"Sebelius and Obama Should Be Ashamed"

As is often the case, I'm a few days late with this post but I'm sure our loyal follower (the GoogleBot) won't mind.

The latest kick in the balls to the progressive movement by the Obama administration came last week when Kathleen Sebelius (Secretary of Health & Human Services) announced that despite an FDA finding that 'Plan B' posed no health threats and could be sold over-the-counter without restriction, the Obama administration was maintaining the status quo that girls under the age of 17 would need a prescription to receive the medication (despite the fact that it needs to be taken within 72 hours of a sexual encounter to be effective - which essentially eliminates the possibility of getting a prescription quick enough for it to matter).

When asked about this at a press conference last week, Obama replied that he didn't want a 10 year old being able to buy medication next to batteries and bubble gum that "if not taken properly could be harmful".

That is a load of bullshit, no?!?

Couldn't that line of reasoning be applied to just about anything? I seem to recall that some jackhole died in the past year or two during a stupid radio-show stunt when he drank too much water! Does that mean we need to restrict water purchases because it could be harmful if not utilized properly?

It brings to mind a quote that I associate with Ani DiFranco:

Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right.

Moreover, think back to when you were ten... were you perusing the pharmaceuticals looking for medication? When I was ten and happened to get my hands on a few precious dollars, I was buying baseball cards and/or candy. Did I miss out on a rite of childhood? The recreational use of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals? And, by the way, considering Obama bent over for Big PHaRMA during the health care reform debate, you'd think he'd be cheerleading people buying their products.

It also brings to mind an old Jerry Seinfeld joke about laundry detergent ads that stressed how good their product was at dealing with blood stains; Seinfeld observed that if you're dealing with clothes with bloodstains all over it, maybe laundry stains aren't really your biggest concern! This feels like that, if a pre-teen is looking to use B (either legitimately or illegitimately as in Obama's ludicrous scenario), then I'm going to suggest that misusing medication (deemed to be safe by the FDA) is really not the biggest concern in this child's life.

I Call Bullshit: O'Reilly Factor Edition

First of all, I get the feeling from watching that show that one could devote a post a day to de-bunking the B.S. they are selling over at The O'Reilly Factor.

Also, I should say that I actually only watched a few segments of the show. There may have been other B.S. that I just didn't see.

Okay, so Mr. O'Reilly starts his show with The Memo (entitled Agony On The Left). It includes:

It is not good for the nation to borrow another $2T on top of the $14.5T we already owe. I think even the dimmest among us knows that is bad. Who wants to keep borrowing? The Left and it's leader, President Obama.

Okay. The use of the terms "not good" and "bad" are perhaps passable in only the most literal sense because, yes, we'd all love if the budget was balanced and everyone had free health care and our schools were perfect and we all got to marry supermodels and watch Derek Anderson make additional Pro Bowls. Other than the last one, none of this is likely to happen any time soon.

As for "who wants to keep borrowing?" line. Is it not disingenuous to indict Obama when The Paul Ryan Plan - which was voted for by 98% of GOP House members - would (officially) add $5T to the national debt over the next 10 years? And that is not to mention the preposterous assumptions his plan makes regarding the unemployment rate and future GDP growth!

After The Memo, Mr. O'Reilly speaks with Dick Morris. One topic they got into, after talking about how horrific President Obama is, was recent polls indicating that, nevertheless, Obama is beating Mitt Romney (47-41), Michelle Bachmann (50-37), Rick Perry (50-37), and Sarah Palin (53-34) in hypothetical 2012 matchups.

Mr. Morris, in a curious twist of logic, claims that means Romney is beating Obama by 6 points because, in a presidential election, undecideds always vote against the incumbent. "Always?", Mr. O'Reilly inquires. Yes, always claims Mr. Morris. He says "I worked for Bill Clinton and I'd take a poll and he'd be at 40 and Bob Dole would be at 40. I would say to him 'you're losing by 20 points' and he would understand that".

At that point, I thought hmmmm... did Bill Clinton not completely crush Bob Dole? It really doesn't seem as if Mr. Morris has any inclination to present any objective facts!

