why there's so much of it. The result is entertaining and enlightening in almost equal measure. It can't be denied; part of the book's charm is the puerile pleasure of reading classic academic discourse punctuated at regular intervals by the word "bullshit." More pertinent is Frankfurt's focus on intentions--the practice of bullshit, rather than its end result. Bullshitting, as he notes, is not exactly lying, and bullshit remains bullshit whether it's true or false. The difference lies in the bullshitter's complete disregard for whether what he's saying corresponds to facts in the physical world: he "does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

http://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946


Well maybe I did not ever post that exact blurb before, but Frankfurt's message is even more important now then ever (methinks.) And, I call even more attention to the part I bolded.

Why is that on my mind these days?

Things like how the word "SURGE" is being used by the media instead of ridiculed by it. I mean what is more of a bullshit play than to say you are gonna try a different strategy and just throw a handful more troops into the war zone? Total bullshit that.

And another thing? Now it seems that everyone who is shooting at our troops (or anyone else there in Iraq) are now as if by magic, Al Qaeda.

I am thinking that not too far in the future we will be treated to at least some Fox (not really) News anchor saying essentially the following:

"Today in Bagdad US forces captured the Alleged Third in Command of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The capture was made after Coalition Authority recieved a tip, from another Allegedly Third in Command of Al Qaeda. Yet another Alleged Third in Command of Al Qaeda posted a message on the Internet denouncing the arrest of the first Alleged Third in Command of Al Qaeda in Iraq, promising swift reprisals for the arrest. Lastly, another Alleged Third in Command of Al Qaeda in Iraq, interviewed by Al Jazeera claimed that he was the True, the Correct, and the One and Only Alleged Third in Command of Al Qaeda in Iraq, and has declared Jihad on all other Alleged Third in Command of Al Qaeda in Iraq."

"And in other news from Iraq, members of the 3rd ID discovered a grisley site in Anbar. Apparently alleged Al Qaeda members ambushed alleged Al Qaeda members, near a small village in the southwest quadrant. It has been reported that Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for this attack by Al Qaeda on Al Qaeda. "


I hope I made my point. Too much bullshit. We are drowning in it.

Yes this is a RANT. I admit it. I am TIRED of people telling me I should give a SHIT about Iraq.

OK. Originally there was a much longer rant here, but I decided to cut back on it mainly as it was way too much of a rant, and well, the last part I typed really was the real point. So here is the abridged version:




the main reason Iraq is still a shithole, now, is because not enough Iraqis have decided that they are sick and tired of living in a shithole.

And to explain, I watched some of the senate debate yesterday. That likely is what set me off here.

Pearls of Wisdom, From T. Jefferson.

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."

-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782.)



"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789.



"You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, June 25, 1819.



"Man once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind."

-Thomas Jefferson, to James Smith, 1822.



"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

-Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782.)



"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

-Thomas Jefferson (Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.)

When in doubt, Pick on the Pundits.

And to explain, it is a Monday. I have not posted in a while, and I am worn out on Scootergate, and there is nothing out of the ordinary going on right now. Post 4th of July long holiday week thing, I imagine. Anyway as long as that Festering Sore, the Virulent Pestilence, the Malignant Tumor that is the scourge of Partisan Punditry is extant, sucking the very life (and sentience) of the body public away, I always have something to post about.

So here is today's installment. (And if you don't get why I keep returning to such themes, take a look at my "mission statement" at the top of this page. Anyway . . .)

Granted, it is the media outlets who are greatly to blame for the shame of how low, how vulgar, how just plain SLEAZY the current state of public discourse is. They do have control over the "commentators" (*cough* pundits *cough*) they give column space or air time to. Right?

Too rare, but it is refreshing to see an example of such folk at least ,"Taking out the trash," if not doing what really needs doing; pulling their own heads out of their own asses, and doing the "Mea Culpa," dance, while beating their own backs with whips, thongs, and switches.

Anyway, here is fine example of,"Taking out the trash;" an incident where Michelle Malkin's column was dropped:



Bronwyn Lance Chester, an editorial writer at The Virginian-Pilot, stated in November 2004 when the newspaper dropped Malkin's column that Malkin "habitually mistakes shrill for thought-provoking and substitutes screaming for discussion. She’s an Asian Ann Coulter. ... She’s the worst of what’s wrong with punditry today. She adds absolutely nothing to genuine political discourse."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Malkin#Controversies

I think the last two lines says it all, and could be said to apply, equally, to most if not all the partisan columnist-pundits of the world.

Dare I ask . . . what ever happened to the art of essay writing? What ever happened to the art of commentary? When did it become such a purely partisan activity?

Lastly, is there any cure? I mean a cooridnated cure, not just waiting for individual editors to have that sort of gagging epiphany that causes them to realize:

"I have been pimping vile vulgar trash. I should not pimp vile vulgar trash."

And then do as Bronwyn Lance Chester did; take out the trash.

(Consider these questions more rhetorical than genuine, unless . . . ya got a GOOD idea for an answer.)

