MISSING OSCAR PETERSON

I love this video for so many reasons. Enjoy:

3-AND-OUT

A few observations from the final debate last night:

1. How great are those snap-polls? Used to be that the narrative re who won the debates was fashioned by the commentary from the pundits afterward. Kerry was slaughtered this way in 2004 -it didn't matter how people'd orignally perceived the debate the "opinion-makers" plowed on with their narrative anyway. The snap polls are a beautiful way to bitch-slap the chatterers back into reality, and it's a riot watching them fumble all over themselves back-pedaling from their declarations in the immediate aftermath as the snap-polls come in.
2. McCain is now 0-3 -when's the last time you even heard of that in a presidential race?
3. Debate prep 101 -let your WORDS make your arguments, and try to communicate as little non-verbally as possible. No one scores positive points for their reactions to the other guy's points as he's saying them. Textbook display last night -Grampy's eye-rolling, grimacing, and huffing made him look like the asshole he is.
4. Last night had to be a grand-slam, slam-dunk, game-changing smack-down or other mixed sports metaphors for Gramps, and it definitively was not.
5. Putting quotes around "health of the mother" probably wasn't a very smart move.
6. Don't set yourself up by asking your opponent to give "one, just one" example of anything, because if he does give one, just one, you look like a dork. McCain asked for one example when Obama bucked his party leaders and he gave three. Oops.
7. Joe the Plumber -it appears is a Republican plant. I expect to hear more of this in the coming days but suffice it to say that even if he's legit and McCain was just using him as a bullsh*t story it was a miserable failure. Maybe they should have asked Bob the Builder instead -oh wait his slogan is "Can we fix it? YES WE CAN!" bad idea, nevermind.

This isn't over folks. Can't let up, gotta keep the pressure on -and not just until the election -until the change we need happens and is chiseled into the American statutory framework. Think the GOP is just going to roll-over and let Obama skate once he's in the door? Think again. Look what happened to Clinton from the moment he assumed office. Can't rest. VIGILANCE!

CLARIFICATION (?)

I feel I should clarify my last post, because I re-read it and I think it could appear that while I think same sex marriages should be legal I somehow don't think they are valid. Personally and emotionally to the spouses and their friends, and legally in society they are valid in every way, and anything that adds more love and stability to the world cannot IMHO be invalid.

I was merely trying to point out that that the folks on the political right want to have it both ways -they want to use church doctrine to make secular civil law but would never allow secular civil law to determine church doctrine so their arguments are false.

I.e. I can comfortably assert that if the government were for some reason to ban the Catholic Church (or Mormon or Baptist or whichever) from marrying its parishioners, they'd still do so and recognize the marriages irrespective of the civil law. The Catholic Church e.g. sees marriage as a Sacrament that is both coexisting and separate from the civil contract, and will sanctify marriages based on their own principles regardless what the civil law says. Other churches may or may not consider same sex marriages a sacrament based on their own doctrine, but that is irrelevant to the issue here -which, make no mistake, is one of civil rights.

Therefore talk about "saving" marriage as an "institution" is legerdemain. The religious beliefs are not under attack and can be held regardless what the law says, and yet they want their religious beliefs to substitute for the law in this one instance, regardless whether it tramples the civil rights of others and thus contradicts the civil law.

Finally, I have to say that I find the fact that it's so easy to change the constitution of a state unsettling. There are two ways to change the CA constitution 1) if 2/3 of the state legislature propose an initiative, or 2) if a ballot initiative receives a majority vote. Doesn't that seem contrary to the protections of the minority embodied in the federal Bill of Rights because the Founders feared just such a tyranny of the majority? Scary.

Anyhow I hope the above clears up my position.


OTS: Here's some humor courtesy of the dailyKos:

"John, would you please go in the kitchen and fix me a ham sandwich?"