Mr. Morris continues his analysis of the poll by saying that Michelle Bachmann and Rick Perry are only losing because many voters don't know who they are. Does it not seem odd to jump to that conclusion when the undecided in these polls range from 12 (in the Romney poll) to 13 (in each of the other three hypothetical matchups)? What is the evidence that indicates that name recognition is holding back Rep. Bachmann and Gov. Perry? (Not to mention that I think most independents would, in fact, become less inclined to vote for those two as they learned more about them!)

Wait! I'm not done with Mr. Morris. He crammed a lot of bullshit in his five minutes on the show! As Mr. O'Reilly was about to end the segment, Mr. Morris had a point that he just needed to make -- like it was a really good point or something. He said:

They (Bachmann and Palin) are an existential threat to the Democratic Party because the Democratic Party is essentially based on women. Women and minorities. Therefore, when they see a conservative Republican woman, that threatens them in a way that a man never can. That is why they are so vitriolic against both of them.

Wow! That is some grade-A bullshit right there! There is little doubt that most actual Democrats would love, love, love for either of those two women to get the Republican nomination. They would have no shot at winning in a general election.

That said, I agree only in the sense that I have personally posted on this very blog about how I wish the media was not so fascinated with Sarah Palin. However, it should not be forgotten that is a media fascination - not a Democratic Party fascination. And it's a fascination that is not difficult to decipher. Ms. Palin apparently generates internet traffic; she draws eyeballs... however you want to say it. And to the extent the Democratic Party has any interest in Sarah Palin - it's merely as fundraising bait.

Existential threat?!?!? Wow! That is some wicked delusion he's peddling.

Later in the show, Dennis Miller was brought out. He addressed a topic that I posted on earlier in the week: the tax dispute with the fan that caught Derek Jeter's 3,000 hit. Mr. Miller first mentioned how they were going to "tax the kid's baseball" and followed it up with this longer thought-like fragment:

You can see how we're over-thinking things in this culture now that you can't even catch a ball and give it back to a guy without putting yourself into some weird system where (Tim) Geithner and The Fed come in like fireants and just try to burn it to the ground! It's crazy!

Where to begin with that one? First of all, what the fuck is he talking about bringing up Tim Geithner and The Fed? Talk about pandering to people's angst! Yeah, people can hate Mr. Geithner and The Fed. That is fine - but it has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. This is tax law - long ago established through congressional legislation!

And just to be clear, they are not "taxing the kid's baseball". He could have caught it and given it back and nothing would have happened. But that is not what happened. He caught it, gave it back, and accepted compensation in the form of season tickets for a suite and assorted memorabilia in exchange for the ball. That is what is being taxed. It's just like if you win money or prizes on a game-show. That is taxable income. It has been for many, many years. I recall my parents lamenting in the 1980s how people who won prizes (such as a new car on The Price is Right) would have to come up with cash to pay the tax bill for such prizes. Also, consider this article from 2004 regarding people who received "free" cars from Oprah Winfrey.

But in Dennis Miller's world, blame Tim Geithner and/or The Federal Reserve. It's nuts.

The Nerve of Some People!!

Some unexpectedly good news was reported today amidst all the unpleasantness going on in Wisconsin and in northern Africa (specifically Libya).

It was reported that the Obama Administration is dropping it's legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act saying DOMA:

"contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus" that the Constitution was designed to protect against.

This is another case of after I get feeling really disappointed in President Obama, he does something like this (although it's not clear how much of this was entirely his decision) that draws me back in.

Anyway, to elaborate on the title of the post (which is sort of an homage to the refrain of "Can't Win" by folk-rock icon - and Derek Anderson Fan favorite - Richard Thompson), a spokesman for Speaker of the House John Boehner is quoted in the AP article as saying:

While Americans want Washington to focus on creating jobs and cutting spending, the president will have to explain why he thinks now is the appropriate time to stir up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation.

Wow!! This guy has balls as big as the swing of Tiger Woods to make that comment whilst the House GOP is currently using their majority to pass several different anti-abortion bills (including the bill that infamously tried to redefine rape)!

Also, there was Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) at a March for Life rally last month saying "some would have us focus our energy on jobs and spending but... we must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged." Agree with him or not... one cannot deny that he is "stir(ring) up a controversial issue that sharply divides the nation".

