"...If Only C.W. McCall Were In Charge...We'd Crash The Gate Doin' 98 Cause We Ain't A Gonna Pay No Tolls..."

Are you against America attacking Syria?

If so, you fall into the clear majority.

Do you know why you're against it?

If so, good for you.

Cause chances are you're in the clear minority.

Meanwhile, there's a very specific reason that no one has properly explained this thing to you.

Specifics.



(US News and World Report) Support for U.S. military strikes in Syria is lower than any other intervention in the last 20 years, according to a new poll.

Just 36 percent of Americans support President Barack Obama's call for air strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the U.S. claims used chemical weapons to kill about 1,400 Syrians, including more than 400 children, according to a Gallup survey released Friday. Obama said he would seek congressional approval before moving ahead with the intervention, but faces stiff opposition from members, the public and the international community.

"Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence," Obama said Friday during a news conference at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. "And that's not the world that we want to live in."

The negative public opinion underscores why the president said he would address the public Tuesday to lay out his case for the intervention.



Here's a prediction.

Within moments of the "thank you, God bless you and God bless America" finish of the President's address, those pesky little insta-polls will show that the needle of approval hasn't appreciably budged.

In fact, it may not have even moved within that wacky little "margin of error of plus or minus three points" that secretly makes us all wonder whether those polls are a cask of crap in the first place.

Here's why the address won't change minds.

Because Barack Obama, whatever his other virtues and/or failings might be, has shown his ability to articulate specifics to be an epic fail.

He got elected, twice, because he, obviously, has mastered the "campaign in poetry" portion of the old two pronged political bromide.

It's the "govern in prose" part that he's not jiggy wit'.

Lofty goals, idealistic ideas, visions of those infamous better days for our country that are always "still ahead" and revival tent like rallying cries are all well and good.

But without precisely drawn roadmaps showing the how we get from here to there, they are, in the end absolutely nothing more than lofty goals, idealistic ideas, visions of those infamous better days for our country that are always "still ahead" and revival tent like rallying cries.

Imagine the architect standing before you, waving his hands grandly and in a rich, captivating baritone voice, giving you his best "how cool is THIS gonna look?" spiel.

And then offering you nothing in the way of blueprint to show you what the specific how is to accomplish the aforementioned "how cool".

You're not inclined to turn this project over to that guy, are you?

Politicians, by their nature, not to mention a critical pre-requisite of their chosen vocation, are not big on showing you schematics.

Because their "job" might be to represent you and your interests but their goal is to piss off as few people as possible.

Elections, too often anymore, are not about bringing the most people to the fold.

They're about keeping the fewest number from abandoning it.

And the quickest, easiest, most devastatingly efficient way to piss people off is to be specific.

For example:

"We have worked hard to develop new avenues of acquiring the funding that will be vitally necessary to insure that you and your family will enjoy only the safest journey as you travel across the historic example of local engineering pride that is the Chesapeake Bay Bridge."

Hmm.

Worked hard.

New avenues.

Vitally necessary.

Family.

Safest journey.

Local pride.

Where do we sign up?

Meanwhile, the specific version.

"Effective July 1, the toll to cross the Chesapeake Bay Bridge will increase by anywhere from two to six dollars per axle, depending on the number of axles on your vehicle."

WTF?

Thus far, the case being publicly made for American involvement in Syria is long on avenues, necessities, families and safety.

Yet, 74% of people polled are already against the idea.

Here's why.

There ain't a single mention been made of axles.

And most of us have learned that, sooner or later, somebody is gonna start talking about axles.

Unfortunately, though, it's almost always after we've already committed to the six mile long line of cars trying to squeeze through the four out of twelve tollbooths that are open.

And, by then, there's no turning back.

" Why.....So.....Syria-ussss?..."

Here's what I've managed to glean, thus far, from the congressional hearings regarding a possible attack on  Syria.

