Letter to Ray McFadden, My Father-in-Law...

Dear Ray,

I want you to know that I can’t be there with you this Christmas because in my heart, the reality of losing you is far too much like losing my dad all over again.

My absence this Christmas should send no message to anyone other than to serve as an indication of my cowardice, but I’m far braver when I write, so please allow me to be brave, and candid, with you now.

Next to Harry O’Brien, you are the kindest, sweetest man I’ve ever known. Although at first I know this was not an easy thing for you to do, you accepted me into your family 30 years ago. Now, 30 years later, I believe you know in your heart how much I love and am committed to Rosemary, and to all of you.

Even before Row and I were married, you were always kind and generous, Ray, always my second-father.

Thank you for sharing yourself all these years and for your abiding patience with me. Thank you also for the father you’ve been to your children, the husband you’ve been to your wife, the friend you’ve been to my folks, and the second-father you’ve been to me and my sisters.

The world will only be a sorrier place without you, but let me assure you that it has been a good and wonderful place with you. Please know this. Please know you’re a good and wonderful man, Ray, by anyone’s measure.

And please know, please believe, that good and wonderful men should have no fear of anything… of anything.

In closing, please don’t worry about your family, Ray: I’ll help however I can.

Knowing you has been my privilege, a real and true honor, and I love you far more than I can ever express. I hope you know this by now.

Always affectionately, always lovingly, always respectfully, your son-in-law,

Michael

What does "theocracy" even mean?

What does the word theocracy actually mean and what would qualify as a theocratic government? (I'll leave the reader to look up the terms.)

Republican candidate Michele Bachmann keeps complaining in debates and the media about a "Muslim conspiracy" to create an "Islamic theocracy,"a "worldwide caliphate" that subjects everyone to "Shariah law."

OK. For the moment, let's assume she's not criminally insane and has... gulp... a legitimate argument.

What about her religion's beliefs?

What about the many Christians who claim that only believers in Jesus can get to heaven, to the exclusion of any other religion's belief in their version of heaven?

What about the artificial litmus test that questions a candidate's religious beliefs?

What about the Christian right's obvious, and decades-old desire to put a Christian president in office and, moreover, to elect Christian candidates at every level of public office?

How many times have we heard a Christian politician say he receives some divine inspiration regarding a decision he has to make, or a Christian candidate who claims he was "called by God" to run?

Do these same Christian politicians not follow the Christian bible as the foundation of their religion and thought process, much like Muslims follow their bible, the Quran?

Do these same Christian politicians not also say that they believe in God and then country?

So how, then, do these Christians differ in their beliefs and goals from the Muslims who Ms. Bachmann is forever whining about?

The answer is... they don't. A theocracy is a theocracy is a theocracy, no matter if it's Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, or whatever: it's still a theocracy.

The framers of our constitution had the brains to realize that religion and government don't mix. (See Article Six of the US Constitution where it says "...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.") Sadly, Ms. Bachmann doesn't, so if she wants everyone to fear life under an Islamic theocracy, then they should also fear life under the Christian theocracy that she would run as POTUS.

P.S. As an interesting aside, check out this link. Ms. Bachmann is dissembling.

Face it, Republicans, your presidental candidates have sucked for years...

For the last three decades, pundits have blasted the president holding power. No matter who was in office, he could never do anything good or right, as far as the other side was concerned. Each of the two major parties has demonized the other.

Past presidents are either vilified (Jimmy Carter by the Republicans; George Bush the younger by Democrats) or glorified (Ronald Reagan by, you guessed it, the Republicans). Scores of books have been written on how to talk to "Democrat" liberals, why they're fools, and why Republican conservatives are the only people who can save the world.

But since Saint Ronald left the Whitehouse, you can't name a conservative who has lived there. Not one.

Nope. The two Bushes were anything but conservatives, not in the sense that Rush and Ann and Glenn and Sean and the Tea Party mean the word. Both Bushes did things that the most conservative of the Republican Party hated, like raise taxes (Poppy Bush) or create unfunded mandates (Shrub) that drove up deficits. These were hardly conservatives standing firm, holding high the conservative banner. In truth, their vice-presidents (Quayle and Cheney, respectively) were far more conservative than either of their bosses, with Cheney the most conservative by far.