Forget (for now) About Getting on the PsychoPharma Meds; I think Neurological Testing is In Order Here!

Not merely fallout/follow-up to Scooter's Day(s) Off news, but sort of a general criticism of some people, and for some weird strange reason, they seem to be opposite my political and intellectual milieu. (And before I go any further, this following observation and recitation of pet peeve is high on the list of reasons it is HEALTHIER if not BEST for me to NOT debate politics on internet message boards anymore.)

Anyway, the particular stupid human trick I am about to rail against (seemingly, and I will admit the mere possibility, that my own biases lead me to believe), more often employed by right wing partisans, is the False Comparison.

Now, I also believe that sort of folk who engage in False Comparisons, also engage in what I call "Redfinition," and I am sure I posted about that here, in the past. Setting up false or specious comparisons is basically a variant of the same fraud. For example, when Kansas recently tried to change the definition of the word "SCIENCE" so it could include the unscientific theology called "Intelligent Design," into the school's curriculum:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10038768/

Mostly, these kinds of fallacies work on the same level. They usually are something of a red herring, and there usually is a sort of reverse straw man thing happing there. To explain, as you know, a proplerly constructed straw man arguement is a false argument, employed by the proponent, so they can easilly knock it down themselves. For example (and this shit actually happened):

following Elizabeth Edwards' request to Ann Coulter to stop the personal attacks, Ann replied something like . . . well I guess you are going to stop me from being able to write my books anymore.

That was a straw man fallacy as Ms. Edward's only asked (not forced, not demanded, but only asked) that Coulter stop acting mean and using mean personal attacks on people. And in response to that Coulter pulls the fraud move out of her playbook, mischaracterizing the request to 'stop the personal attacks' to one where she was being totally silenced. (Ok, there is one argument that if Coulter had nothing ugly to say, she would not have anything to say at all, but that does not seem to be where she was coming from.) Of course it would be wrong (under law) for Coulter to be totally forced to not write books anymore. But to merely suggest she stop being such a bitch? To compare the two is at minimum, a fraud. And if anyone truly believes the ideas are even remotely close? Well, anyone who can believe that is just out of their mind, plain and simple. In any event, the straw man fallacy is a variant of the false comparison tactic.

Now the main reason this is on my mind now? I implied that the Scooter Libby story had something to do with it, and many an idiot has made a false comparsion to either the Clinton Impeachment, or Clinton's last batch of pardons before he left office. Anyway, yesterday I saw a vid of that Arch Buffoon (I don't say Clown, that is disrepectful to Clowns. Clowns are trained professionals, and I have worked with and respect genuine working Clowns too much to insult them that way) Hannity. In the clip I saw, Buffoon was deep into the false analogy and harping about how "Clinton should have been charged and convicted, and sentenced."

Oh and do you remember what I said about reverse straw man arguments? Buffoon did it, right then and there. He left this juicy opening that a 4 year old could have driven a 45' Tractor Trailer though. However my particular reply to that would have been:

"But he was NOT charged, he was not tried in a court of law, and he was not sentenced. You attempt to draw an analogy here is laughable. And as far as his last minute pardons go? He did NOT do what Bush did with Libby, and that was use the power of clemency to grant clemency to someone who was a high level staffer in his own White House.

If you want to make an INTELLIGENT analogy, you need to go back in time and find an example of a President who used his powers of clemency to protect someone on his own staff, or high up in the administration. Last time that happened was when Reagan used it.

If you can not see the difference here, if you can not honestly see the disparity between your examples and REALITY, forget the meds, I think Neurological Testing is in order, here."

(In fairness to Allan Colmes, Hannity's alleged foil, he did make some points but he never challenges Hannity on the, "You Are Detached From Reality," axis. I know, he can't directly, but he should at least try the crafty way . . . . learn how to arch just one eyebrow, or take his glasses off, rub his eyes hard. Something!)

So that is my thought of the day.

Oh wait. I could have should have used one of my favorite quotes from that Tragic Prince of Denmark:

"I am but mad north-north-west. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw."

So to wrap things up here, if anyone talks in a way that shows that they in fact (or at least based on observation) do not know the difference between a hawk and a handsaw, tell yourself up in your own head, you are facing a crazy person, and even if they seem lucid, time to time, get the hell away from them, fast.

Most of all, don't give them credit for their moments of lucidity. That only encourages the crazy part.

"For anyone else, that would be a new low. For you, that is just a new medium."

Naturally, I am thinking about Bush's commutation of Scotter Libby's jail time.

Thanks to that show, "How I Met Your Mother," for the line of dialouge that so succinctly sums up my feelings about this obvious (and sadly, not suprising) demonstration of a total lack of moral foundation, and a completely depraved and shameless state of hypocricsy.


Leak from the Bush White House and you will be subject to the full force of the law . . . unless the president thinks the lawful penalty is too harsh for," One of his loyal buddies."

I can't even claim to be disgusted. It is way too late in the game for that.