Blah, blah, yada, yada, blather, blather, chemical weapons, blah, blah, Rand Paul postures,blah, blah, Kerry winces and parrys, blah, blah, blah, McCain wants answers, blather, blather, chemical weapons, yada, yada, yada.

Now, here, courtesy of Eric Bolling, are the two conditions under which I, as an American citizen, would be prepared to stand and be counted should we be asked to approve such an attack.

Americans at direct risk.

Loyal and staunch American allies at direct risk.

Everything else is additional blah, blah, yada, yada, blather, blather.

"...TMI Isn't As New An Expression As You Think...."

Old saying.

 

Let our voices be heard.

 

That oldie but goodie dates back a ways, at least as far back as the middle 1700's when Penelope Baker used it to protest unfair taxation by the British.

 

These days, it resides comfortably in that folder of slogans, mottos and/or catch phrases that get utilized and/dragged out as needed, most often, of course, as an underscore to whatever point is being advocated, more often than not, political.

 

Here's a thing, though.

 

I'm satisfied that the original good intention of that particular rallying cry has been mutated in a fashion that makes Joan Rivers' Botox adventures look like a little make up touch up.

 

That mutation occurred fifty years ago tomorrow, Sept 2.

 

And there are, by my reconnoitering, two people to blame for that mutation.

 

Fred W. Friendly.

 

Walter Cronkite.

 

Case that requires making to be made momentarily.

 

Meanwhile...

 

Dan Bongino is a Maryland resident, former Secret Service agent and a candidate for Congress, having been defeated in a run last year for a Senate seat.

 

I met Dan late last year when he came into the radio station I was morning showing to voice some paid political spots. We had a brief chat after and he left me with the impression of a guy who not only merited watching, in terms of potential, but who deserved it, as well.

 

I liked the guy.

 

Still do.

 

Take that, my right wing friends/adversaries.

 

Dan posted the following opine on his Facebook page today.

 

 

 

The fight against media bias; the most dangerous battle in America right now?

Let me tell you my story in the interest of maintaining some modicum of integrity in this slanted process. During my 2012 campaign for the U.S. Senate I saw the worst of the worst. Combined with my years inside the DC "Bubble" and witnessing the activities of some in the media, I refuse to play along. Although the examples are numerous, I will give you one shining example of what some in the media call "fairness".

During the 2012 campaign, a rep from a major newspaper's editorial board insisted on lecturing me with patently false talking points. When I confronted him with the actual data he accused me of being "confrontational". In short, he stated that the 2003 tax cuts led to a loss in federal tax receipts. When I told him that 2003 tax cuts actually led to the largest four-year INCREASE in tax receipts in American history ($785 billion in additional receipts from ...2004 to 2007), he ignored it.

I write of this now because we had another in a long line of incidents this weekend. After receiving volumes of calls and emails on the article in question I had a salutary moment. I realized that the media outlets that play it straight and gave us a fair shot were the ones flourishing and the outlets that continue to play games are struggling to stay afloat. In the end, the truth wins out and content is still king.

You may ask, "Why choose this fight?" Because unlike many in the political arena I do not choose consultant class, focus-group-tested issues. When I see something wrong I am going to call it out. I feel that I owe those who follow me on this forum an unfettered view into my life and problems I am driven to fix. You have committed to me and I owe you more than cheap talking points.

I call this "the most dangerous battle in America" because you are being lied to. Some in the media have decided that you are too stupid to make a decision for yourself so they are going to make it for you. By ignoring stories that threaten their meme, by carefully coding language using the alphabet of the left and by reporting on the "intentions" of liberal politics, yet ignoring the disastrous results, they are playing a movie for you that is allegedly "Based on a true story", only to find out later that the movie was complete fiction.

I want to close by thanking those in the media who, despite their internal political compass, continue to play it straight. I promise they do exist. I had one such individual at one of our events this past Friday and when a guest asked me about "his politics", I paid him the ultimate compliment for a reporter, I responded, " I don't know".

 

 

First, a mini lecture.

 

Not to Dan.

