McCain's dirty little secret

Sarah Palin is rather fond of suggesting that Barack Obama likes to "pal around with terrorists", but by her definition, isnt John McCain guilty of the same?

McCain has had a long history with the radio commentator and former terrorist/would be kidnapper and assassin G Gordon Liddy:
Read about him on Wikipedia

There is no question that Liddy's activities meet, if not exceed, the qualifications of a domestic terrorist. So why is John McCain not being held to the same standard?

Here is an interesting article about Liddy and McCain by Carl Berstein.

I wouldnt bring up this whole "Guilt by Association" issue myself, because I find it ridiculous in the first place, but if we are going to play this game, then it seems to me that McCain has some denouncing to do.

Rush Watch: Issue 1

Hey, I can be like Rush!
Rush is found of playing back interviews and soundbites and interjecting his own “opinion”. Opinion is in quotes because the word “opinion” implies there is a previous conscious effort made to arrive at a conclusion. Mostly what he does is try to show how each new “event” provides more evidence for his hate-leaning ideology. Let us examine this recent episode centered around Barack Obama:

Originally aired 3-28-08:
RUSH: Yesterday on CNBC, Maria Bartiromo interviewed Barack Obama. It was scary, economically.

Trey: Was it? Was it really Rush? Was it terrifying? Did it cause you to rush out and look for property in Canada? Did you shake in your little shoes? Why not let your listeners make up their own minds? You have already told your listeners what you want them to take home from this message. Nicely done, but the propaganda patrol is already on Rushcon4 with this statement. “scary”…hmmph. You know what’s scary? Dick Cheney shooting you in the face. That’s scary.

Bartiromo says, "How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15% cap gains rate go?"

OBAMA: I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15%. Uh, and if it -- if it -- you know, when I talk to people like Warren Buffett or others and I ask them, "You know, how much of a difference is it going to be if it's 20 or 25%?" they say, "Look, if it's within that range, then it's not going to distort, uh, I think economic decision making."

RUSH: Oh, my God. I'm sorry. Good God Almighty, is right. We are going to get hosed. The markets are going to get hosed. The economy is going to get hosed!

Trey: Explain how, or better yet, shift gears and say something that doesn’t apply. That’s what you’re good at:

Rush: Capital gains is not income! It's simply what people invest in, and if there is a return on it, the 15% cap gains rate is the equivalent of not punishing achievement from people who took a risk.

Trey: That’s what I suspected. No information was forthcoming on the “hosing”.
*sigh* No one said it was income, Rush. Who said that? How is 15% not punishing people? Zero would not be punishing people. Oh, and he conveniently neglects to include the fact of capitals gains loss deductions. Took a risk on what? This is an effort by Rush to link the Listener to the notion that he/she is a hard working American who deserves his/her money while the low down libbies only seek to steal it from them. Nice work. Maybe we should revert to what it was when Reagan was President. 28%. Ooops! Did I say that out loud? Oh, and the Capital Gains tax has been tied to the income tax rate for quite awhile Rush. His statements are simply nonsensical.

Rush: He's gotta ask Warren Buffett. No, he doesn't know. He's a liberal Democrat. He doesn't care here what the effect is going to be.

Trey: Of course he does. He lives in this country and has investments. He has made millions off the stale of his book. What sort of disconnect is that in Rush’s logic? I love the non-sense that neo-cons cry out against the limousine liberals in one breath, but then accuse them of wanting to take the money of the wealthy and give it out on street corners as handouts to the poor. Please.

Rush: Raising the rate to be "fair" and pander to the vast majority of people... Bartiromo is shocked as we are by this, but of course, she's a journalist. She can't really exhibit it. But she can't believe her ears here. Listen to this exchange.

Trey: *Sigh* Who is he “pandering” too by raising capital gains taxes? Economists I guess. I don’t know where Rush thinks the money to pay for Iraq and Bush’s insane spending bills is going to come from. He must operate under the notion that the government can just print money when it needs it. I guess the economy was covered on one of the days he skipped class at Jackrabbit Missouri Junior College to get high and play Bob Marley.
The reporter didn’t act SHOCKED to me. That is some serious spin. I love how he needs to tell the listeners how to feel and re-interpret an event. I guess Rush is a master at reading the subtle nuanced facial quirks of shocked reporters.

BARTIROMO: Let's hypothetically say that the cap gains tax goes from 15% to 25%. You're impacting a lot of people. A hundred million Americans own stocks today so it's not just the rich.

OBAMA: No, no, no, absolutely, and -- and -- and that's why I think that it may be, for example, that you could structure something in which, uh, people of certain incomes were exempted from, uh, this increase and it would stay at 15. The broader principle that I'm interested in is just making sure that we've got a tax code that is fair for all Americans.