So, I guess my message for Mr. Boehner's spokesman - say it with me:

Go Fuck Yourself!!!

No Shout Out For Furriners Staff

Last night, President Obama gave his second State of the Union address.

Overall, it was fine. There were assorted goals that will never be reached and programs that will never get started because of the gridlock in Washington. A GOP controlled House and the Senate where legislation traditionally goes to die because of the anti-democratic filibuster rule ensures nothing "big" will get done in the 112th congress. Of course, that is par for the course, I suppose, no matter which party controls the White House.

However, I have one very specific gripe with the address. While leading the obligatory circle jerk regarding the military, President Obama said this:

Our troops come from every corner of this country. They're black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay.

Certainly, I agree with the sentiment. We are a melting pot and we are all in this together. All good.

So, what is the problem you ask?

My problem is the lack of recognition for the non-believers amongst the military. Heck, of the 4000+ men and women who have died in our current wars, perhaps the only one who is not generally anonymous to the general population is Pat Tillman and, in case you missed it, this is what Pat's brother, Richard, had to say at his funeral:

Thank you for coming. Pat's a ***** champion and he always will be. Just make no mistake, he'd want me to say this. He's not with God. He's **** dead. He's not religious so, thanks for your thoughts, but he's **** dead.

Also, a check of wikipedia says this about the religious breakdown of the U.S.:

Christian (including Catholic & Protestant): 76.0%
Jewish: 1.2%
Muslim: 0.6%
Eastern Religions:0.9%
None/No Religion: 15.0%
Unknown (did not respond to survey): 5.2%

No shout out for 15%?!? Come on, Obama! I think some of us think you are not a secret Muslim but rather a secret Atheist. I mean, aren't you are too smart to believe in talking snakes and burning bushes and virgin births? It's nonsense. You know it. I know it. The American people, however, unfortunately don't seem to know it (although the survey showed an ~83% increase between 1990-2008 while those identifying as Christians decreased by 13% in the same time frame... so progress is being made).

Anyway, next year, how about a little respect for those of us who believe in logic?

Obama Just Does Not Get It

Within the last few hours, Barack Obama trotted out Bill Clinton to urge congressional Democrats to back his tax capitulation with the GOP.

This is pathetic.

Does he really think just dusting off a corporatist former President is going to change the fact that he sold us out?

I'll tell you what, Mr. President:

If you can re-animate FDR and get his seal of approval, I'll consider endorsing your deal. Until then, I'm still waiting for my $500 back.

Lawrence O'Donnell Has Kids To Feed

As President Obama hastily called a press conference yesterday to try to tap down the liberal backlash against his "compromise", I shared an e-mail with my father predicting that primetime MSNBC hosts would have their pitchforks out. That is exactly what happened:

Olbermann CRUSHES Obama in Special Comment

Maddow argues Obama is on road to irrelevance

However, it turned out I was not entirely correct. Lawrence O'Donnell was a dissenting voice who thinks Obama made the best deal at the right time. He took a stance that it would be Armageddon to let tax rates go back to the Clinton rates on January 1st.

Am I the only one who thinks that O'Donnell just got a new primetime hosting gig (probably with a nice fat pay raise) and now he is looking out for the pocketbook of Lawrence O'Donnell?

And I was especially perturbed by his Rewrite segment where he slammed our least favorite pelican enemy, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La). O'Donnell said:

(Landrieu) was one of the few Democrats in the senate who voted for the Bush tax cuts that set the Treasury on the road to ruin.

Okay, so in O'Donnell's analysis, the Bush tax cuts set the country on the road to ruin? His solution: extend the Bush tax cuts. Good call, Larry. Good call.

Rise and Fall

A modern tragedy:

We know. We know. You worked so hard to get where you are. It all crescendoed in 2007-2008. People loved you and so many of us had such high hopes. This will change everything we thought.

Then, the results started coming in. Immediately, it was not all that we hoped for. Let's be patient we thought... there is a lot of work to be done and it's not going to happen overnight. Then, the disappointments and missteps started to accumulate. The disgruntled whispers gradually became a little louder. Now, with your recent stunt, you've basically lost everyone who truly believed in you.