"Let me say this, Cindy. I know how to fix a ham sandwich, and I will fix a ham sandwich when I'm elected president. For starters, I know where the kitchen is and I know how to find it. I know where the plates are. I know where the bread is, and I will be the one to pull out the right number of slices and place them on the plate in such a way that the mustard can be spread. Yes, my friends, I know where the mustard is and as president I will have a plan to spread it effectively. I know this stuff because I am a maverick. I can do it and I will do it. Let's talk about lettuce. My opponent is inexperienced on this issue. I've been around long enough to know about Romaine, butter, iceberg, bib, Boston and celtuce, as well as loose greens like mesclun. But I promise you this: I will fight every day against the advancing red tide of commie cabbage and I'm not afraid to use force if necessary. I know how to lead this nation in these dangerous leafy times, my friends. Now, I see the yellow light on my lectern is blinking, but if I may for a moment address another critical issue facing this country today, and that is the thickness of domestic pre-packaged ham slices. When I was a POW, we didn’t have ham, my friends, or even a chair..."

"Oh fer god's sake, never mind. I'll have the butler do it."

TWO CENTS (AGAIN)

It's reared its ugly head again. Coincidentally (yeah right) the "religious right" has raised the "same sex marriage" issue during a presidential election year. Now you and I know that the real reason for this is to put a fire under the asses of the fundies to get them to the polls so they'll vote for the republican for president, but others may actually think this is an issue on its own, so I'd like to summarize a few points I blogged in 2004 -the last time the "govt.-out-of-your-life-conservatives" decided to shove government into the lives of some.

1. As far as the government is concerned ALL marriages are technically "civil unions". The separation of Church and state in the 1st amendment prevents any other possible arrangement. The fact that the title "marriage" has survived to name the bundle of rights governments protect is due to "tradition" (habit) and (in)convenience. The title however does not change the nature of what it is -a protection of a bundle of civil and legal rights granted to honor/encourage monogamy. Constitutionally, all civil and legal rights must be granted and protected equally for all and for the government to deny them to anyone based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, nationality or sexual orientation is invideous discrimination and cannot stand. Personally, I think government should get out of the business of "marriage" all together and simply call ALL marriages "civil unions" regardless the gender of the couples.

2. I believe that last sentence to be true because (and here we go) I believe that "Marriage" is a *religious* institution. For this reason marriage needs neither to be "saved" nor "protected" because it stands irrespective of the actions of government. My Catholic faith teaches that "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman into "one flesh" and that the union and is granted/sanctified by God. That doctrine is simply unaffected by whether or not civil authorities decide to grant same sex couples civil and legal rights. Moreover, our constitution makes it impossible for the govt. to determine how churches define marriage. My wife and I got both a license from the state and a certificate from the Catholic Church, however the former was not dependent on the latter and the latter cannot be compelled by the former. Governments can no more force churches to perform or recognize same sex marriages than churches could force governments to enforce church doctrine. Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". Separation. of Church. and State.

3. Voting down a legislative measure that would allow discrimination is completely consistent with my faith because it is preventing an action not initiating one. Here in California the latest incarnation of this fad is Proposition 8 which was originally called the "California Marriage Protection Act" but was more accurately renamed "Eliminates the right of same sex couples to marry" by Attorney General Jerry Brown to reflect the fact that the California Supreme Court has held that same couples have a constitutional right to marry under the California Constitution. This measure would change the California constitution, in contravention of the Court's decision to recognize the right, to divest that right only for certain individuals, therefore voting "no" on it doesn't establish any right or action that hadn't already been granted or done -i.e. it doesn't "sanctify" the court's decision because the court was merely reaffirming the state constitution.

Let's be clear -the only reason the gay-bashing crowd have proceeded in this manner is because if a measure is proposed as a mere statute, it must be "tested" against the constitution (federal and state -the federal is the "floor" so states can grant more rights than the federal constitution, but they cannot grant less). If it is determined to be unconstitutional it must be stricken down. Any measure added to the constitution however becomes a part of it and by definition cannot be unconstitutional.