 

To those who heard themselves saying "he's right" somewhere along the way reading what Dan offers.

 

Don't say that.

 

It's a fine, admittedly even nitpicky, point but an oft expressed personal pet peeve.

 

Right and wrong are subjective judgments, implying a conclusion most people are unqualified to make.

 

If you think Dan is right, then, the correct expression to use is the one I use.

 

And used here.

 

I agree.

 

End of mini lecture.

 

There was a time, in the not too distant past, when "media", defined for this essay as newspaper, radio and/or television news, still pretty faithfully adhered to the basic tenets of fundamental journalism.

 

Put in a less Roget's way, reporters limited their reporting to the who, what, when, where and why of a particular occurrence.

 

And "why", in that context, meant factual circumstances, as in "the accused shot the victim because he was high on meth at the time of the shooting".

 

"Why" did not mean expressing personal opinions as to the underlying political, theological, spiritual, sexual, moral, et al philosophies at the heart of the action.

 

Any opinions that could be interpreted as personal were restricted to the editorial columns, pages and/or segments of print and broadcast media.

 

Then, in 1963, along came Fred W. Friendly and Walter Cronkite.

 

Friendly was the president of CBS News and executive producer of the CBS Evening News with...

 

Walter Cronkite.

 

And on Sept 2,1963, a seemingly simple, even progressive, innovation occurred on national television that tipped the first domino of a chain reaction that has found us, today, mired in the muck of too many voices, too much personal opinion, too many mouths operating full bore and far too many ears, and brains, functioning much of the time, if at all.

 

On Sept 2, the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite became the first nationally televised news program to broadcast thirty minutes each weekday evening.

 

Until that day, daily television news casts had been, believe it or not, a mere fifteen minutes.

 

And in that single blooming of a new plant, grew the massive, gnarly mess of vines that make up television news.

 

Growing even more gnarly and massive when cable showed up a few years later.

 

An electronic monster that required feeding twenty four hours a day, seven days a week.

 

Evening news begat cable news which begat news talk which begat political news talk which begat commentary talk which begat the ancestors of today's town criers, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Rachel Maddow, Al Sharpton, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Martin Bashir, the list, like the beat goes on.

 

And on.

 

And on.

 

And, added to that stellar assembly.....

 

Too often, reporters who come of age in a time when the basic tenets of journalism are almost supplementary to the quest for breaking news, exclusive headlines and shrewd, personal observation.

 

And the "why" in who, what, when, where and why is now assumed to mean expressing personal opinions as to the underlying political, theological, spiritual, sexual, moral, et al philosophies at the heart of the action.

 

Used to be that Jackie DeShannon musically summed our lives up for us.

 

"...what the world needs now / is love sweet love"

 

Today, Elvis has once again grabbed the top of the charts with his ode to what the world needs.

 

"...a little less conversation "

 

Fred Friendly and Walter Cronkite were pros in the classic traditions of broadcasting and journalism and, I suspect, they would both be agog and aghast at the chaotic cacophony that modern day broadcast journalism has become.

 

And while it's obvious they deserve no real blame for where we are because of when they started taking us, given that only hindsight is twenty/twenty, there's a reasonable case to be made that the virus was first injected, however well intentioned, into the cultural mainstream on that September day fifty years ago.

 

Fifty years from "that's the way it is" to finding ourselves in, as Dan Bongino puts it, the "most dangerous battle in America".

 

I'm one of those people I mentioned who are unqualified to make judgment about Bongino's assertion

 

But he's right.

 

And that's the way it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...There's Un In Every Crowd..."

Along with all its other allures, pop music has a wonderful way of being available to writers who, from time to time, like to use well known songs to illustrate contemporary circumstances.

I'm a big fan, and user, of that application.

In that spirit, Joni Mitchell fans, please stand by.


Seoul, South Korea (CNN) -- North Korea's threatening rhetoric has reached a fever pitch, but the Pentagon and the South Korean government have said it's nothing new.