RUSH: Folks, this is economic illiteracy. "A tax code that's fair for all Americans"? You're going to exempt some people from paying the cap gains tax? The people he's going to exempt don't pay it now. The people that he's going to exempt do not have investments.

Trey: What? This is outright fabrication and conjecture. The capital gains tax is structured as it is and comes with a lot of exemptions and deductions. How does Rush know who Obama plans to exempt? ESP? I haven’t read the plan yet have you? Economic illiteracy? This is rich, a college drop out junk-head calling a Harvard Law grad illiterate! What does that make “C’s get degrees” Bush-43?
I also love how he leaves all of Obama’s pauses in the transcripts as “uhs” to make him appear dimwitted. Parlor trick shenanigans.

Rush: They don't yet have the money to have investments and so he's going to... It's about "fairness." It's making sure that everybody's taxed... It's making sure "the rich" are taxed. This is just... One more.

Trey: Did you see any point in the above? I didn’t. He didn’t even finish his sentences. That’s because there is nothing of substance there and he disguises what would have been the ramblings of a loon with a pretense of indignation…as if he were too upset to continue. O’Reilly is a master of this. Limbaugh’s using hot button words like “fairness” in a vitriolic fashion to further pin the “dirty lib” label. So he condemns without ever actually saying anything.
People, you have to pay taxes and they aren’t going away. Get used to it and quit crying. If Bush hadn’t spent the government’s money like a mad fool on the war and on the insane Prescription Drug Act, we wouldn’t be in a position to have to raise taxes. If they suddenly did away with all your taxes, prices would go up to compensate. Give me a break. If you hate paying taxes, stay off my roads!

Bartiromo says, "Why raise taxes at all in an economic slowdown? Isn't that going to put further strain on people?"

OBAMA: Well, look, the -- there's no doubt that anything I do that is going to be premised on what the economic situation is when I take office. The thing you can be assured of is that I'm not going to be making these decisions based on ideology.

RUSH: Bull.

Trey: Conjecture and ESP. Black magic. No logical argument, just simple contradiction. That’s easier than making a logical argument.

OBAMA: I'm not a dogmatist.

RUSH: Bull!

Trey: Again. What is this contradiction even based on?

OBAMA: I know that some -- yuh, uh, my opponents to the right would like to paint me as this woolly-eyed, you know, uhhh, liberal or --

RUSH: You are!

Trey: I can do this too. Rush is a Nazi racist homophobe who thinks the Bible is the Constitution. See how easy? Doesn’t make it true…or does it?

OBAMA: -- wild-eyed. (nervous laugh)


BARTIROMO: You're not a liberal?

OBAMA: Uh, the, uh, but -- but -- My attitude is -- is that I -- I believe in the market.

RUSH: You don't!

Trey: He does! Shut up and listen. Or cant you hear because you went deaf from you Oxycontin addiction?

OBAMA: I believe in entrepreneurship.

RUSH: You don't!

Trey: He does. Read about him sometime. He has written a lot on the subject.

OBAMA: I believe in opportunity.

RUSH: You don't!

Trey: He does. Ask any of the inner city Chicagoans he’s helped get back on their feet. Oh, that would require you doing research though wouldn’t it? Its easier just to hate and contradict.

OBAMA: I believe in capitalism.

RUSH: You don't.

Trey: He does.

OBAMA: And I want to do what works, but what I want to make sure of is it works for all America, and not just a small sliver of America.

RUSH: That last comment just cancels out everything he said before it! That's socialism! "Make sure it works for all," and who of course going to do that? Why, our benevolent government and president, Barack Obama! Because we hate all the other instruments and elements and businesses in the free market. We've been conditioned to that. This is scary.

Trey: Doing what’s right for the majority is scary? What world are you from? No wonder you hide in your basement. I’ve got news for you armchair politicians and historians, our economy and culture are based on socialist ideologies co-mingled with free-market capitalism. Audit a course in economics sometime. It’s explained around week 6 of Econ 101 I believe. Rush is nice and comfy is his plush mansion working from home, but some of us use roads from time to time along with other benefits of society like libraries, police, fire departments, hospitals etc. There is no such thing as pure capitalism, so quit using “socialism” as a dirty word. YOU LIVE UNDER SOCIALIST PROGRAMS AND HAVE YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. How the hell do you think your precious wall around America is going to get built? Private contributions? Ah the glorious benefits of public education. Too bad Rush flunked out of Southeast Missouri State after two semesters. I heard that’s a tough school. ;)

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, it is apparent to me, and probably to many of you, that Barack Obama is clueless.

Trey: No, he’s a Columbia and Harvard Law School educated professor. You’re a flunkie junkie. Where TF is Southeast Missouri State? I guess they don’t use big words like Obama uses down “in the holler”.