A lot of money has been poured into the "Yes on 8" campaign and a lot of lies and deception have been alleged by that group to further their cause -let's hope the people of California aren't as stupid as they were when they were conned into enacting the 3-strikes law. (but that's another story. )

IT'S THE IDEOLOGY STUPID

Sweet music reported by the NYT yesterday:

"Strategists for both parties say Republican House and Senate candidates are being hurt by the dip in support for Senator John McCain at the top of the ticket, frustrating Republicans who had initially viewed Mr. McCain as a strong asset who could appeal to independents and even moderate Democrats and protect Republicans in a tough year."

This is after the shunning that guppies have given W for the last year ("Bush? Bush who?").

Why?

Because the ideology these buffoons subscribe to is bankrupt, phony, immoral and unpatriotic, and they know it and can't find a rock low enough under which to hide.

Let me reveal one of my core beliefs (which I'm having trouble putting into a succinct maxim --any ideas?): You're going to pay somewhere along the "line".

Somewhere in the normal arc of a person's life -you (we) will be forced to contribute financially to that persons well being. Think about it, these are just some of the ways you'll have to pay (depending on the person's life-path):

pre-natal care
neo-natal care
SCHIP
Preschool
school
juvenile detention/treatment facilities
college scholarships/grants/subsidies
military/medical/veteran/funereal
govt. backed loans
hospitals
drug treatment
occupational therapy
Psychiatric facilities
disaster relief
food banks
increased health insurance premiums to offset non-prevention and indigents
business/agricultural/ tax subsidies
arrest /prosecution
prison
social security
medicaid/medicare
burial/cremation

This is just a cursory list and doesn't even take into account infrastructure costs to get us all around. At some point on the continuum whether we like ot or not, we will collectively pay for one or more of the above. I.e. somewhere along the line you're going to pay -even if it's just to dispose of a person's corpse.

Any ideology which ignores this fact is to put it politely -kidding itself. (putting it impolitely requires too many expletives for this page's sensibilities). Even if you claim we as a people shouldn't be paying for "those (insert your favorite sin/epithet here)" because of their life choices, we will. Some of these services can of course be privatized but without government support they are only available to those who by hook or crook can afford them -and it's nearly guaranteed that those who can afford them "on their own" are able to do so because of the labor/sacrifice/charity of those who couldn't.

Moreover, economically it's more efficient to pay for them preventively than as a solution to a crisis when the costs are exponentially more.

Now don't misunderstand me -I'm not saying that those whose industry or ingenuity has made them money don't deserve it or that all should have the same level of services -that would be communism. I'm saying that in a society in which we've decided that all people are created equal and in which we've agreed that all have inalienable rights we have a moral and logical imperative to ensure that the above services are available to all regardless of their income, and any idiology that seeks to redistribute wealth by depriving some of access to the above is not only doomed to failure, but selfish unpatriotic and should be criminal.

We now see the results of this ideology daily as headlines, and try as they may they can't hide from it anymore.

Anyone who decries the inevitability of taxes and the providing of these of services is therefore not only a hypocrite, but a traitor. We are the government. Ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people, therefore if you hate "government" you necessarily hate We the People.

The Republicans are finally being called on this and that's why it doesn't matter who is at the top of their pyramid -it's toxic and they can't escape it anymore.

SHE WANTS TO PLAY?

She wants to play?

Fine, let's play:

HE ASKED FOR IT

Grampy is getting desperate:

• The Alaskan Bimbo is parroting anew the William Ayers bullsh*t.
• The introductory speaker at her rally in FL dropped the Hussein-bomb today
• Bill Kristol tries to reintroduce the Reverend Wright lies. Asshole.

So Ok. that's the way Grampy wants to react to his numbers circling the drain? It's not as if he doesn't have a past that warrants questioning. So here we go:

I STAND CORRECTED

I stand corrected! I don't think that any reasonable interpretation of the debate last night could come to the conclusion that Sarah Palin won.

