From politics (moderates who lean to the right) to Pogo (drools during poker stare) to rants (Whatcha expect from savvy, sassy sexagenarians?) to raves (Have you had your kudo today?) -- we never take ourselves too seriously.
We do, however, reserve the right to slaughter an occasional sacred cow. And in case we fail to mention it -- we will never forget....
Those kids over at MySpace are having alllll the fun. At least, according to Lore Sjoberg.
I found Lore on Wired News .... Good writer. Convincing satirist. Who wouldn't like to meet a guy who describes himself as "Born helpless, nude and unable to provide for himself, Lore Sjöberg eventually overcame these handicaps to become a collector, a director and a midnight specter." My kinda guy. So to speak.
Here's Lore's experience at MySpace:
The immediate effect of my publishing a link to my MySpace page last week was that I started getting friend requests from people with names like "Señor Discount" and "Johnny One-Spur." It seems shallow to accept people I've never met as friends, but I like to think that anyone named "Señor Discount" is excellent friend material, online or off. Anyhow, after approving all my new friends and triggering about 400 server errors in the process, I now have 319 friends. That's what I love about the internet -- it allows you to have more friends than casual acquaintances.
I don't really know what to do with my 319 new online chums, compatriots and cronies, but frankly I never knew what to do with my meat friends either. I usually took them to mini-golf, but that doesn't seem to be an option on MySpace. I think you just collect them, as they collect you. It is the 21st century, and we are all each other's Hummel figurines. I think MySpace should take a hint from collectible figure games like HeroClix, and find a way to let you make your friends fight.
Lacking such an outlet, I return to setting up house. Looking at randomly selected MySpaces, I discover that one of the most important things to do with your page is embed random crap from other places on the web. Ha! Easy! I have spent a decade creating random crap! I am responsible for 0.00000001 percent of all the random crap on the web! Random crap is my soul name! So I throw some of my own random crap up there. Already, I am feeling at one with the Great Mother MySpace. I just wish she'd load quicker.
Next step is to add a background image. There are pages on MySpace without background images, but all they have going for them is legibility. Take it from me, a massive picture of an anime demon kitty in high heels and an extremely skimpy nurse's outfit says more about you than a thousand readable blog entries could. I don't have a picture like that, though, so I put up a photo I took of a frozen pizza I once bought that was supposed to be half pepperoni combo and half cheese, but the cheese "half" took up a lot more space than the combo half. I think that says a lot about me, too.
Finally, there's the issue of music. MySpace makes a big deal out of music, probably because when someone named "The Great Bodhisattva" asks you to be his friend, you need to know if he likes Steely Dan. (He does.)
MySpace makes it easy to upload your music, it makes it easy to promote your band, and it makes it easy to embed music into your page so that everyone has to listen to it while they wait for your random crap to load. I don't know when it became acceptable to blare Journey at helpless visitors, but on MySpace it's something close to mandatory.
When in Rome, annoy visitors to your web page. I need to pick a song to inflict upon those who dare visit my realm. I could go through the numerous talented independent artists who are using MySpace as a way to get much-needed exposure in the cut-throat, corporate-choked world of mass media, but I've got two episodes of Battlestar Galactica waiting for me on the TiVo, so I just upload a recording of myself singing a sensitive acoustic version of "Head Like a Hole."
I look upon my MySpace, and I see that it is good. Each part of it competes with the other for attention, creating an experience that blasts the senses, yet leaves the psyche unaffected. The many voices combine into a colorful but meaningless roar. A metaphor, perhaps, for MySpace as a whole, or the web, or perhaps all of human existence. I also had a shirt like that once.
On second thought, I think I'll just stay here and let Lore keep alll those friendly folks out of MYspace!
Yesterday (Oct. 24) was United Nations Day. How could I have missed such an important holiday? OK -- I'll fly the U.N. flag today.
The only pic I have is the one flown with the Hezbollah flag on the Lebanon-Israeli border .....