Rush: I think he's vamping in his answers. I don't think he has the slightest idea about the capital gains tax; I don't think he understands how it works.

Trey: I think he does, but I know you don’t. “Vamping”!

Rush. I don't think he understands the basic elements of the US economy. How can he? He's been listening to Jeremiah Wright for 20 years.

Trey: That’s right, Rev. Wright taught Economics at Columbia. Who knew?

Rush: I don't mean that lightly. You laugh at it all you want,

Trey: You are too scary to laugh at no matter how laughable your statements are, ass-hat.

Rush: but I'm dead serious about it. Jeremiah Wright understands because he's figured out how to get the church to buy him a $1.6 million house with ten million left over to furnish the thing while telling everybody else to avoid middle classness.

Trey: This has to do with Obama how? Oh, lets not get into Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell’s palacial mansions. I don’t hear his congregation complaining. Oh, how did you earn your money again Rush??? Hmmm? Spewing hate, that’s how. That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Since you’re an unapologetic racist, Im sure you use another word though.

Rush: But he vamps, gets a question, says whatever he thinks he has to say, whatever sounds good.

Trey: Because saying things that sound awkward and illogical is an under appreciated and little-used campaign tactic. Hey, he can pronounce “nuclear” too. He vamps! Oh my God!

Rush: Let's go to The View.

Trey: Why not, you didn’t make sense in the last segment, lets have more fun. I don’t watch the view, but I guess Rush must have a crush on Whoopie or he thinks the View is real news...which is probably the case.

Rush: He was on The View today. The Arousal Gap is back. The View gals are just swooning over Obama today, telling him he's sexy like Brad Pitt.

Trey: Jeez, jealous much? Arousal Gap? Ewww…..

Rush: Joy Behar said, "I have to say just one other thing bad before we go to the serious stuff. I understand that you're related to Brad Pitt in some way. How are you related to Brad Pitt?"

OBAMA: I guess we're ninth cousins something removed or something.

BEHAR: Isn't that fascinating stuff?

OBAMA: I think he got the better-looking side of the gene pool --

BEHAR: Not necessarily.

WALTERS: I was saying just before you came on, maybe we shouldn't say this, but we thought you were very sexy looking.

OBAMA: Oh -- (cheers and applause)

RUSH: I told you, the Arousal Gap is back. That was Barbara Walters on The View today. Barbara Walters then said, "Look, if Reverend Wright's still there, would you then have left the church or have said, 'I just can't have anything to do with him?'"

OBAMA: Had the reverend not retired and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying there at the church.

RUSH: For all its flaws. I don't believe any of this. He put the guy on his campaign. He was an advisor to his campaign.

Trey: So without proof your tactic is to just call someone a liar and it makes it true? Yes for all its flaws. Don’t pull out the patriot pin again, you bitch about America more than anyone in history.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck, "The person who you chose time and time again to be your spiritual advisor, when he says and characterizes the USA as you said wrongly, US of KKKA, that the chickens are coming home to roost after 9/11, suggesting that we got what we deserved, you chose him again to marry you, to baptize your children, you named a book after one of his speeches. For 20 years, would you think that somehow suggested it was a lack of judgment in the man? You had no idea, you never heard about these sermons?"

OBAMA: What you've been seeing is a snippet of a man. Imagine if somebody compiled the five stupidest things you'd ever said and put them in a 30-second loop that was played every day for two weeks --

HASSELBECK: But some of these are sold on the DVD at the church.

OBAMA: Well, I understand, but I don't buy -- I don't purchase all the DVDs, and I didn't read all the church bulletins. It's not to excuse it. There were some things, as I said, that I disagreed with him on. But I didn't see some of the things that were said that I would have taken offense to.

Trey: What everyone is completely missing here is that A) Obama is correct. Those are 5 sermons out of over a 1000 he has given do not represent everything about the man and B) People bought those DVDs. So you have a rather large congregation of people that also chose not the leave the church after hearing these sermons. You had better stop to wonder why things like this are being said. Oh, and nothing compares to these lunatics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church
But I don’t hear boo about them. I dont hear anyone talking about Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson claiming the ACLU is responsible for 9/11 or Ted Haggard hiring a gay male prostitute to do crystal meth with, or Orel Roberts bilking his congregation out of millions because he saw an 800 ft Jesus, or Jimmy Swiggart and his prostitute scandal, or the Bakkers bilking their congregation out of millions of dollars, or the children the priests have molested over hundreds of years...should I go on?

RUSH: Wait a minute, he just gave a speech where he said he did, didn't he? This is a carnival barker. You know, this is a carny. This is a guy who will say whatever he thinks the people at the group at the time want to hear, without regard for what he said the day before, the hour before, the week before. Here is what Obama's talking about. How many of you out there have said five things this racist, this hateful, and this stupid?