The short version is this: yes she was better than expected but, unfortunately for her, so was Biden, which means that on balance Obama wins, because it wasn't a game-changer, so Grampy continues his slide without anything intervening to prevent it.

The longer version is that Biden masterfully threaded the needle. As I last posted, Biden needed to follow Andrew Halcro's advice and respectfully ignore her. He played it exactly right and made his performance all about attacking McCain. She clearly didn't answer the majority of the questions -and even said outright that she wouldn't! In a debate!

Her performance consisted solely of giving speeches parroting talking points and peppered with attacks on Biden and Obama too obviously fashioned by her handlers. This meant that she (unsurprisingly) was unable to answer not only the questions put to her, but the major implied question of the night (and indeed the whole race for her): could she be president? Even the most positive reviews have to answer no to that question, and her performance did nothing to convince anyone otherwise.

Therefore, since Biden had a clear and facile command of the facts and was to all perceptions speaking from his OWN mind, the victory goes to Obama. Last night had to be a game-changer for McCain and it wasn't.

WHY SARAH PALIN WILL "WIN" THE DEBATE

Jed Lewison of the Jed Report and the Huffington Post has a nice compilation of past debate moments from Sarah Palin that should send a chill down the spine of any Democrats feeling that Biden will "wipe the floor" with her:



In the accompanying article he quotes Andrew Halcro, an Alaska legislator who has debated Palin a few dozen times, saying that Palin is the master of the non-answer. I.e. when she's asked a question, she generally answers the question by saying how important the issue is and giving examples of why it's important but not anything about where she stands on the issue. If you think back, that's what she's done with every interview so far. The problem has been that, in a one-on-one interview, it doesn't generally fly -interviewers bristle when they ask a question that they've worked hard to prepare and the interviewee sluffs it off and talks about something irrelevant.

A debate structure is different however, because the moderator is less likely to call her on it (and in fact the campaign has been laying the groundwork for that all month, with their whining about "gotcha" questions and the like) and the time constraints structure the responses more so that she'll be able to use her response time to great scattershot effect by lobbing major attacks and filling up the rest of the time with folksy non-answers and soundbytes, forcing Biden to use more of his response time to answer her attacks and less time to answer the questions himself. In the end if she merely doesn't completely expolde, she wins because the expectations game has lowered the bar to such an extent that she only needs to be perceived as having the ability to complete a sentence, and regardless the opinion you have of her you have to admit -particularly with the evidence above- that she can at least do that.

So that leaves Biden with an unexpectedly narrow path to victory. The only way to defeat her in this scenario is, as Katie Couric revealed, to make her answer the question -or somehow point out that she's not. This is difficult because saying it outright will ensure he's labeled as a bully.

I agree with Halcro that Biden needs to "ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone" but my take is that he needs not only to give thorough succinct answers but purposely go overtime. When he's inevitably wrangled by the moderator he should say something like - "well you've asked a complicated question and I want to make sure I give a thorough answer" or "do I have time? -I want to make sure I answer your question". Moreover he should point out as much as possible that he's in fact answering the question e.g. "the answer to your question is...", "good question I'd like to answer it by...", and "does that answer your question?" etc. This will contrast that she's not answering the questions and reveal her weaknesses.

Don't think for a second that the image that has come out of her as a bumbler in the last month is accidental -this is exactly the same tactic they used in 2004 when Kerry was expected to destroy Bush in the debates. They down played Bush and propped up Kerry so much that all Bush had to do was not completely blow it to be declared the winner. It's classic rope-a-dope.

Finally -Biden has the ability to turn on the charm a himself and can level quite a backhanded compliment when he wants to. Let's hope he times it right and gets the quote of the night.

MY TAKE

HOPE FOR THE REPUBLIC

Thank God that there are still a few honest members of Congress:



from CSPANjunkie.org via Eschaton

Kick her some cash if you can.