So the disconnect for the Republican Party has become one of relative depth of belief, which has led to a war within the party itself, a war that is tearing the party apart.

Sure, this same sort of schism exists in the Democratic Party as the most liberal end blasts the Democratic president as not being liberal enough. They question how liberal the president actually is. This happened with Jimmy Carter, it continued with Clinton, and is happening the most loudly with Obama. The most ideological wing of each party is never satisfied with the ideological purity of their party's president.

But, what's happening with the Republicans now, in this election cycle, is somehow different: the most conservative end of the Republican Party simply doesn't trust its candidates and the moderate end of the Republican Party actually hates them, almost to a person, and is actively working to undermine them. What used to be the job of the Democratic Party has become the job of the Republican Party.

There is not one Republican candidate in the running who either Republican ideology can truly get behind and support. To each ideological wing, each candidate is deeply, deeply flawed in some way. The most conservative are pissed because those running for president are anything but conservative; they're seen as fakes, panderers, moderates masquerading as conservatives (aka RINOs). The most moderate are pissed because none of the candidates pandering to the right, or those claiming to actually be far far right of center, will be able to beat Obama, which is their primary concern. But is this new?

What true conservatives have the Republicans fielded in the last few primary cycles? Gary Bauer? Steve Forbes? Pat Robertson? Elizabeth Dole? Dan Quayle? Alan Keyes? Pat Buchanan? Newt Gingrich? Herman Cain? Rick Santorum? Michele Bachmann?

Riiiiight.

These conservatives might be able to win the presidency of their neighborhood associations, but not the country. Never. Not a prayer. Nominee Dole didn't stand a chance in 1996, and in 2000, nominee Shrub was elected primarily because of a leg-up from the Supreme Court, with a --- perhaps arguable --- nudge from Ralph Nader in Florida. I am not saying Gore would have been a better president, but I am saying he was a far better candidate. (OK... I am saying he would have been a better president: we at the very least would not have gone into Iraq; Afghanistan, maybe, but not Iraq.)

And this has been the problem for the Republicans in the last several election cycles: they have become really bad at fielding candidates who (A) they actually like or (B) stand even a ghost of a chance of winning, let alone receiving their party's nomination, and they have become really good at (A) pissing and moaning about the candidates who are running and (B) rationalizing why the people who aren't running would be so much better.

The Republicans better realize, and fast, that this country is nowhere near as conservative as they want it to be, and they better change their 20-year trend toward insanity by trying to do the same thing again and again.

Otherwise, they're headed toward another four years of a Democrat in the Whitehouse, as well as another four years of blaming one another for why he's still there, which will lead to something far worse for them: a real schism within their party along purely ideological lines, which will become a total split, and will eventually render the Republican Party into smallish intensely ideological pieces of what it once was when it was able to field Ronald Reagan, its self-professed conservative standard-bearer.

Get your fear here!

A good friend of mine recently sent me a link to this YouTube video. Watch it and then read on.

Aside from being sort of clever satire --- albeit heavy-handed and poorly acted --- its overarching point is pure mythology and has no basis in fact. All it does is foment fear of something that just isn't happening. Here's proof.

Name one federal law that’s been passed in the last three years (i.e., under the current Democratic administration, which is the real issue here, make no mistake about it) that limits gun ownership in any way.

Just one.... go ahead.... I’ll wait.....

You can’t because there haven’t been any. This whole imbroglio is based on getting everyone to fear something that just doesn’t exist.

The U.S. Government’s constitutional mandate is to protect the well-being of its gun-owning and non-gun-owning citizens, even as the NRA’s mandate is to protect the well-being of its membership. We can argue all day about how well each is doing with its respective responsibilities, but this isn’t the point.

Even as each new federal administration is doing its job, the NRA’s Mr. LaPierre is doing his job as an effective and powerful paid lobbyist. He’s not a crusader or anything like it. He just needs to protect his job and his organization’s existence. This is why this phony, fear-bating B.S. keeps flying around the Internet. I’m sure he has someone’s best (special?) interests at heart, but let’s not lose sight of his real role and see it for what it is.

Look, many of us own guns, and we are perfectly able to do so. It’s legal. It’s constitutional. Hell, it's fun!