Sean Gleeson offered 10 suggestions for how U.N. Day could be celebrated:
Explain to your children what war was, and tell them how on this day in 1948, all the countries got together to make sure it never happens again. If there's time, mention the Tooth Fairy, too.
Make and decorate a "donation box" with recycled paper, and take a collection around the office for feeding starving children, or spaying stray cats, or any other worthy charity. Then turn out the lights for a minute. When the lights come back on, display the empty box. Say, "whoops!"
Take a nap.
Visit a high-crime area, and when you see a crime being committed, announce that you do not approve, not one little bit. Duck.
Hold a "Mock United Nations" session, in which all the participants come up with their own reasons to mock the United Nations.
Bury your children in the backyard, up to their necks, and let them play "U.N. Peacekeepers"!
Appoint the office receptionist to be "America." Everyone else make speeches about how "America" is an evil, lowdown, dirty prostitute, until she pays each of you $1000.
Tonight, make it a "U.N. Dinner"! I mean, chicken.
Bake cookies in the shape of every member nation, and decorate them in their national colors with icing and sprinkles. Sing a peace chant while you crumble Israel into little bits, and flush it down the toilet.
Invite Cindy Sheehan to your house to give a lecture about how George Bush caused Hurricane Katrina because Halliburton hates owls. (She'll really come, too, if you tell her you're a reporter for Newsweek. I've done it four times myself.)
Sounds like loads of fun. The very first date I'm going to circle in my 2007 UNICEF calender will be October 24!
Who are their sponsors, advertisers and subsidiaries?
Boycott them all.
Let Soros, Turner, AOL, Time-Warner and other MSM mouthpieces who feature the video of an American soldier being shot by terrorists snippers pay for Anti-US propaganda outta their OWN pockets.
On October 23, 1983, around 6:20 am, a yellow Mercedes-Benz delivery truck drove to Beirut International Airport, where the 1st Battalion 8th Marines, under the U.S. 2nd Marine Division of the United States Marines, had set up its local headquarters. The truck turned onto an access road leading to the Marines' compound and circled a parking lot. The driver then accelerated and crashed through a barbed wire fence around the parking lot, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through a gate and barreled into the lobby of the Marine headquarters. The Marine sentries at the gate were operating under their rules of engagement, which made it very difficult to respond quickly to the truck. By the time the two sentries had locked, loaded, and shouldered their weapons, the truck was already inside the building's entry way.
The suicide bomber detonated his explosives, which were equivalent to 12,000 pounds (about 5,400kg) of TNT. The force of the explosion collapsed the four-story cinder-block building into rubble, crushing many inside.
About 20 seconds later, an identical attack occurred against the barracks of the French Third Company of the Sixth French Parachute Infantry Regiment. Another suicide bomber drove his truck down a ramp into the building's underground parking garage and detonated his bomb, leveling the headquarters.
Rescue efforts continued for days. While the rescuers were at times hindered by sniper fire, some survivors were pulled from the rubble and airlifted to the RAF hospital in Cyprus or to U.S. and German hospitals in West Germany[1].
The death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 Navy personnel and 3 Army soldiers. Sixty Americans were injured. In the attack on the French barracks, 58 paratroopers were killed and 15 injured. In addition, the elderly Lebanese custodian of the Marines' building was killed in the first blast. [1] The wife and four children of a Lebanese janitor at the French building also were killed.[2]
This was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima (2,500 in one day) of World War II and the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the 243 killed on 31st January 1968 — the first day of the Tet offensive in the Vietnam war. The attack remains the deadliest post-World War II attack on Americans overseas.
The antipathy that congressional Democrats have today toward President George W. Bush is reminiscent of their distrust of President Ronald Reagan during the Cold War, a political science professor says.
"We see some of the same sentiments today, in that some Democrats see the Republican president as being a threat and the true obstacle to peace, instead of seeing our enemies as the true danger," said Paul Kengor, a political science professor at Grove City College and the author of new book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.
In his book, which came out this week, Kengor focuses on a KGB letter written at the height of the Cold War that shows that Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered to assist Soviet leaders in formulating a public relations strategy to counter President Reagan's foreign policy and to complicate his re-election efforts.