Adding -what exactly is this "700 billion dollars" figure based on? As far as I can figure it's pure conjecture amounting to nothing more than their asking for it. Why not as someone on the news said 75 billion with more to come if they need it and can justify it?

The reason is that the sober alternative presented by Rep. Kaptur above fails to accomplish their objective -breaking the government. As Grover Norquist is fond of splathering they want to shrink government to the size where they can drown it in the bathtub. They're running out of time to do that however so they're trying the nuclear option which will destroy any attempt to do anything that might actually help the American People.

This is a terrorist act. They simply don't get that we are the government and that any action that impacts us so dreadfully should be seen as a declaration of war. They should be tried for treason and put in f**king jail to rot.

UPDATE -OH DEAR ME

So it appears that Grampy's campaign manager didn't just receive money from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -but did so AS RECENTLY AS LAST MONTH. Worse -it seems that they were compiling a secret cash stash about which the FEC might want to have a word with them.

No matter, the rest of the media will turn over and resume their nap.

OH DEAR

This is a huge story. It should completely obliterate the McLame campaign, but it won't because the MSM won't give it the attention it deserves. Meanwhile the Double-Talk express chuggs along to 1600 Pennsylvania ave.

To wit:

Loan Titans Paid McCain Adviser Nearly $2 Million

By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK and CHARLES DUHIGG
Published: September 21, 2008

Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.

Scared yet?

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

This is the most straight forward explanation of the subprime mortgage crisis and its ramifications and implications that I've seen yet. It's pretty funny too -or would be if it weren't true. Whoever wrote this has my eternal gratitude!

Without any further ado we present: The Subprime Primer! (press the "plus" sign under the "down-arrow" menu on the right if you can't read the text)

CDO Powerpoint SubPrime Primer - Upload a Document to Scribd

Read this document on Scribd: CDO Powerpoint SubPrime Primer

So tell me that this doesn't need to be regulated?

It always floors me when you hear some (inevitably republican or "independent") jagoff criticize government practices or the administration of government programs by saying some tripe like "you wouldn't see that in the business world -a company like that (the government) would be drummed out of the market! harumph harumph."

Now we're (i.e. the taxpayers via the cavalry actions of the govt.) on the hook for the incompetence and thievery in the corporate world anyway -so what's the goddamn difference?!?!?!

Can we finally put that canard to rest as pure unadulterated horsesh*t? If anything it's WORSE in the corporate world. There are few enough regulations on competency and fewer all the time. Sarbanes-Oxley was a start -but it's easily gamed (BTW check McCain's record of voting on regulation -and please tell your relatives not to sue me if you then jump out the window given his latest "stance"), and the entire corporate sphere is ruled by the "take your piece and CYA" golden rule. Of course the markets are melting down -it's not like you couldn't see it coming.

Next time one of your "independent" or "libertarian" (i.e. republican who wants to keep his porn collection) friends loads this line of crap on you, tell em to STFU.

UPDATE -MCCAIN IS WORSE

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks "more of the same" isn't a strong enough message for Obama to campaign on -Frank Rich of the NYT agrees:

"This election is still about the fierce urgency of change before it’s too late. But in framing this debate, it isn’t enough for Obama to keep presenting McCain as simply a third Bush term. Any invocation of the despised president — like Iraq — invites voters to stop listening. Meanwhile, before our eyes, McCain is turning over the keys to his administration to ideologues and a running mate to Bush’s right.

As Republicans know best, fear does work. If Obama is to convey just what’s at stake, he must slice through the campaign’s lipstick jungle and show Americans the real perils that lie around the bend."

(OP attempts to break arm by patting self on back).

TIME TO OPEN UP A CAN OF WHOOP-ASS

Sarah Palin keeps telling her Bridge to Nowhere lies. Testament to the fact that these people really don't give a sh*t w/r they're caught in bold faced lies or not. As long as they're heard they'll stick for some people.

In her one unbelievably softball interview with Charlie Gibson she dodged every question and recited the GOP talking points that had been fed to her like a good parrot.