And, honestly, it's you. It's not us. You're just not who we thought you were.

It's time for a change.

Let's just make sure we keep our corrections straight:

I don't want to see Jim Harbaugh as the 45th POTUS and Hillary Clinton coaching U of M football!

Secret Muslim or Secret Republican?

Last year, Bill Maher did a rant during his New Rules segment on Real Time where he said:

(Republicans) actually worry that Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal!

I noted this quote to a conservative family member who responded something along the lines of "that is too stupid to even comment on."

Well, score another one for Bill Maher. This tax "compromise" (i.e. roll over/capitulation) is a spit in the face of all the liberals and progressives who worked so hard and donated so generously to get Barack Obama elected president.

Apparently, we elected not a secret muslim but rather a secret Republican.

Consider me depressed.

The Balance Sheet of Barack Obama

In 2008, I was a donor to the campaign of Barack Obama.

Until recently, I certainly presumed I would again be donating in 2012.

In my head, at least, I devised a tally sheet for my eventual 2012 contribution.

For example, we start with the baseline of my 2008 contribution ($500 if I recall correctly). Then, as he progresses through his term, I add/subtract $ based on his accomplishments.

Here is something like it might look like:

HEALTH CARE REFORM PASSES (+250)
NO PUBLIC OPTION (-200)
FINANCIAL REFORM PASSES (+200)
DOES NOT END 'TOO BIG TO FAIL' (-180)
CREDIT CARD REFORM (+50)
GUNS IN NATIONAL PARKS (-25)
GITMO STILL OPEN (-50)
DADT NOT REPEALED (-50)
NO NEW ENERGY POLICY (I.E. CARBON TAX) (-100)
OPEN NEW WATERS TO DEEP WATER DRILLING (PRE SPILL) (-75)
MORATORIUM ON DEEP WATER DRILLING (POST OIL SPILL) (+15) --- no brainer, little credit deserved
NO IMMIGRATION REFORM (-0) --- I don't care about this one
FAILED TO PROSECUTE TORTURE (-50)
ESCALATED WAR IN AFGHANISTAN (-50)
FAILED TO CAPTURE/KILL BIN LADEN (-50)

Well, as of December 7, 2010... I'm afraid your account has gone negative, Mr. President. I want my $500 back.

And, by the way, I don't want a friggin' tax cut!

I just want my $500 and my vote back.

Furriners Civil War!!

No, no, no! I am not with my Furriners colleague on this one.

I hate, hate, hate this compromise from President Obama. And I will whine about it until 2013 when a new President is inaugurated and I am beginning to think it just may not be Barack Obama. He may yet be saved by the fact that the Republicans are bunch a kooks who still seem to not have a reasonable alternative.

Another thing that comes to mind is that there has been a lot of talk in my life about predictions. Elijah Moon had drastically incorrect predictions on the Chicago Bears and the St. Louis Rams. I have a brother who still says Rich Rodriguez is a great coach (had previously predicted a national championship within three years of his hiring in 2007) who is "on the cusp of greatness". I was incorrect that the Derek Anderson plus Larry Fitzgerald combo would result in a Super Bowl title (Fitzgerald really dropped the ball on that one!)

Yesterday was the first time that I legitimately thought to myself... what if Hillary Clinton were president? Did I back the wrong horse in 2007-08? Maybe I should have gone with Zenyatta rather than Big Brown?

Is It Just Me... Or Is Duberstein Bi-Polar?

Okay, I'm late with this one but I wanted to talk a little more about Ken Duberstein's appearance on Charlie Rose on 8/19. (See the first mention of it here.)

As I may or may not have mentioned on that post, Mr. Duberstein has strong conservative credentials but seemed, for the most part, to be offering sincere critiques of Barack Obama (and his administration) - as opposed to using only Frank Luntz approved talking points that is so often the methodology of Republican leadership (You know 'em: McConnell, Boehner, Pence, Michael Steele, etc).