Trey: Most of you if you are honest with yourself. Ive been in your living rooms filled with white men. Don’t piss on my head and tell me it’s raining. Ive heard some of the most vile and disgusting racist remarks come out of people’s mouths just “hanging out with the guys” and even at family holiday gatherings. Do people mean those things? Some do, some dont. Let he who is without sin..that is what we should remember here.
Does Obama say things that people want to hear? Well, no fucking duh brainiac. He’s running for President. I guess he should tell people that if McCain is elected, the terrorists will set off a nuclear bomb in America. That’s what Cheney said about John Kerry.

WRIGHT: Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people! Hillary ain't never been called a nigger. Bill did us just like he did Monica Lewinsky, he was riding dirty. In white America, US of KKKA, black men turning on black men. I am sick of Negroes who just do not get it. Not God bless America, God (bleep) America, it's in the Bible, for killing innocent people, God (bleep) America. And now we are indignant because of stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards! America's chickens are coming home to roost.

RUSH: Yeah, well, this is five things here we're going to loop and play 'em over and over again, and I didn't buy all the DVDs. He's insulting our intelligence if he thinks these are the only things that this guy has been saying. Elisabeth Hasselbeck said to Barack Obama, "Do you have a relationship with Reverend Wright now?"

Trey: I don’t agree with what he says, but I understand where he is coming from. Oh, and if he said other things you’d be playing them, not alluding to them. Quit making up things to throw into the fire.

OBAMA: I talked to him after this -- this episode. He had come back from a cruise, and, you know, I think he's -- he's saddened by what's happened.

RUSH: Bull!

Trey: Again Rush’s omniscience.

OBAMA: And I told him, look, you know, I -- I feel badly that he has been characterized just in this one way, and people haven't seen this broader aspect of him. But he was my pastor. You know, one of the things that I think people overstate is this notion of mentor or spiritual advisor --

RUSH: You said it!

Trey: That response doesn’t make sense given Obama’s previous statement. Rush tries to paint Obama as contradicting himself when he didn’t. Typical. Not a “lie” but a distortion of the truth.
OBAMA: He was a pastor in the sense that he's somebody where you go to church, you talk to him about my faith in Jesus.

RUSH: Look, Barack, we have it. It's in the record. You are talking to Jeremiah Wright and you said to him, "You and I know, I have to throw you under the bus, bro, at some point. Your sermons are way out there. I'm going to have to. You know this day is coming." They talked about it. This was a strategeric plan. We're screwed. It doesn't matter. None of this matters because we're just screwed.

Trey: Who’s screwed? What? This rant doesn’t even make sense. People, think for yourselves. Relying on ignorant disk-jockeys to tell you what news events “really mean” is a sure fire to repeat something dumb and ignorant in front of an educated audience. Don’t be surprised when people contradict you and take offense. You’re better off looking for spiritual messages hidden inside episodes of Gilligan’s Island. Seriously. You voted twice for Bush, now look what mess we are in. Are you going to listen to ignorant, uneducated drug addicts or will you turn to real news? I hope you think carefully about this.

An open letter to Governor Strickland:

Governor Strickland,

I have always been a supporter of yours and I will continue to support you even after this election. Thank you for the good work you have done so far as our Governor.

However, I would like to respectfully request that you change your decision to support Senator Hillary Clinton in the upcoming Presidential Primary.

An honest assessment of Senator Clinton’s reputation and standing amongst the American people clearly shows undeniable tarnish. As some candidates have a natural leadership quality that cannot quite be categorized or easily summarized, Senator Clinton appears to have the unique ability to generate irritation, anger and confrontation. I think it is quite likely that a new Clinton White House would create a “circled wagon” mentality in Congress. There are those who are adamant that no new Clinton policy be put into effect. The self-imposed Congressional gridlock will be a graveyard for any new bills brought into it. To make matters worse, she appears to have alienated a number of key Democratic leaders in her bid to become President. Is this reputation fair or justified? Possibly not, that would be a long and in depth discussion. However, it is the reality of the situation. Those are the cards we have to play.

Regardless of what our personal inclinations toward the Clinton’s are, you cannot fail to see the polarizing effect they have on politicians and voters. I cannot see how anything will “get done” in Washington with her reputation, particularly in light of what seems to be a scorched earth policy being taken by her campaign (tearing down her opponents on both sides). We do not need another “Grenade-Thrower” in the White House. We do not need to waste any more time “sending a message” to Republicans, President Bush and/or any other individual we deem as being “not on our side”. If we give up on our message and philosophy because they will not be enacted without compromise, what have we really accomplished? We need a leader who can listen to all sides of an argument and forge the best possible solution. We need to begin the process of coming together, creating consensus and moving forward.