When she was asked about the single most important element of the Bush foreign policy "the Bush doctrine" (preemption) she demonstrated utter ignorance. "You mean his world-view?" The right are now trying to play it off as insignificant because "ordinary americans don't know what it means". This "she's just like us" crap is unbelieveably stupid -are ordinary americans competing to be leader of the free world? I'd rather have someone who is not like me but is able to handle the job in office.

Grampy has put out some of the most sleazy election materials ever, and is sticking by them. He continues to lie about Obama's words, plans for policy, and record and has yet to be truly slammed for it by anyone.

This is how they're going to campaign, and chastising them for it is like telling your dog how much better you are than him because you poop in a toilet -while there's still the stink of a load on the floor.

The rumbles in the netroots seem to be wondering when the hell Obama's going to slap the bejesus out of gramps (figuratively of course) -and rightfully so since he has yet to level a serious attack. His latest ad faulting grampy for not knowing how to send email or use a computer is a lame-assed attempt to show out of touch he is. Not good enough. "out of touch" isn't a strong enough message, and for that matter neither is "more of the same" because the glass-half-full folks will continue in their haze thinking "oh well, at least it's not worse".

Obama's camp needs to take a lesson from the nightly news magazine shows:

One thing 20/20 48 hours and Dateline NBC know how to do is pull in viewers via what I call the "watch this story because your life may depend on it" stories. Ever notice how they all have at least one story that is tagged as such? (inevitably it's the last story of the night) Disease warnings, terror alerts (something the republicans used to incredible advantage) Safety warnings, etc. all compel the viewer to watch.

Obama needs not only to warn about more of the same -he needs to show that McCain would be much worse. He doesn't have to lie or slander to do it either. He can do it by emphasizing the truth.

1. McCain has said that he doesn't mind if we stay in Iraq for 50-100 years.
2. He says there'll be more wars.
3. He's used agressive tones toward bigger enemies (Russia, Iran)
4. He says the fundamentals of the american economy are sound -and therefore implies and outright states he'll continue Bush economic policy -Bush had the Clinton surplus to work with (destroy). If McCain does it, from where does he start? From the current state of the economy -therefore the effect will be MUCH WORSE.
5. McCain is an even bigger believer in privitization than Bush - he doesn't believe in public education and wants to deregulate business even further.
6. He is a 72-year-old 4 time survivor of the most deadly form of skin cancer, yet his running mate has displayed a profound ignorance about even the most elementary domestic and foreign policies.
7. He isn't just a "maverick" but all through his life has had documented incidents showing him to be a tempermental "loose cannon" and he's not likely to mellow as he continues to advance in age.

You think McCain would be more of the same? Think again -he's much worse.

McCain needs to be punched in the face with his own words/policies with no mercy. High-minded above the fray policy debates aren't going to do it. People have to be made to feel that if they vote for McCain they'll be dooming the country. That's no exaggeration.

How you campaigned isn't going to mean a damn thing if you lose.

THE CHOICE IS STILL CLEAR

Never before has the choice we face in a presidential election been so clearly defined:

• Do we want to continue dumping 10 billion a month in Iraq with no forseeable exit, or do we want to withdraw our troops and use the money here?
  
• Do we want to address the healthcare needs of our citizens or continue to allow private corporations decide who gets to be healthy?
  
• Do we want to continue to let only the wealthiest among us benefit from the tax code, or do we want to reduce the tax load for the majority of us and make the wealthy pay more of their fair share?
  
• Do we want to lead the way in transforming the energy economy of the world, or do we want to bolster a dying industry for it's own short term benefit?
  

And finally,

• Do we want to keep the party in power whose policies have wrought failure catastrophe and ruin to the country for the last 8 years, or do we at long last want to say that we've had enough?
  

It's not as though I'm making any novel statements here, but I feel that this election has become so muddied that people feel that the choices are somehow closer than they are. They're actually still pretty stark.

