I'm not sold on the budget either but give me a break...

Sen. Judd Gregg of NH, a onetime contender for President Obama's cabinet (Secy. of Commerce) has come out opposed to the President's budget because in his words " [it] represent[s] an extraordinary move of our government to the left."  If there's a hole in the bottom of the boat, anybody can point out that the boat is sinking; but how about an idea for plugging the hole?  Below is my email to the Sen., who I do not expect to respond to me since I am not one of his constituents.

"Dear Senator Gregg,

With all due respect, your recent lamentations about the government making extraordinary moves to the "left" ignores the legacy that your generation of politicians (you've been in politics for a very long time) have created-the very bedrock of our current misery. By outspending the Soviets as a strategy to end Communism we racked up massive debts-it seems likely to me that the USSR would have died out anyway, as by the time Reagan was President the Soviet ideal had long been cracking. It was by its nature unsustainable. Moreover, the escapades in the Middle East by George Bush Jr. have cost our country dearly in both lives and money. We were never attacked by Iraq, and yet our "war" effort there has lasted longer than our participation in WWII, a time when we had been attacked. Bush grew our government and its deficit more than his predecessors had done over 200+ years COMBINED. If spending is your yard stick for moving "left" then we have been "left" for a long time; and it is your generation which has put us there (does Gregg Hall ring a bell? How about all the money made from your brother's real estate deals built on the back of the earmarks you brought home?). Frankly, if you and your colleagues have nothing useful to offer the country to undo what you have done (let's not forget that your party was in power in DC for most of this decade) then please just be quiet, or better yet resign your seat and let someone from the generations whom you've burdened take over your job. Your blustering about the President's budget is more of the same-hypocritical rhetoric from a career politician who uses his power to further his own interests."

Nastiness pays off in down economy

Or, I know you are but what am I?

Laura Ingraham is one of the Right's favorite talking heads.  Recently, she decided that her cause (whatever that is, I mean besides self-promotion) would benefit from saying nasty things about Sen. John McCain's daughter Meghan (the blog in which Ms. Ingraham makes her stunningly rude comments is titled "Useful Idiot Watch").  Ironically she claims that Meghan and Sen. McCain are loved by the nefarious "Left" when they are bashing their fellow Republicans (which makes one wonder, as Ms. Ingraham is bashing two Republicans herself in her blog entry and sound clip, is she going to be embraced by the Left?  How very confusing life can be when one uses Reason...).

She goes on to question what experience Meghan has for her views and guidance for the GOP, when its clear that having been the daughter of a US Senator and two time Presidential contender (well, maybe 1 1/2 times) might give her some idea about the GOP, its strengths and weaknesses, and what future generations are looking for from the party.  Contrast this to Ms. Ingraham's experience which seems "limited" to a small stint as a speech writer for Reagan and of course, being a talking head/talking head book writer.  In other words, it seems to me they both have enough experience to offer up opinions about things political-but Ms. Ingraham is not interested in discussing the differences she has with Meghan McCain, rather she's interested in sniping at her; the greatest laughing point of the blog entry is that Ms. Ingraham cries out that the evil Left's "...goal is to malign outspoken conservatives (specifically in talk radio) as members of a radical fringe movement whose right to free speech is questionable at best. 

The takeaways from this incident are as follows:

• Laura Ingraham doesn't like to be maligned by the "Left" but she does like to malign others on the Right.
• When one member of the Right maligns another, it makes the Left happy in some way.
• Ergo, Laura Ingraham is contributing to the happiness of the Left.
• Laura Ingraham's concerns are less about intelligent debate or ideas, and more about maligning (it's her term, I'm making good use of it) her fellow GOP'ers' weight, manner of speech, and popularity.
• As an Independent, this just makes me even less likely to vote for Republicans as they seem hell-bent on reinforcing the idea that they are unhappy, bitchy, mean, backward, selfish malcontents who know everything but solve nothing.

Hi, I'm the New Republican (like New Coke, only worse)

So foolishly perhaps I wanted Bobby Jindal's GOP response to President Obama's speech last night to be substantive and hopeful.  He's only a year older than I am for crying out loud, so I guess that colors my expectations somewhat.  But his goofy manner of speech, coupled with his substance-less prattling left me disappointed.  I was especially confused by his calling upon the memory of Katrina while also condemning the government's plan to spend money monitoring volcanoes.  I'm no brain surgeon, but I'm thinking things like hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanoes are things we ought to keep our eyes on, you know, to prevent another massive disaster like Katrina.  As with that kooky Alaskan, the GOP is throwing on stage people who come from "categories" they think will make them more appealing to modern Americans.