"We have no indications at this point that it's anything more than warmongering rhetoric," a senior Washington Defense official said late Friday.

 

The official was not authorized to speak to the media and asked not to be named.

 

The National Security Council, which advises the U.S. president on matters of war, struck a similar cord. Washington finds North Korea's statements "unconstructive," and it does take the threats seriously.

 

"But, we would also note that North Korea has a long history of bellicose rhetoric and threats, and today's announcement follows that familiar pattern," said Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the security council.

 

The United States will continue to update its capabilities against any military threat from the North, which includes plans to deploy missile defense systems.

 

Pyongyang's propaganda machine flung new insults at the United States on Saturday.

 

It compared the U.S. mainland with a "boiled pumpkin," unable to endure an attack from a foreign foe, the state-run Korean Central News Agency reported.

 

North Korea, on the other hand, could sustain an offensive from the outside, the report said. It claimed the government had built shelters around the country "against any enemy nuclear and chemical weapons attack."

 

The rhetoric and military show of force by the North have heated up in the face of annual joint military exercise between South Korean and U.S. forces called Foal Eagle.

 

The routine maneuvers are carried out in accordance with the armistice that put an end to armed hostilities in 1953. There was no peace treaty to officially end the war.

 

The North Korean government declared the armistice invalid on March 11, 10 days after Foal Eagle began. It is something Pyongyang has done before during heightened tensions.

 

In an added slap, North Korea has declared that it had entered a "state of war" with neighboring South Korea, according to a report Saturday from the state-run Korean Central News Agency.

 

"The condition, which was neither war nor peace, has ended," North Korea's government said in a special statement carried by KCNA.

 

Saturday's reports also asserted any conflict "will not be limited to a local war, but develop into an all-out war, a nuclear war."

 

The statements made the prospect of war contingent upon "a military provocation ... against the DPRK" in sensitive areas on the border between North and South.

 

 

I freely admit that I have neither the education nor experience to consider myself credentialed when it comes to assessing a global, sociologial, geopolitical situation.

 

That said, I think, given what we all pretty much know about the situation, that it's not unreasonable for even a layman like me to be able to offer the following observations:

 

North Korea is now, has always been and, it's safe to assume, will always be an Asian continental equivalent of the neighborhood bully.

 

For those of you less versed in world politics than in, say, "A Christmas Story", simply substitute the name " Scut Farkus" whenever and wherever you read the name "Kim Jong Un" and you'll get the primary drift here.

 

Bullies, by their nature, are predisposed to bluster, bravado, bluff and/or bullshit, not necessarily in that order.

 

And what gives North Korea a unique advantage in the bully business is that, under ordinary circumstances, a bully would, at one point or another, sooner or later, have to make good on their bluster, bravado, et al or be exposed, to those all around him, as a fraud, fake, phony paper tiger.

 

Or punch the livin' bejesus out of him, ala Ralphie finally going pre-holiday postal on Scut.

 

But I got five bucks in my pocket against the five in yours that nobody in North Korea is going to ever step up and cry fraud, let alone start wailin' on Un while one of his generals runs to get momma to break up the bashing.

 

And the family Un really doesn't much care about what anybody else thinks.

 

So, the wheel on the bully bus can go round and round / round and round / round and round / for years to come/ years to come/ years to come.

 

At the same time, though, I think it's, at best, naive and, at worst, foolhearty, to assume that Koocoo Kim won't decide to take a plutonium pot shot at someone or someones before all of this arrives at the end credits.

 

Because Kim Jong Un seems to have one personality trait that Scut Farkus lacked.

 

Bat shit craziness.

 

And, as our most very good friend Forrest, Forrest Gump might offer these days....

 

"...crazy is as crazy does."

 

So, notwithstanding full of patriotic pride, bona fide U.S. of A. confidence and/or arrogance, manifesting in the form of tsk, tsk, scoff, scoffing at this leechie nut bag with the bad Leroy Jethro Gibbs haircut, I appreciate that, to all appearances, those in our government who are tasked with taking this kind of silliness seriously are, in fact, taking this silliness seriously.