I believe Senator Barack Obama represents our best chance at taking those tentative first steps towards a new era in politics.

Senator Barack Obama instills in me (and others) a sense of real hope. For the first time since Bill Clinton’s first Presidential campaign, I feel excited and enthusiastic about a candidate. I have volunteered for the first time in years and have leant him my financial support. That feeling and those actions are “real”. That is to say, he has already instigated “change” by changing my viewpoint intellectually and emotionally. He is not just a man of empty words or “rhetoric”. It so happens that I agree with his policies almost across the board, but I feel like I would support him anyway. I would be proud to have him as our new “Ambassador to the World”.

Senator Obama not only has that “it factor” that makes people want to follow him, he has excellent ideas for moving this country forward. These ideas would also be open for debate and discussion, unlike the original Clinton Health Plan. Policies in which others get a voice are policies that, though may take longer to enact, do get enacted and do get support and funding. Senator Obama is also capable of explaining his position to others in common terms that all can understand and relate to. I see a future in which all members of Congress rise and applaud at the State of the Union Address, not half or a quarter. . Does this seem over-reaching or ambitious? Perhaps idealistic? Maybe and quite possibly, but now I have the HOPE that it can happen. Hope is a powerful instrument of change. All in all, Senator Obama is a “complete package”.

Do I think Senator Clinton would do harm to this country? Not overtly, no. But I do believe that very little will be accomplished. This election is too important. This time in our country’s history is important. We are at war in two countries and our economy is in recession. Ohio itself has been hurting for years. We need change. We need leadership. We need a new philosophy and we need it now. “Politics as usual,” is the wrong tenet at the wrong time.

This, of course, is all in “my humble opinion”, but I truly hope you will take the time to re-assess your position on this election and give Senator Obama your consideration.

Thank you for your time.

Comments from the World on the Virgina Tech incident.

Lets see what our friends across the globe are saying about us...

Australia
"Eleven years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns, and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country."
—Australian Prime Minister John Howard, expressing sympathy for the victims' families and referring to the 1996 shooting spree by a man with a semi-automatic rifle who killed 35 people in Port Arthur, on the island of Tasmania. Australia banned most types of semi-automatic weapons after the incident.

So banning certain types of firearms reduces gun violence? Explain how. I love the disconnect from logic here of the belief that the elimination of guns leads to a mystical pacification of individuals with mental disorders. It also almost seems like people are saying that one death is understandable, but multiple killings from semi-automatic weapons is a horror. A single loss of life is a terrible thing. If you follow your own road of logic to its conclusion, outlaw ALL firearms. Don’t act like you’ve actually gone out and done something noble and good because you’ve kept some deluded suicidal maniac from taking out a small town and kept his death-toll in the single digits.

Asia
"We cannot but worry that [Cho's] shocking atrocity would implant a dark image [of] Koreans in to the brains of Americans and world citizens."
—Editorial in Manhwa Ilbo, Seoul, South Korea

I hope not, but its typical of Americans to look around for an ethnic group to hate, so I would be on the lookout for this as well. Looks like it’s your lucky day, middle-easterners! Breathe easy and wear those turbans with pride…oh..unless Cho turns out to be muslim. Then I’d hide. Bubba gonna find you. He got a terrible anger.


"Why can people bring guns to campus? How is it possible that so many innocent people could be killed? How could it happen?"
—Sugiyarti, an Indonesian woman who learned late Tuesday that her 34-year-old stepson, Partahi Lumbantoruan, was among those killed. The family had sold property and a car to finance his civil engineering studies.

I feel a great deal of sympathy for anyone who loses a child. People around the world believe in the ideal that is the American Culture. They expect their children to be safe here. I know that I feel we are one of the safest countries in the world. How can any atrocity happen? I do not have that answer.

"It's not a question of an Indian professor getting killed in the firing. This is related to the American gun laws. We can't do anything about it. It is something which has happened in the United States. They have got to change the law."
—K. Subrahmanyam, a former member of India's National Security Council. India has some 80,000 students in the U.S. One of the Virginia Tech victims was G.V. Loganathan, a 51-year-old lecturer at the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, who came from Chennia, India.

First of all, anyone from India commenting negatively on the American culture should be ignored outright. Why don’t you go home and pass around some sandwiches in Bombay and keep your thoughts to yourself. India and Pakistan are poised to bomb each other back into the stone age with nuclear weapons and you want to lecture us on handguns? Malnutrition and AIDS kill more people in India than guns kill Americans. Plus you have a sharp and steady rise in religious related violence. Look in the mirror Subrahmanyan.