That said, consider these two opinions expressed by Mr. Duberstein within the same 30 minute segment on Charlie Rose:

commenting on the lack of bipartisanship in legislation:

"There are ways to go about legislating where you don't get 100% of what you want. (Obama) got almost 100% of what he wanted. There are ways to incorporate the other side of the aisle that really would have made a difference."

and then a little later he critiques Obama's leadership:

"I think he is too much of a legislator and not as much of an executive... that he tries to acquiesce and get everybody together and on board rather than saying 'this is the principle, this is what I want, let's go do it and fight for it'. There may be a little bit too much give rather than give-and-take. But the mentality is one of much more accomodation than it is the forceful 'this is what I want, this is the direction we're gonna go in."


So there you have it. According to Mr. Duberstein, President Obama is a apparently a wimp who nevertheless succeeds in getting nearly 100% of what he wants.

By the way, if I can push back against his first premise... he gets "nearly 100% of what he wants"?!!? Then why no 'Public Option' in the health care bill? Why is Gitmo still open (with no prospects for closing anytime soon)? Why is 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' still the law of the land? Why has the energy bill been dropped from the Senate's agenda? Why no comprehensive immigration reform? Why are the White Sox dropping the standings?

I hope Obama wants Matt Leinart to start for the Arizona Cardinals - because then I could be sure it will never happen!

Barack Obama & The Park 51 Community Center

Allow me to rant a bit:

Mitch McConnell (human/turtle hybrid?) was on Meet The Press this weekend and he said this in response to a question about the controversial community center/mosque:

Obviously, this is not about freedom of religion. Typically, these kinds of decisions have been made by local officials. What's been different about this one is that you have the President of the United States weighing in on this issue - actually on each side of the issue within 24 hours which has helped stimulate a great national debate - not about freedom of religion but about the appropriateness of the location.

Okay, so that is not THAT unreasonable (for a modern day Republican/conservative anyway). However, a couple things I will note for the record. As this article indicates, President Obama's comments were made at a Ramadan Iftar dinner on 8/13, so if that is not an appropriate venue to comment on an issue concerning Muslim-Americans, I don't know what could be. Moreover, Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich had long since taken this out of being a strictly local issue. Here is a column commenting on Palin's opposition from 7/19 and here is a column that Gingrich published on 7/28. Now, I will grant you that they are nothing but citizens with an opinion, but you must grant me that these are not ordinary citizens.

Also, I was watching an episode of Charlie Rose last week as Mr. Rose was having a conversation with John Podesta (a former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton) and Kenneth Duberstein (a former Chief of Staff for Ronald Reagan) regarding the first year and a half of the Obama presidency. Mr. Duberstein (more on him later) - though still very much the conservative - said this:

I think what (Obama) said Friday night on religous freedom and what America stands for was absolutely appropriate... the presidency should be on the high plain of talking about principles of America... he was absolutely right to talk about that but he should have said that the placement of a mosque is a local issue by New York City and New York state.

Okay, I don't necessarily agree with the need to comment on the jurisdiction of the zoning issues... but whatever... my point is that even rational conservatives recognize that the appropriateness of the POTUS addressing this issue.

I Call Bull... No, I Can't Do It!

I was watching Fareed Zakaria GPS this weekend and Fareed said this:

Now, at the end of August, remember the United States will pull out all but 50,000 troops from Iraq. At the end of 2011, all American forces are scheduled to be gone.

I have too much respect for Mr. Zakaria to "call bullshit" on him but it does strike me as naive. Isn't it pretty much a truism that the U.S. almost never leaves anywhere?! I think that is where many progressives and Ron Paul see eye-to-eye. In fact, Barney Frank and Ron Paul have recently teamed up to argue for cutting the military budget and shutting down some of the military bases we have around the world (and bringing the troops home... or, more accurately I presume, deploying them to where they are actually needed).

This transcript of a joint interview with Wolf Blitzer is worth a read. Here is an (edited) excerpt to whet your appetite:


BLITZER: Congressman Frank, the Pentagon's budget for 2010 almost $700 billion, in your estimation, what should it be?

FRANK: Well, for this year, I would like to cut it about 50. And I want to stress, Wolf, I don't want this argument hijacked. The case that Ron Paul and I are making, along with Representative Walter Jones, a Republican, Ron Wyden, a Democrat, is separate, to a great extent, from Afghanistan.