 

And keeping their fingers close to whatever button might become necessary should the Un and only let his finger get a little too close to the button he calls his own.

 

Again, I can't possibly know the who, what, when, where or how that would result from the pushing of either button nor what the ultimate damage and/or loss of life would be.

 

But, arrogance and tsk, tsking aside, I feel pretty sure that, given the respective stats that North Korea and the United States of America bring to the playing field, there are, at least, a few discussions being held behind closed doors in their locker room on the subject of insuring that rattling is all that Junior is allowed to do with the saber Daddy bequeathed him.

 

Because should push come to button push, it's a pretty fair bet that Kim Jong Farkus would be shown that he was better off barking, given that biting resulted in his acqusition of far more than he could chew.

 

And while it's equally naive not to think that someday, somewhere, someone is going to push that button and there will be a mushroom cloud themed fracas, it's also likely that, should it be, oh, say, Un and his posse who draw first, they're going to find themselves, for good or Un, waist deep in the middle of a fun rewrite of a classic Joni Mitchell song.

 

We took North Korea / turned it into a parking lot.

 

Ideally, cool and calm trumps crazy even in Korea.

 

And one can't help but hope that somewhere there in Pyongyang, Un's more lucid peeps are trying to get him to take a break and chillax a little.

 

Maybe with a viewing of that perennial holiday classic, "A Christmas Story."

 

 

 

 

"Van Halen, Van Morrison, Meet Vanguard...."

Old rockers never die.

 

Or, apparently, take a moment's rest from zealousy watching the wall for us.

 

 

That's one way to mark Black History Month: When Ted Nugent hits the road this year, he's calling his tour "Ted Nugent Black Power 2013," he writes on the conservative website World Net Daily.

In a column that describes "dirty Democrat politicians" as the enemies of black Americans, the right-wing rocker reels off a string of statistics he says demonstrate how ineffective Democratic policies, including Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, have been at helping African-Americans overcome poverty, crime and a lack of education.

"The truth is that the Democratic Party has been the engineer of the destruction of black Americans, and everyone knows it except the very people who need to know it the most – black Americans," he writes.

Nugent, on the other hand, says he celebrates Black History Month "every day," because his "fire-breathing musical career was literally launched by black musical thundergods" including Bo Diddley, Little Richard, James Brown, Wilson Pickett and more.

"There is no doubt that my 2013 tour will be the best of my life," he writes. "With world-class virtuosos paying tribute to our black heroes nightly, it is only fitting that this year's tour is aptly titled, 'Ted Nugent Black Power 2013.' Say it loud: my music is black and I'm proud!"

Nugent hasn't been subtle about his dislike of Democrats, particularly President Obama. The rocker credited the president's re-election last year to "pimps, whores and welfare brats," and met with the Secret Service last year after describing his opposition to the president in violent terms. Nugent attended Obama's State of the Union speech earlier this month without incident.

Ted Nugent, to all appearances, prides himself on passionately availing himself of his Constitutional right to self expression.
 

Fair enough.
 

In a reciprocal spirit, may I respectfully offer my opinion back to Mr. Land of the Free?
 

Any moron can stand outside a tent and piss into it.
 

 

And any fool can burn down a village.
 

 

So, yo, Tedster...if you want to percieved by anyone with an IQ greater than six as something other than the aforementioned moron and/or fool, then here's a thought.
 

 

Run for something.
 

 

Get elected to something.
 

 

And show those gnarly liberals what real change looks like.
 

 

Put more acronymically, clean up D.C with the power of R.O.C.K. in the U.S.A.
 

 

Otherwise....
 

 

STFU.

 

 

"You Get What You Pay, and Vote, For...."

This whole "fiscal cliff" business seems to want to seem complicated.

It's really not.

What follows is a garden variety, "update" (as of the time this piece is being written) on where they are in terms of getting this seemingly complicated business resolved.