The GOP is desperately trying to define itself, not unlike the birth pangs of Dems a few years ago as they struggled to "be" something besides a loony ranting Governor (remember Howard Dean?).  The real problem with the GOP is that they have largely taken as their brand social, Christian conservatism while paying lip service to-but not actively living out-fiscal and government conservatism.  Bush II grew the government and the national debt.  Reagan spent like a drunken socialist to force the already crumbling Communist states to drain their coffers.  The GOP-controlled Congress wasted a good deal of tax dollars to prove that Slick Willy got a hummer from an intern.  Gay marriage is still largely not available to most gay couples, the abortion issue has worn thin, and as no political party is going to ignore the threats of terrorism the GOP needs a new bogeyman to scare people to the polls.  

Call me a dreamer, but it might be nice to have people serving in government who aren't spinning an ideology but rather are intelligent, qualified leaders.  Well that's what fiction is for...

So very true Mr. Musharraf

The US really hasn't treated Pakistan equally to other countries; we gave your dictatorship $10B this decade, and I doubt there are too many other countries to whom we gave so much.  You're right-why should you be grateful?  I mean you took over the government of Pakistan by force, and still failed to make it into a functional, modern democratic state.  Despite the relative success of your twin/nemesis India.

Now I've had to make do with raiding my personal retirement funds while Wall St./K St. raped our economy to keep myself afloat, but how you managed to survive on $10B of welfare is truly an act of sainthood.  I had to earn my keep, while you so bravely took up despotism.  Bravo!

My personal suggestion is that you move to Alaska, where you and Sarah Palin can whine together about hard it's all been for you.  Perhaps she can hire you to keep an eye on Russia?

Third strike

Prince Henry of Wales, most commonly known as Prince Harry, or as Henry Mountbatten-Windsor has recently made an ass of himself.  Again.  A few years ago he went to a costume party dressed as a Nazi; not terribly smart, but not the end of the world either.  He was young, and therefore prone to stupidity.  When he was 17, he was caught smoking weed (for which he was publicly punished by his father, Prince Charles by being made to visit a drug rehab center).  Now he's an Army man, and has served in Afghanistan, where he apparently dropped the "P" bomb-that is, he referred to his fellow soldier pejoratively as a "Paki" a racist term used primarily in Britain to describe persons of South Asian ethnicity.  Very offensive, especially if one is a Briton.  Don't go conquering the world and then bitch when the world wants to come home with you.

Here's the simple rundown: when you are a prince, or a VP candidate, or the President of the US, or the husband of the British queen, you need to be very careful about opening your mouth in front of other people.  Any other people.  Maybe even corgis.  The reason behind this bit of wisdom is that powerful public figure's every word will at some point in time end up in print or worse-in video.

Of course now that he's once again been called to account for his jackass behavior, the good Prince is all kinds of sorry for his offensive language.  His behavior is partly a combination of being in a giant gym class (the Army) where being a man means acting a fool.  But it is also the result of being a rich kid with no career prospects and a stifling (and very outmoded) way of life.  Harry is the "spare" to a throne currently occupied by an octogenarian (who by the way has largely avoided her family's penchant for foot-in-mouth disease).  Next up is Charles, who is sixty and then William. The likelihood of Harry being King is pretty remote, and since he is a royal Prince he can't just go down to the local Big Corporate Office and ask for a cubicle job.

Nor can he realistically pursue any other passion.  All of this calls into question the purpose of hereditary heads of state, and the affects of applying the parameters of a system once designed to secure the welfare of the state onto people who at most will be ribbon-cutting, ship-naming mascots, but more likely will be perpetual b-team characters in the national soap opera.  Like his predecessors Princess Margaret and the Duke of Windsor, Harry has been born into a golden cage where he will probably live out his life drinking, swearing, screwing around, providing a living for tabloid journalists and paparazzi.

Boo bloody hoo-The Sequel

Why would anyone give this woman any airtime?  She's just a loud, obnoxious, uncivilized woman. Why is that a career?

Oh boo bloody hoo

Sarah Palin is a whiney, vapid twit who complains about getting attention, all the while using that attention to keep herself on the radar.  I mean if you don't like SNL's portrayal of you, then why play along by showing up for an episode?  If she'd have won the election, I doubt she'd be complaining about her coverage.  The truth is she scared the hell out of a lot of people in this country, and the idea that she was just a heartbeat away from leading the free world was too much. She is an inept provincial from the backwoods who doesn't have what it takes to lead the US (Alaska's population is less than the metro-Atlanta area, where I live).

Fifteen minutes are up!

We all know the definition of insanity...

This article gets it right-neither the Israelis nor Hamas are behaving in a way that brings sympathy from me anyway.  Poking each other in the eye is stupid; it's time for the Palestinian Authority to step up and take control of its own behavior, and for the Palestinian state to come into being.  Israel is not going to be "wiped off the map."  Palestinians are not going to be happy without a state and the freedom to move in and out of Israel and the Palestinian territories without being harassed.  Terrorism and war have resulted in ABSOLUTELY NOTHING GOOD for either side.  It's time to try a different approach.