People can differ about Afghanistan. I voted to go in, I think it is bogged down. But we are talking about useless expenditures which are, for geopolitical reasons that I don't think are valid, in NATO, in Japan.
...
So I want to make it very clear, we are talking about NATO. NATO was a wonderful idea. It was formed in 1949. We are as far away from NATO as NATO was when it was done in time from the presidency of Grover Cleveland.

NATO has served its purpose. And I don't -- The New York Times had a very interesting article a couple of weeks ago about the extent to which Europe -- Western Europe, wealthy nations, facing no real threat, can afford very, very good expenditures for social welfare, because America...

BLITZER: So basically, what both of you are saying, bring the troops home from Germany, from Japan, from South Korea, bring them home...

BARNEY: Yes.

BLITZER: ... from all over the world. It is a waste of money.

FRANK: No, not all over the world. Excuse me, Wolf, I don't argue in extremes. Not all over the world. There are parts of the world where I think...

BLITZER: Where?

FRANK: ... there needs to be -- well, for instance, I do want sea and air power to confront the People's Republic of China. I don't want Taiwan overrun. And I think sea and air power can help with South Korea. But South Korea is larger than North Korea, and can put its own troops in. Fifteen thousand Marines in Okinawa are irrelevant to what we want to do with China.

We're not going to land Marines on the Chinese mainland. So yes, there are parts of the world where our presence would be useful, but -- and I think we have to be very clear that we would be there militarily to confront Iran. But it is not any longer reasonable to have troops virtually everywhere.

The general view is America must be the superpower and be everywhere. And that exacerbates our national security, doesn't help it.


In spite of the political clout of the Frank/Paul combination, allow me to make a not very bold prediction, U.S. troops will be in Iraq when the 45th president takes the oath of office in January 2017.

It's not very often I say this - but I really hope I'm wrong (except about Barack Obama being re-elected of course).

I Want To Be Your Betty White

I think it goes without saying that I should be on TV discussing politics and all things Derek Anderson. The reason it goes without saying is because, quite frankly, no one is actually saying it. This post should correct this injustice. Now, ideally, I would be booked on The Colbert Report or Real Time with Bill Maher but, if I have to, I will settle from the dregs of cable like a CSPAN2 call-in show or The Dylan Ratigan Show.

The reason I bring this up - besides the fact that I want to be on TV - is that I was watching the "mix-it-up" segment on The Dylan Ratigan Show on Tuesday and Ratigan posed this question to his guest Alicia Menendez of New Democrat Network (yeah, I never heard of it either):

DR: What's the difference between (President Obama) stumping to give away the so-called 'doughnut hole' (checks) and President Bush a few years ago coming up with Medicare Part D? In other words, giving money to old people who vote prior to an election... particularly when the country doesn't have the money... (it) seems to be a common trait whether you're a Republican or Democrat. Does it work?"

The answer by Ms. Menendez was a talking point word salad about "taking care of our seniors" that is entirely not worth quoting here. But you know what she DID NOT SAY? Anything about how the health care bill is fully paid for! (At least according to CBO scores). That was the difference, Dylan!

And the conservative blogger, Liz Mair (yeah, I never heard of her either), was not exactly reminiscent of William F. Buckley.. Dylan asked her about Nancy Pelosi being heckled at a progressive conference and she said:

LM: Well, I think that unfortunately for Nancy Pelosi, we are increasingly seeing that there are a lot of progressives who are very disenchanted with the Democratic Party and Democratic leadership and I think that's something that we're gonna see consequences of in the elections this year.

Is that not tremendous analysis!?!? No wonder she was invited on the show! That would be like Barry Melrose analyzing last nights Chicago Blackhawks Stanley Cup win with: "Well, I think that unfortunately for the Flyers, we have seen that Chicago won their fourth game in the series tonight. As a result, the Blackhawks were awarded the Stanley Cup and the Flyers were not."