So what’s the issue? Fear of the unknown? Why? We own guns, for crying out loud, what’s to be afraid of here!?

Are there elements in the U.S. who would like to see hand-guns go away, who are sympathetic to hand-gun restrictions, who hate guns and think gun-owners are nothing but knuckle-draggers?

Sure.

But this just won’t happen.

The premise of John Ross’s 863-page “Unintended Consequences” (an interesting, if overly long, read) is that it could happen here simply because it’s happened in other countries, but this is a completely false comparison.

It will not happen in the U.S. Full stop. And for those who say it hasn’t yet happened here simply/only because of the NRA, fair enough; but remember: I already said the NRA is an effective and powerful lobbying organization.

This whole our-guns-are-going-to-be-taken-away-from-us dust-up is pure B.S., but it sure makes for funny YouTube stuff. Look at the ammo-buying panic back in 2008. Now, you can’t swing an AK without smacking into some hoarder who’s selling off his or her 2008-issue ammunition... at least not in New Mexico, you can’t. And let’s be honest here. The ATF is its own worst enemy.

This is completely obvious. The ATF will never be anything more than an incompetent, buffoonish agency run by incompetent buffoons. It can’t get out of its own way let alone get in the way of anyone else. Look how badly it fucked up at Ruby Ridge and at Waco, and now this “fast and furious” cock-up? ...sheesh. Q.E.D.

And so, if you want to get good and pissed off about losses of liberty, real losses of liberty that affect everyone, you’ve only to look to the...

• Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act,
• gross diminishment of habeas corpus laws,
• religious right’s barely concealed desire to put a Christian theocracy in place in the U.S. government, and
• repeated attacks on the 4th Amendment, much of which was put in place during the previous administration, let’s not forget.

(And don’t even get me started on the FEC v Citizens United supreme court ruling. This alone is already doing us all far more harm than even the most egregious gun law ever could.)

Yup, there’s some seriously weird shit that has taken place, there is no doubt, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. This is a classic MacGuffin. A smokescreen. Camouflage. Read “The Shock Doctrine.”

If you want to do something real, something meaningful to protect gun laws and everyone’s rights to own same, work harder to keep bona fide, bat-shit-crazy assholes --- like Tucson's Jared Lee Loughner or Sanford, MI's Rachel Marie Moore --- from opening fire on their fellow citizens. Hell... even a man who had his concealed-carry weapon on him at the scene in Tucson said he almost drew down on the wrong person.

What a world.

More facts. Less fear.

Plaxico Burress has a large pair of balls...

Plaxico Burress, who was stupid enough to carry a gun into a strip club, using only his loose-fitting jogging pants to support it (let alone stupid enough to even contemplate doing anything like this in the first place), has taken verbal shots at his former coach and NY Football Giants team mates for not showing "some concern" for his situation at the time.

Mr. Burress suggested Coach Coughlin should have been more sympathetic because Burress had a bullet in his leg.

Plaxico, that bullet was there because you shot yourself with your own gun!

The human pistol target goes on to knock Coughlin for not being a positive coach.

Really? You mean there should be a pep talk for when you're dumb-assed enough to shoot yourself in the leg?

And Mr. Burress is all hurt because Coach Coughlin didn't write him in prison, and says,"All of us have made big mistakes, right?"

But the thing is, Plaxico, all of us aren't signed to multi-million-dollar dream jobs and then throw it away by being completely and thoroughly stupid.

It was a GUN, Plaxico. It was your gun. You shot yourself with your gun because you did a dumb thing. Don't blame anyone else but yourself. You're lucky some team was desperate enough to sign you again.

Maybe this time you can leave the gun at home. There's no "I" in TEAM, but there is an "I" in STUPID.

Morgan vs O'Donnell

Let's see if I have this correctly.

An interviewer few care about interviewing a woman even fewer care about on a show and a network even fewer still care about. And the woman chooses to employ the Sharron Angle strategy of wanting to be asked only what she wants to be asked.

I think that's it.

In his defense, Morgan's free to go for the story he feels his viewers want to hear, but why her? Who cares?

Yawn. CNN should be ZNN because you can catch some while it's on and the Tea Party is being co-opted by some criminally stupid people.