Feel free to read away.

If, though, you're pressed for time and want the simple, quick read bottom line, simply skip down to the very last paragraph of the news article.


Washington (CNN) -- The Senate's top Democrat and Republican are working this weekend to forge a compromise to prevent the country from going over the fiscal cliff, the combination of sweeping spending cuts and widespread tax increases that will otherwise take effect in days.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, on late Friday afternoon called the next 24 hours "very important" in the grueling effort to avert a crisis that has been two years in the making. House Speaker John Boehner has called on the Senate to go first, and then his chamber -- which reconvenes Sunday -- will act.

 

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Minority Leader, expressed hope that he and Reid will agree on a plan to present to their respective caucuses "as early as Sunday."

 

Early Friday evening after a meeting involving him, congressional leaders and top administration officials, President Barack Obama said he was "modestly optimistic" the Senate leaders would reach an agreement. At the same time, he conceded, "Nobody's going to get 100% of what they want."

 

The two senators' chiefs of staff -- David Krone for Reid, and Sharron Soderstrom for McConnell -- will lead the talks, much of which will be carried on over the phone and by e-mail, aides said. Neither of their bosses is expected to be in the Capitol on Saturday, though that could change.

 

Staffers for Boehner, the top man in Republican-led House of Representatives, won't directly take part in the negotiations, but they'll be kept informed by McConnell's staff, a GOP aide said. The White House will learn what's going on through Reid's staff.

 

Democrats believe Republicans should make the "first move" -- basically by saying what changes should be made to the president's proposal, which calls for tax rates to stay the same for all annual family income below $250,000. The expectation is that Republicans will try to raise that income threshold to $400,000 and push to keep estate taxes low; Democrats said they might be open to one such scenario, but not both.

 

If the offer is "laughable," a Democratic aide said it will probably be leaked to the media. If it is reasonable, it should remain private -- which would mean, for Saturday at least, that no news may be good news.

 

And if the two sides don't agree on a bill over the weekend, Obama said he wants his latest proposal to be put up for a vote in both the Senate and House. He predicted his plan -- which, in addition to his tax rate proposal, would extend unemployment benefits and "lay the groundwork" for deficit reduction -- would pass in both chambers with bipartisan support.

 

As members of Congress and their staffs talk, Obama will make his case to the public by appearing Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," his first appearance on a Sunday political talk show in three years.

 

Reid said, at the very least, that he'd prepare legislation that includes elements favored by for a vote by Monday. Still, he insisted he'd first work with his GOP colleagues.

 

"I look forward to hearing any good-faith proposals Sen. McConnell has for altering this bill," the Nevada Democrat said.

 

If no legislation passes both chambers and therefore remains unsigned by the president by year's end, the fiscal cliff will go into effect -- something economists warn could trigger a recession.

 

The lack of political movement thus far, and lack of confidence Washington politicians can get anything done with so little time left, has spurred consumer confidence to sag and stock market values to sink.

 

Some like Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York expressed cautious optimism Friday that the looming deadline, and the key players renewed engagement, would spur a deal. But others, like Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, derided the process so far as "a total dereliction of duty on every level."

 

"I've been very surprised that the president has not laid out a very specific plan to deal with this," he said on CBS "This Morning."

 

"But candidly, Congress should have done the same. And I think the American people should be disgusted."

 

The principal dispute continues to be over taxes, specifically Democrats' demand to extend most tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush while allowing higher rates of the 1990s to return on top income brackets. During his re-election campaign, Obama said this would protect 98% of Americans and 97% of small businesses from tax hikes.

 

Republicans have opposed any kind of increase in tax rates, and Boehner suffered the political indignity last week of offering a compromise -- a $1 million threshold for the higher rates to kick in -- that his GOP colleagues refused to support because it raised taxes and had no chance of passing the Senate.