Its not the law, by the way, it’s the CONSTITUTION that would have to be changed. Keep your hands off my Constitution.

"[The shootings] underscore that fact that in the U.S., a tragedy caused by guns can happen anywhere.... We hope that this will not trigger race-related problems for Asians.... We like to see the U.S. government, Congress and the people strengthen gun-control laws."
—An editorial in the Japanese paper Asahi Shimbun calling for tougher gun controls in the United States

I agree. The only slight modification I would make is that the gun control laws are actually on the books now, they just are not enforced. Maybe if people would quit flying airplanes into our buildings we could get around to doing something about the criminal element in our society.

Europe
"Why, we ask, do Americans continue to tolerate gun laws and a culture that seems to condemn thousands of innocents to death every year, when presumably, tougher restrictions, such as those in force in European countries, could at least reduce the number?"
—The Times of London, in an editorial delving into the American psyche and the gun laws across the nation

Everything about this statement is ignorant. Id say there is a mental deficiency due to too much bangers and mash. We here in America are not in the habit of amending our Constitution based upon “presumptions”. Which European countries are we talking about exactly anyway? The ones formerly occupied by the Soviet Union, those formerly occupied by Germany, or Germany where until recently you could be arrested and tortured for looking at someone the wrong way? Explain please.

America = apples; Europe = Oranges.

Oh, by the way, gun violence in America is going down…Ill repeat that several times below as well…so we don’t need your help or advice Clive, Basil or whatever you name is.

"It is a delusion … to imagine that controls on their own will stop the rise of gun crime, and the killing that results … what is needed is a wholesale shift in the national culture—and that will take rather longer than an arms ban."
—Mangus Linklater, The Times of London columnist

Mangus is the MAN! And this is the point I agree with. Our culture needs to change to address the issue of violence and alienation. I don’t read a lot about disaffected guns leaping up off the shelves on their own kill people.

Serial killers generally don’t use firearms. Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun. Al Quaeda didn’t use guns on 911 (box cutters for crying out loud!). I see guns being used by battered wives to defend themselves, but a single drunk man can terrorize a household with his backhand, a belt and a bad temper. And yes, disgruntled boyfriends and husbands have shot their estranged wives and girlfriends, Im aware of that. But don’t think for a moment that eliminating guns would eliminate the problem. Address the cause, not the tools. That’s like saying if for some reason, painting offended you, you would outlaw paintbrushes. Doesn’t stop anything.

"There's only one real ‘freedom' in America—the freedom to kill one another… if guns weren't so readily available in the ‘land of the free,' this tragedy might never have happened."
—London's Daily Mail columnist Russell Miller

You’re a stupid piece of biohazard. I’d punch you in the face but your pansy-ass would sue me and Id end up in jail and paying for your kid’s education. I wish I had the freedom to kick the ignorance out of you, but I don’t. Look, any disgruntled kid with a gas can and a pack of matches can wreck unimaginable terror on a society. Guys like “Russell” always make me think they are trying to impress art-school pseudo intellectual womyn with their ultra-leftist drivel. Grow a pair and maybe you’ll get lucky with a real woman you dumb cockney fuck. "might never have happened?" At least have the courage to make a definative statement. Qualification= "probably a lot of bull-shite"

"There is such a high murder rate in the United States that even if you excluded the deaths caused there by the use of guns, their homicide rate would still be higher than ours. In other words, even if there were not a single gun in America, there would still be more murders and manslaughters than in Britain. Bringing gun control to America would not stop it being a country where a lot of people get killed."
—James Bartholomew, political commentator at the Daily Express in London

Sad, but true - somewhat. What the world tends to forget is our unique multicultural situation and the trend towards the disintegration of our inner-cities (where the overwhelming majority of the murders occur) that has been occurring since the 70s. What is widely overlooked is that most of America is safer than anywhere else in the world. This includes both crime rates and murder rates. Do the reading for yourself. Step into Washington DC, New York, Las Angeles, and yes…there are places you just don’t want to go! Just try to get yourself murdered in Maine though.

"[T]he response of many who wish America ill will have been gratuitous schadenfreude. They see a people who live by the gun also dying by it, be they Marines in Anbar province or students in Virginia…. How can American soldiers disarm Iraqi families of their weapons in Baghdad yet claim the right to arm themselves to the teeth back home?"
—The Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins

Interesting take on the situation. To my own spin on it: its interesting to me that we will criminalize a soldier who says he “cant kill” then demonize a civilian killer. Not that Im coming down on the side of the killer, but there is a disconnect there. Also, if you order the bombing of a bunch of brown people in another country, you are “making the world a safer place” and considered by some to be a hero. Ask an Iraqi who has lost a child to an American bomb what he thinks about Virginia Tech.