Goodbye, Sonia...

On Friday, May 27th, Sonia Gaudet Worthington succumbed to illness, leaving her husband and best friend, John, who was side by side with Sonia for the last 23 years, and by her side as usual in her last minutes of life.

Sonia was special. I've never met anyone like her and will likely never meet anyone like her.

She was quick to laugh (and had a wonderful laugh, at that) and was extremely slow to blame or accuse. She humored me with my stupid jokes and one-liners, she loved John and all their animals, and she made some of the best jambalaya it was ever my pleasure to eat.

I met Sonia and John through my wife, who worked with Sonia at Alza (now Johnson & Johnson) back in the early 90s. Sonia was a force of nature in Alza's shipping and receiving department and my wife took an instant liking to her kind and gentle heart, which Sonia allowed anyone who took the time, to see. I loved her instantly as well, and I'd prefer not to meet or know the person who didn't.

This is a cliché, but it's true: the world is diminished with Sonia gone from it, but through our brief chance to get to know her it was made a better place, and all of us, better people, by her presence, her grace, and her great strength.

I'll always love you, Sonia.

WSJ slams Mitt?

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page has come out against presidential wannabe Mitt Romney saying he's a "compromised and not credible" candidate (and using the "RomneyCare" demagoguery they usually reserve for President Obama).

The newspaper's argument against Romney is that he put through a healthcare system in Massachusetts when he was governor. The WSJ (owned by Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp) is yet again on the wrong side of an legitimate issue.

Rather than use its editorial voice to put forward a real plan, to suggest a way forward, to report on anything that could help millions who need assistance, to report on the plans for healthcare reform being offered by its Republican/corporate masters (from which not a single real plan has been offered, by the way), the WSJ instead chooses instead to slam Romney for his good-faith effort to help the people of Massachussetts.

If this clear cynicism doesn't prove the point, then nothing does.

Mitt Romney, like him or not and regardless of his party affiliation, at least tried to do the right thing for Massachusetts. Full stop. His current calls for repeal of the Affordable Care Act notwithstanding (and seemingly hypocritical), the irony of the situation he finds himself in is that he's probably an honorable man who is being vilified for having tried to do something honorable, yet he's being dishonored by people without a spec of it themselves.

Is Massachussetts' health system perfect? No way! But doing nothing helpful, simply sitting on the sidelines and criticizing those who are at least trying to help, is cowardly and shameful.

Now Romney is having to run away from the right side of an issue toward the wrong side only to be blind-sided.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Why attack our commuter rail when we're already destroying it?

The intelligence materials recovered from Bin Laden's compound indicate the terrorist was planning to attack the USA's commuter rail lines.

Consider the contempt our congress already demonstrates through their poor opinion of our rail lines: withholding rail funds; viewing light-rail as elitist and unnecessary; and seeing high-speed rail as a generally bad investment even as Japan and Europe effectively demonstrate its clear value.

Then, combine our government's general lack of leadership and interest with the public's general lack of ridership for Amtrak, and it could be argued that we're already doing far more to destroy or own commuter rail system than 10 Bin Ladens ever could have.

Yes, Bin Laden has preceded it in death, but our commuter rail system is not far behind him.

Theocracy, here we come!

Rick Santorum, proponent of intelligent design, opponent of gay marriage, proponent of the need to fear sharia law, opponent of any Democrat simply on the basis of his claim of how unsafe they are when they're in power, etc., etc., is running for President of the United States, in 2012.

In a recent interview with CBN, he and his wife, Karen, suggested this action is what God has "told" them to do in order to "defend God's truth."

OK. Maybe it's just me, but this is goofy on several levels.

First, when you lose your job as senator, it's usually for a pretty good reason: you probably did/said something to demonstrate you're not at all qualified for the position. So, what does Mr. Santorum do as a result of this clear demonstration by the voters of their gross loss of confidence in him (he lost re-election by 18 percentage points)? He decides to run for POTUS!

Riiiiight... Mr. Santorum might need to research "The Peter Principle."

When a mid-level manager loses his job for doing or saying something that results in a lack of confidence in him, chances are pretty good that then going for the CEO position is not a brilliant move.