Grampy and the Bim ("this fall on ABC!") have obviously noticed the above themselves and seen that when the choices are clearly defined -they lose, and so have resorted to obfuscating the truth and stealing Obama's message by telling a series of shockingly (to everyone apparently save the journalists ignoring them) bold-faced lies.

Will people be sharp enough and committed enough to sift through them and see the scam that's being pulled on them in plain sight? I honestly don't know.

THE SARAH PALIN NO COMMENT WATCH CLOCK

Courtesy of The Jed Report, this blog now features the Sarah Palin No-Comment Watch Clock!

Apparently the latest line from the republicowards is that, gosh, Sarah's just not ready to talk to the press yet.

And yet this is the person whom they feel is ready to lead the free world in the event that a 72-year-old 4-time cancer survivor for some reason can't fulfill his duties as President of the United States (all 50 of them) .

But, gee, she's just not ready to tackle talking to reporters yet. That might actually require her to do something like, oh I don't know, answer questions.

The clock at left tracks the time betwen their naming her the nominee and her first interview.

IT'S DONE

Even the truncated GOP convention was too long. The 3-day parade of sociopaths was particularly galling this year, perhaps because of the sheer number of bold faced lies that was crapped on the country without even blinking an eye.

That’s it really –they’re sociopaths: no conscience, no empathy, no humility, no humanity. Nada.

My wife and I are relatively recent fans of the Showtime Dexter series (ah the wonders of “On-demand”) and consequently the series of books by Jeff Lindsay. For the uninitiated: the protagonist Dexter is a serial killer who has been trained by his Cop father to use his sickness for “good” i.e. he only kills the most despicable criminals –and never the innocent. (Interesting quandary for anti-death penalty folks like me –good thing it’s only fiction) .

Dexter describes himself as a broken person incapable of any kind of human emotion, but who, after years of practice has been able to teach himself the proper appearance of emotion. Eg. He cannot feel compassion but he can fake it so that people don’t suspect.

My Friends ;-) that is what we just finished witnessing –an orgiastic exultation of sociopathy dedicated to the proposition that all rich whites are created equal and the rest of us are to be either utilized for their aggrandizement or destroyed. Looking into the eyes of the speakers, from W on down, revealed nothing but cold calculation. They’ll say whatever they need to say to grasp the reins of executive power –but only because those reins harness the greatest revenue-generating mechanism ever known to humankind. They don’t care a rat’s ass about governing, they don’t really even know what the term means other than “you have to do what I say” and in their case “do what I say” means “give me your money”, all the while complaining about taxes.

The irony that they’re using government to take even more money from the public to shove into the private is completely lost because seeing irony requires some understanding that hypocrisy is wrong, and like Dexter, they’re simply lacking that faculty.

Those cheering in the audience and across the nation are either equally broken, or too stupid to be able to discern after 8 years of ruin rained down upon them from these jackals, that they’ve been had. Examples of both were abundant on the TV this week: from the people who actually booed-down the Iraq and Afghanistan vets who protested inside the hall last night (shouting “USA! USA!” to even more palpable irony) to the dopey delegate who was, “gosh, just soo excited because Sarah Palin is a mother.” (BTW can we call sexism here? Can you imagine what the response would be if any male candidate for political office actually had the temerity to list the fact that he was a father as a resume qualification? He’d be laughed out of the race.)

Finally, what was on display and what has taken over their cult is a declaration that war is sacrosanct. No one dare question it or any thing that happens as a result of it. It is the trump card of all trump cards and it wipes clean any indiscretion –no matter how outrageous. The very idea that they were shameless enough to show a video praising our attack of Iraq as a response to 9/11 proves my theory. They’re simply broken beyond repair and they will suffer a long slow march into ignominy.

< /screed>.

STEPPING FORWARD?

p>

Portrayal Of Obama As Snob Hailed As Step Forward For Blacks

These guys are so good I wonder how long it'll be until "legitimate" news organizations start mistakenly citing them as sources.