"In a country where ‘the right to bear arms' is written into the Constitution and where there are an estimated 192 million firearms, the problem isn't simply one of a particular interest group. After the tragedy, voices rose up to deplore the fact that professors and students are not authorized to arm themselves, since one of them could have neutralized the killer. With that kind of reasoning, America is not close to overcoming its violence."
—Excerpts from an editorial headlined "Tragédie Américaine," in France's Le Monde newspaper

I still love how it’s America America America when the kid was South Korean and presumably raised with South Korean mores. Anyway…what does a surrender-monkey like you know about defending himself? Maybe a little more American culture would have kept you from positioning your defensive cannons in such a way that they couldn’t be used when the Germans walked right around them. But what do I know? We have heroes that actually fought the enemy. Charles de Gaulle? How did that hiding in a basement treat ya? He’s only slightly more a man than your other great hero Joan of Arc and only because we think he may have actually had testicles. (inconclusive). I guess when you are in a situation where when you think of war you look to be saved by a 13 year old girl, American culture would likely confuse you.

"What is, for us, an archaism remains, for many Americans, a fundamental right, a right to remain armed, which is becoming more and more costly. That is the difference between us and them"
—Pierre Rousselin, from Paris's Le Figaro

Gun violence continues to decline in the US or by “more costly” do you refer to the effect inflation has on gun prices? What’s this “us and them” talk? Try that the next time someone invades you. I bet you wish you had guns when the Gestapo was rounding up your family. All of this “disarmament” talk only works in a culturally homogenous society with a well-established army.

"In France, we say everything ends in song. In the land of John Wayne, Charlton Heston and George Bush, a great partisan of the NRA, everything, individual anger, heartbreak, neighborhood disputes, quarrels between dealers or depression, ends in shootouts. That is why students die on campuses, without anyone, starting with Hillary Clinton, thinking to do anything much about it."
—Laurent Joffrin, writing in the French newspaper Libération

Huh? WTF? Sober up and get back to me.

"In Virginia at the age of 13, you can buy a revolver at a supermarket."
—From the Italian newspaper il Messaggero, in an article headlined Pistole Facili (Easy Guns). Italian newspapers carried extensive comments from Marina Cogo and Giancarlo Bordonaro, two 23-year-old Virginia Tech students from Milan. Cogo is returning home, vowing not to return.

Are you stoned? Let’s not clutter the debate with a lot of nonsense. Where TF are you shopping anyway? Besides, if I was from Milan, I doubt I would go back either. That’s like Paris Hilton saying she would never go back to Motel Six.

Africa
"This is a shocking event that highlights serious malfunction in many societies. We hope the necessary lessons will be learned in such tragedies that are now becoming a common occurrence in the western world."
—South Africa's deputy minister of foreign affairs, Aziz Pahad

Me too. Except that “common occurrence” line. Gun ownership and gun violence is going down in the United States.

"[The shootings are a] shocking reminder of the violence that lies so relatively close to the surface of not only American society, but also that of our own.... The Virginia Tech atrocity cannot be seen in isolation. Like in this country, shootings at schools, colleges and workplaces take place in the United States with appalling regularity. So routine have they become that, again like in this country, it is only the multiple shootings that attract headlines."
—Editorial from South Africa's Daily News newspaper

Define “appalling regularity”. What if I said that students in China were being run over by tanks with “appalling regularity.” I like how violence, civil-war and AIDs-ridden Africans feel like they can comment on us. How’d that Apartheid work out for you? Yeah, thought so.
I think Id pick America and our culture over Darfur. Huh? Whats that? I thought so. It just got quiet in here….

Israel
"[This] frays U.S. nerves at a time when violence has become an unwelcome guest in more and more American homes."
—From Israel's Jerusalem Post

From a country where citizens serve a mandatory stint in the Army and are equipped with gas-masks. Haven’t had a lot of suicide bombers in my grocery. How bout yours? We are the only thing that stands between you and complete annihilation by your enemies. Id keep you mouth shut.

Iraq
"It is a big loss for the American people and I think that this is a message from Allah to them to stop and think of what is happening in Iraq. Thousands of Iraqis lost their sons or fathers and all of this was because of the so-called American democracy being exported to Third World countries."
—Haifa Salim, a 34-year-old Baghdad housewife

Agreed. Well…not so much the “message from Allah” part, but I agree with the sentiment.