So, what can you do to help me? I'm glad I asked that for you. Well, I noticed that Betty White recently got to host Saturday Night Live after her fans started a Facebook page demanding it. I want to see all loyal Furriners readers start such a page for yours truly (get Elijah Moon on The Colbert Report). Don't worry, mom... I'll help you... just see if you can get your Bridge Club to pledge their support. You can assure them I will try as hard as I can not to say anything nasty about Sarah Palin.

Obama Has A New Policy!

Attorney General Eric Holder was discussing the BP Oil Spill on the TV machine yesterday and he had this to say:

"We will prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who has violated the law. We will prosecute anyone who has violated the law."

No offense... but no you will not! I was paying attention last spring/summer when some of us were looking for the Obama administration to maybe, just maybe, hold the Bush administration officials who sanctioned an illegal torture program accountable. Nothing happened. Well, unless you count some tepid rhetoric from AG Holder and even less from President Obama. We all remember Obama's "I am more interested in looking forward" rationale. Wasn't that the logic that got Mark McGwire rightly ridiculed back in 2005? I expect more from our president!

Well, believe it or not, I am actually more interested in looking forward with regards to the oil spill than I am with regards to the torture policy of the Bush administration. I certainly do not mean that I want to let BP off the hook. I guess my point is that the oil spill did not happen in a vacuum. It happened in the context of massive corruption of the MMS. I want to see that that is addressed. I mean REALLY addressed... not just finding a few scapegoats and hope that everyone will believe that the problems have been resolved. (This, of course, very much mirrors my opinion of what needs to happen with regards to financial regulatory reform). Moreover, I want to know that the oil companies currently operating in the United States have up-to-date safety inspections - meeting U.S. standards NOT the standards of the countries with so-called "flags of convenience". I want to know they have legitimate plans in place to deal with an emergency (which BP clearly did not). I want the tax-system addressed that lets junk like this happen.

So, overall, I guess my priorities are:

1) stop the leak
2A) clean-up the oil (BP pays - not US taxpayers)
2B) address the systemic failure and culture that allowed this to happen
2C) for christsake... let's invest in clean, renewable energy
5) hold BP/Transocean/Halliburton accountable with criminal/civil penalties (as the facts of the investigation dictate)

What?!? Sports Guy's Never Heard of John McCain?

I was reading a newly posted column at espn.com about the potential death of professional basketball in Cleveland due to the stink bomb that LeBron James unveiled in Tuesday nights game 5 home loss to Boston.

In the column, Sports Guy, for a reason that isn't exactly clear, wrote this paragraph unrelated to the rest of the column:

I know you're dying to hear my "Karate Kid" remake thoughts. Well, I'm in conflict here -- obviously, you can't remake iconic classics if they remain exceedingly watchable. On the other hand, I'm the same guy who once wrote that ALL movies can be remade as long as the remake has a different gender or race. I can support concepts like "Black Scarface," "Female Hoosiers," "Black Caddyshack" (which actually happened and was awful), "Female Rocky" and so on. So it would be hypocritical of me to say, "No, I can't support 'Black Karate Kid.'" I hate being pigeonholed by a previously established position. Damn it all. Back to the game.

You "hate being pigeonholed by a previously established position"? Then, CHANGE THE POSITION!! That's what John McCain does (see: immigration, Don't Ask Don't Tell, Pay-Go, etc)!!

And, by the way, here is where I must admit that it is what Barack Obama does too (see: off shore oil drilling, spending freeze, trying KSM in New York City, etc.)

It sucks that our nations internet sports columnists are more concerned with blatant hypocrisy than many of our political leaders. *sigh*

(By the way, look at that photo!! That has to count as Red State porn, no?!?! You throw in an image of Jesus and/or Dale Earnhardt, and you're looking at rednecks all over the south calling their doctors because of their four hour erections. Truly, truly disturbing.)

Off Shore Drilling!?!!? WTF!?!?!

President Barack Obama announced plans this week to vastly increase off shore drilling.

What the hell?!!? I have not felt this violated since I was an altar boy in the 5th grade!

This is not the socialist, Kenyan, Muslim, who along with his mentor, Jeremiah Wright, was conspiring to enslave the white race that I voted for!

If I wanted off shore drilling, I would've voted for something truly unpalatable... the McCain-Palin ticket!