Is Mr. Santorum demonstrating good judgment in his decision to run for POTUS?
Is this the act of someone who will (re)instill confidence in him?
Or is this the act of a man who's playing to a perceived base?

Second, I stake no claim to having a personal relationship with the Almighty. Back when I was in Catholic school, serving masses as an altar boy, and going to church pretty much every day, I made a couple of heartfelt pleas: when my dad lost his job and when I allowed his heirloom Elgin pocket watch to go through a wash and rinse cycle and come completely apart. But since then, we don't speak much.

Having said this, and given my admittedly limited intimacy with God, I'm nevertheless fairly certain He doesn't give a good running rip whether or not Rick Santorum runs for dog catcher, let alone POTUS. And while I also think that God doesn't much care that football players or baseball players want Him to care about the outcome of their kick-off returns or at-bats, if Mr. and Mrs. Santorum are suggesting their direct line to the man upstairs is manifesting itself in God's need to have Mr. Santorum run for president, then they're both not to be trusted on this score alone, along with Misters Falwell (RIP, 1933--2007), Farakhan, and Robertson, the Pope, and anyone else who thinks that God gives a good Hisdamn about what they think or do!

Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Santorum say they (and that along with them we all should) fear the Islamic goal of establishing Sharia law throughout the world (their claim, not mine), and that this sort of forced theocracy is a bad thing.

OK. We finally agree on something. A theocracy is a bad thing. No argument there.

But in their hearts, what do they want here? What is it they're working for here? A Christian theocracy, that's what.

Aside from Christianity being their religion, aside from Christianity providing the laws in which they believe and by which they wish to live, a theocracy is a theocracy is a theocracy, and whether it's founded on Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Scientology, or the Church of the Subgenius, a theocracy has no place in a democratic republic such as ours.

Look, like everyone else, Mr. and Mrs. Santorum have every right to say the things they say, to pray to whomever they wish to pray --- and about what they wish to pray --- and to believe the things they believe, but they have no right to force on anyone else what they claim is being forced on them, because just as there is freedom of religion, there is also freedom from religion.

I say good on you, Mr. Santorum! Run for POTUS. But what'll you do after you lose... yet again? Run for king of the world? Nowhere to go but up.

Good luck with that, Rick and Karen. Maybe you can sue someone for giving you bad advice. Now... who might that be?

Give me a break, please!

A wonderful friend of mine who I've known for years sent me a link to another one of those sites that purports to have the real skinny on the whole Obama-isn't-one-of-us thing.

This friend is a good person who wouldn't harm a fly and who doesn't buy into any of this stuff, but he's being inundated with a barrage of emails from an acquaintance of his who does believe this crap.

He asked me what I thought about the issue addressed in the latest hateful email he's received.

Following is my response to my friend.

CAUTION: This response uses a word that I never use and that should be offensive to anyone with even half a brain!

"This is just more of the same pure bullshit that Tates, Limbaugh, et al., have been spewing and nothing more.

Full stop.

The statement that snopes.com says this is true is a lie, but these folks know that if you repeat any lie often enough people will believe the lie. For proof of this: they believe the lies that all this is true!

See this link and this link, which is GREAT as well! (the second one shows one of these fake certificates that someone actually created for Michelle Bachmann!)

This crap is just that. Crap.

Although I don't know him, please allow me to suggest that you find a new doctor, because yours is either an idiot, a bigot, a racist, or all three. Only one of these would suggest this BS is true, let alone believe it, and especially someone with a proper education.

This all comes down to one simple thing: some really cruel and stupid people are pissed because we have a n&@@er in the White House, and you know me, I do not use this word, EVER! I use it here only rhetorically, to make a point.

They just can't stand it. It's driving them nuts. They're pissed. They're beside themselves.

Well guess what? The democracy they're so fond of waving a flag for works after all! Oh horrors. Go figure.

They're assholes, the lot of them.

Look, we have SO many truly important issues that we just HAVE to address before we EVER get to this sort of hateful, racist garbage.

Question: When was the last time a sitting president was asked to prove citizenship?

Answer: It's never happened.

Reason it's now happening: We have an African-American president whose name is Barack Hussein Obama and whose father is from Kenya.

Reason it's never happened before: see 'Reason it's now happening.'

I'll stop now."

This really pisses me off...