"I feel sorry that there are innocent civilians getting killed for no reason. We in Iraq have tasted this curse and we know how difficult it is to lose a loved one. [But] at other times, especially when I'm emotional, I think, 'Let the American people get a taste of what they brought us, death and tragedies and blood everywhere.'
—Khalid Mohammed, a 33-year-old civil engineer in Baghdad

Well put. Keep in mind too that Baghdad is under martial law and people die every day from violence and mostly from suicide bombs. You see, in countries where they have NOTHING, people can still find a way to kill each other. Violence is a kind of natural disaster. I think its one that we can do something about if we can try to come together as a nation and people, but you can just start writing laws and hoping it goes away. Its like trying to legislate away a flood. Instead, lets start building dams against violence and diverting waterways that lead to bloodshed. In other words, lets deal with the issue in a logical way.

Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell

Finally finished this beast after about 4 months of work! Granted I had several other books going at the same time, but closing the cover on this one felt like quite an accomplishment. This should loosen up my reading schedule a bit!

Quite a lot has been said about this novel already, the first by Susannah Clarke. You can read a synopsis and other’s thoughts about this tome on Amazon, I won’t try to summarize them here.

I knew what people were saying about before I decided to tackle it myself. Having scored the hardcover for five dollars at Half-Price books went a long way towards getting me to read it I think! Knowing that so many people found it ponderous and boring, I didn’t go into it with very high expectations. I ended up taking it with me on vacation as I thought that would be the perfect time to attempt a “novel”. With work taking up most of active neurons, I tend to find my daily reading to be a bit more of the “escapist” variety. And contrary to popular belief I never had a problem carrying this around with me and onto an airplane. For crying out loud people if a “book” is too much for you to carry around then maybe you should put it down and get outside for some fresh air. I’ve never heard people bad-mouth a book because it was “too heavy” before. Jeesh!

Personally, once I started Jonathan Strange and Mr Norell, I had trouble putting it down.
It’s not a novel for everyone however, that’s for sure. The characters are not terribly sympathetic, and to make matters worse, Ms. Clarke starts the novel out with Mr. Norrell, one of the least sympathetic protagonists in the book. (sometimes you just want to smack him) In addition, there isn’t a lot of “action” in this book, nor a lot of delving in the psyches of any of the characters. It is what it is, and that is basically a sort of historical novel on the return of magic to England.

It must have been the mood I was in at the time I read it. To me it was fascinating. I love her imagination and her ability to re-write the history of this time period to include her story. Perhaps one needs to be primed with exposure to truly academic tomes of dusty history to appreciate the liveliness of her work, it’s hard for me to say. I do know that many readers will find the book a bit dry.

One of the chief complaints about the book is the use of footnotes in the text. Many feel that it slows and already plodding narrative down to a crawl. To me the footnotes filled in a lot of the more esoteric historical points that were missing from the main storyline. It was here that we learn a lot about individual magicians and their associations with the denizens of Faerie.

To summarize, this book is an excellent example of “it’s the journey, not the destination.” If you find that you are not enjoying the narrative, and wish only to move ahead towards the resolution of the plot, than this novel will not be for you. If you wish to spend an hour or so in an alternate world in which magic is real and the creatures of Faerie wait in dark shadows to prey upon the inhabitants of Christendom, then this may be something you would enjoy. I would advise going in with low expectations and aware of the fact that not a lot is going to “happen” as it were…

The real story behind Lost.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrH4iiw-owM

Yes, this is very close to what I think is the real driving force behind the production decisions concerning Lost. What was once one of the best shows on TV has become the epitome of everything that is wrong in "Hollywood".

Im having trouble imagining what sort of ending they have planned that is going live up to the expectations of a five year wait.

If you happen to be a reader of Entertainment Weekly, then you'll have been treated to the slobbering love fest that exists between Stephen King and the creators of Lost over the past two years or so. Its not surprising to me really that JJ Abrams is adapting the Dark Tower series. One writer/producer who cant end a story working with an author who cant end a story.

You are The Devil

Well, ok, YOU are not the Devil, I am...apparently. I took this test after following a link from Boggleboy's deviantart website. The link is also below if you'd like to try. I dont put much of any value into it, but it's amusing.

Materiality. Material Force. Material temptation; sometimes obsession

The Devil is often a great card for business success; hard work and ambition.

Perhaps the most misunderstood of all the major arcana, the Devil is not really "Satan" at all, but Pan the half-goat nature god and/or Dionysius. These are gods of pleasure and abandon, of wild behavior and unbridled desires. This is a card about ambitions; it is also synonymous with temptation and addiction. On the flip side, however, the card can be a warning to someone who is too restrained, someone who never allows themselves to get passionate or messy or wild - or ambitious. This, too, is a form of enslavement. As a person, the Devil can stand for a man of money or erotic power, aggressive, controlling, or just persuasive. This is not to say a bad man, but certainly a powerful man who is hard to resist. The important thing is to remember that any chain is freely worn. In most cases, you are enslaved only because you allow it.

What Tarot Card are You?
Take the Test to Find Out.