 

Obama and Democrats have leverage, based on the president's reelection last month and Democrats' gains in the House and Senate in the new Congress. In addition, polls consistently show majority support for Obama's position on taxes, and Democrats insist the House would pass the president's plan with Democrats joined by some Republicans if Boehner allowed a vote on it.

 

However, influential anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist has vowed to back primary challenges against Republicans who violate his widely signed pledge not to raise taxes. Even if a deal is reached, Norquist has predicted yet more budget showdowns every time the government needs additional money to operate.

 

The two sides seemingly had made progress early last week on forging a $2 trillion deficit reduction deal that included new revenue sought by Obama and spending cuts and entitlement changes desired by Boehner.

 

Boehner appeared to move on increased tax revenue, including higher rates on top income brackets and eliminating deductions and loopholes. But his inability to rally all House Republicans behind his plan raised questions about his role and what comes next.

 

All this has fueled disdain for politicians by many Americans. Such contempt is deserved, said Rep. Steven LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, who is retiring from Congress.

 

"I think America should be embarrassed by its leadership in D.C.," he told CNN on Friday. "The fact that we have been unable to do things, and instead worried about our next elections. ... I think it's sinful."

 

 

We are, by nature, a population of disagreeable sorts.

 

The kind of people who can always be counted on to oppose each other on every subject from gun control to birth control, from who should win "The Voice" to what we should all have for lunch.

 

Even whether or not we should make it possible for teachers to have weapons to protect themselves, and their students, from nut bags with Bushmasters.

 

But, every now and then, a tiny trace of togetherness rears its too seldom seen head and we find ourselves, to a person, saying "right on", "damn skippy", "amen" or "effin A".

 

Being unable, of course, to be inclined to agree on just one way to say that we all agree.

 

Said tiny trace has reared here.

 

"I think America should be embarrassed by its leadership in D.C.," he told CNN on Friday. "The fact that we have been unable to do things, and instead worried about our next elections. ... I think it's sinful."

 

Three things occur to this mind.

 

We are sure to all agree with what Mr. LaTourette has to say.

 

The fact that he is leaving, and not entering, the Congress should scream volumes about the continuing decline of that supposedly "governing" body.

 

And, here's one that is sure to get us back to disagreeing mode in a nano second....

 

We have no one to blame for all of this but ourselves.

 

Because we keep re-electing these clowns.

 

Can I get an amen?

 

Or maybe an "effin A"?

"...I Do Solemnly Swear, That I Will Faithfully Execute, If You Really, Really Think You Need Me To Do This...."

It's often said that the first step to correcting a problem is to admit that there is one.

As my New Orleans brethren would suggest, true dat.


(Yahoo News) Mitt Romney didn't want to be president, anyway.

That's what Tagg Romney, Mitt's oldest son, told the Boston Globe for its big post-mortem on his father's failed presidential bid published on Sunday.

“He wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life," Tagg Romney told the paper. "He had no desire to ... run. If he could have found someone else to take his place ... he would have been ecstatic to step aside.

"He is a very private person who loves his family deeply and wants to be with them," Tagg continued. "He has deep faith in God and he loves his country, but he doesn’t love the attention.”

Romney's reluctance to become commander in chief has been hinted at by his sons before. Before their father sought the 2012 GOP nomination, several said they tried to convince him not to run.

"I tried to convince him not to," Matt Romney told Conan O'Brien in June. "I think there were a few of us that tried that. I just felt for us as a family, this isn't the best thing. But ... for the country, we think it's the right thing."

A Republican Party seemingly obsessed with getting rid of Barack Obama and they nominate, as their standard bearer, a guy who "wanted to be president less than anyone I've ever met in my life?".

Not to mention the millions and millions of dollars spent to promote a guy who apparently didnt really want the promotion in the first place?

If the Republican Party wants to be a force in 2013 America, common sense would indicate the way to do so is to realize they need to tap their pool of talented, passionate and committed young and visionary office seekers.

And avoid dragging their old, tired war horses into a limelight they don't even want.

Uh, hey, G.O.P.....there's your problem.