The White House has just released President Barrack Obama's long form birth certificate for public viewing.

Section 1, Article 2 of the constitution sets eligibility requirements for serving as president. The 12th and 14th amendments provide additional clarifications.

So tell me, please... when in your lifetime has a candidate for president been forced --- either by public outcry or some legal justification --- to make public his or her birth certificate?

The answer? Never.

This really pisses me off.

His having to do this is pure bullshit and, worse, a function of pure racism, and there's no two ways about this.

The White House has had to do this only because the president's name is Barrack Hussein Obama, only because the president is an African-American, and only because to those US citizens who didn't vote for the president --- and it's the right of every US citizen to vote or to not vote for whomever they wish --- to those who are unhappy he won, to their way of thinking we now have a darkie in the White House for the first time ever.

Rather than seeing this as a milestone, as one of the strengths of the democracy they claim to love, these assholes use it as a wedge to divide us further.

Look, I apologize for using the clearly pejorative term "darkie"; I know it's offensive. I don't use it in conversation and I don't use it lightly.

But please understand I use it now only to make a point because I'm pissed off: this whole thing is garbage and anyone who has suggested he needed to do this, needed to prove himself to anyone else, should be ashamed.

But they won't be ashamed because the same shamelessness that caused them to open their small-minded traps in the first place will prevent them for demonstrating any shame now.

This really pisses me off, and it should piss off anyone reading this as well.

And now The Donald, Clown Circus Spokesperson, is taking credit for this release by the White House, and Rence Preibus, Chairman of the RNC, is accusing President Obama of playing politics by the timing of the release.

Could there be two cheekier f%&@ers than these guys? Ever hear the expression "you just can't win?" Sheesh.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Taxing the boundaries of common sense...

Speaker of the House Boehner is claiming that the good jobs data out today is a function of tax cuts and not the stimulus, that if you make rich people richer, they'll in turn give jobs to or somehow create jobs for non-rich people. He went on... wait a minute.

Wait just a damn minute.

Isn't this just voodoo economics? Isn't this just trickle down economics? Isn't this just the same tired foolishness the Repos have been trying to sell for 30 years?

It is?

Oh, OK. I thought for a minute the Repos might have finally come up with something new. Too bad. It sure sounded good.

I've solved the health care problem!

According to Global Research, the USA has 757 military bases throughout the world. According to about.com, our world is home to 195 countries. Simple math tells us this is an average of 3.8 military bases for each country. Now obviously, we don't have a base in every country, but it begs the question "Why do we have military bases anywhere else but here?"

Is this some sort of oddly internecine jobs program? Is the USA trying to maintain full employment for soldiers?

Before you dismiss me as a liberal (and I am one), please know that I'm a huge fan of our soldiers. Every time I see one of them I walk up and thank him or her and shake hands. I've bought tables of Air Force pilots lunch here in Albuquerque. I think these men and women are often asked to do thankless jobs (as they are now doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, and needlessly as it turns out), and they deserve my thanks, at the very least.

But let me ask a simple question: How would we feel if another country felt it was in their national interest to put a military base somewhere in the USA?

What if France wanted to put a base in Napa or Sonoma Counties to monitor the sparkling wine industry?

What if Ireland got fed up by Idaho's cutting into its potato market share and decided to put a base in Boise?

What if Australia thought that not enough Foster's Beer was being sold in Las Vegas and wanted to put a base next to the Bellagio to ensure Foster's sales were competitive?

What if Italy suspected pasta flour made from Kansas wheat was somehow tainted and wanted a base in Wichita in order to track its production?

What if Germany decided that the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee was being threatened by a union protest and wanted to protect its interests by installing a military presence in Chattanooga?

What if any country decided to take over Cape Hateras off the North Carolina coast, kick out all the locals, and install landing strips and munitions depots (just as the USA did to the inhabitants of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean)?

What if any country decided it would be a good idea to go to someone's island home, kick everyone out, test nuclear bombs there, and render it a radioactively hostile environment for anyone wanting to return there (just as we did to the Bikini Atoll)?

Answer? how do you think these countries felt about us doing this to them?

And how much money are we spending on all these bases? What is the value of the real estate? Who do the bases serve besides us? Why are we spending all this cash? And, how much health care could the billions upon billions upon billions that we spend purchase for people in the USA?

No, this is nowhere near a new or original idea, but it's a good idea, nevertheless, and it simply has to be explored.

Where's the big-government outrage, Republicans? Where's the fiscal responsibility, Tea Partiers? Where's the sense of altruism and fair play, Democrats?

Whose fault will some see this to be?

Sadly, the four US citizens aboard the yacht taken by Somali pirates were killed by their captors at some point during the negotiations for their release.

There is no doubt about it, this is tragic. These people did no one any harm and were simply doing what their faith moved them to do.

Faith is a funny thing; it's usually difficult to prove, but I would argue these four self-made missionaries proved theirs absolutely in no uncertain terms. I'm not a Christian, but I respect a sincere search for truth, and I'm sad for their families and and their friends and that's the truth.

But another truth is this: these people were murdered by Somali pirates. No one else did this. No one else is responsible. No one else is at fault.

All of this said, however, this tragedy will be spun, somehow and by some, as the fault of the Obama administration, if even only tangentially, it will be nevertheless their fault, their shortcoming.

Wait and see, and mark my words.

Among the evangelical far-right fringe (a base well represented by Fox News), this episode will be spun as a lack of leadership, that had Obama truly been a Christian (and not a closeted Muslim as "everyone knows" him to be), he never would have allowed this to happen; as if his long presidential arms could somehow reach to the East African coast and pluck these people away from their boat, away from harm, away from what will inevitably be viewed as their martyrdom.

Make no mistake: this is tragic.

And again, I'm sad for their families and their friends, but what's more tragic is that supposedly Christian people will sadly use it to their own un-Christian ends.

Mubarek's post-departure plans change...

Upon announcing that he would step down after 30 years of repressing his own people, Egypt's Hosni Mubarek told the press he planned to travel to the USA as soon as practical in order to give a big wet kiss to Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh for supporting his regime by trying to convince their listeners that Mubarek's staying in power was a good thing for Egypt, for the US, for Fox News, and for the world.

Mr. Mubarek said through an interpreter that he wanted to, "Give a big shout out and props to his new BFFs on the rockin' Republican right," and to visit the US banks where he's squirreled away millions during his rule. "Then I might go to Disneyland," he said.

Upon hearing of Mubarek's plans, Beck said, "I fear for what's to come... place a new world order to buy gold now," and then began to cry into a gilded towel; Palin said through an interpreter that she wants "Anyone from the Obama administration to call me in Alaska and tell me who will now be in power in... in... what country was that again? I wrote it on my hand but it wore off"; on his radio show Hannity screamed, "Muslim Brotherhood, RAWK! Muslim Brotherhood, RAWK!" and Limbaugh said, "This sucks because I've been practicing mockingly rude imitations of an Egyptian accent for a week."

With friends like these, Mr. Mubarek is indeed a lucky, lucky man.

Life imitates art... er... commercials...

Is it just me, or has anyone else who regularly watches the Golf Channel noticed that almost every advertisement is for Cialis, the erectile dysfunction (ED) drug.

These ads used to involve couples sitting in separate bath tubs. (Nope... I have no idea either.) But lately, they're a collection of scenarios involving some couple busy doing some thing --- eating breakfast, working in the yard, painting a wall, hiking on a trail --- when suddenly they're both overtaken by a rampant urge to rut.

Then, as they begin smiling suggestively at one another, readying themselves for pleasures to come, the buildings and land around them mechanically transform into what, Sexworld?

Now, I had thought these ED ads were just bizarre, simply goofy, but an insidious undertone is emerging that makes me realize advertisers just might be smarter than we give them credit for being.

Think about it.

The Golf Channel airs all things golf, and golfers are an odd lot whose jargon is replete with innuendo.

From balls, to shafts, to stroke play, to "getting it into the hole," to "nutting" shots, to spectators shouting "In the hole!" to "getting it up and down," to "knocking it stiff," golfers talk it, and all those ED ads suggest golfers must walk it as well.

But although the underlying message here might address the overarching question of "Wanna get laid?" with the answer "Just play golf," it might instead be that all this shaft-and-balls talk is pure cover for the real problem: that knocking it stiff is only possible with some help.