The letter, dated May 14, 1983, was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then General Secretary of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.
In his letter, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov offered Andropov his interpretation of Kennedy's offer. Former U.S. Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) had traveled to Moscow on behalf of Kennedy to seek out a partnership with Andropov and other Soviet officials, Kengor claims in his book.
At one point after President Reagan left office, Tunney acknowledged that he had played the role of intermediary, not only for Kennedy but for other U.S. senators, Kengor said. Moreover, Tunney told the London Times that he had made 15 separate trips to Moscow.
"There's a lot more to be found here," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "This was a shocking revelation."
It is not evident with whom Tunney actually met in Moscow. But the letter does say that Sen. Kennedy directed Tunney to reach out to "confidential contacts" so Andropov could be alerted to the senator's proposals.
Specifically, Kennedy proposed that Andropov make a direct appeal to the American people in a series of television interviews that would be organized in August and September of 1983, according to the letter.
"Tunney told his contacts that Kennedy was very troubled about the decline in U.S -Soviet relations under Reagan," Kengor said. "But Kennedy attributed this decline to Reagan, not to the Soviets. In one of the most striking parts of this letter, Kennedy is said to be very impressed with Andropov and other Soviet leaders."
In Kennedy's view, the main reason for the antagonism between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1980s was Reagan's unwillingness to yield on plans to deploy middle-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe, the KGB chief wrote in his letter.
"Kennedy was afraid that Reagan was leading the world into a nuclear war," Kengor said. "He hoped to counter Reagan's polices, and by extension hurt his re-election prospects."
As a prelude to the public relations strategy Kennedy hoped to facilitate on behalf of the Soviets, Kengor said, the Massachusetts senator had also proposed meeting with Andropov in Moscow -- to discuss the challenges associated with disarmament.
In his appeal, Kennedy indicated he would like to have Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) accompany him on such a trip. The two senators had worked together on nuclear freeze proposals.
But Kennedy's attempt to partner with high-level Soviet officials never materialized. Andropov died after a brief time in office and was succeeded by Mikhail Gorbachev.
In his attempt to reach out the Soviets, Kennedy settled on a flawed receptacle for peace, Kengor said. Andropov was a much more belligerent and confrontational leader than the man who followed him, in Kengor's estimation.
"If Andropov had lived and Gorbachev never came to power, I can't imagine the Cold War ending peacefully like it did," Kengor told Cybercast News Service. "Things could have gotten ugly."
In the long run of history, Kengor believes it is evident that Reagan's policies were vindicated while Kennedy was proven wrong. In fact, as he points out in his book, Kennedy himself made a "gracious concession" after Reagan died, crediting the 40th president with winning the Cold War.
Thanks, Betsy -- for your insight AND for reminding us how old-school libs (including Jimmah Cartah) continue to undermine, discredit and backstab our elected leaders.
I can't wait to see how libs/extremists turn and twist this one ....
The Bush administration is drafting a timetable for the Iraqi government to address sectarian divisions and assume a larger role in securing the country, senior American officials said.
Details of the blueprint, which is to be presented to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki before the end of the year and would be carried out over the next year and beyond, are still being devised. But the officials said that for the first time Iraq was likely to be asked to agree to a schedule of specific milestones, like disarming sectarian militias, and to a broad set of other political, economic and military benchmarks intended to stabilize the country.
Although the plan would not threaten Maliki with a withdrawal of American troops, several officials said the Bush administration would consider changes in military strategy and other penalties if Iraq balked at adopting it or failed to meet critical benchmarks within it.
A senior Pentagon official involved in drafting the blueprint said that Iraqi officials were being consulted as the plan evolved and would be invited to sign off on the milestones before the end of the year. But he added, "If the Iraqis fail to come back to us on this, we would have to conduct a reassessment" of the American strategy in Iraq.
In his radio address on Saturday, President Bush emphasized that the administration was staying flexible in its planning and would “make every necessary change to prevail.”
Saying the goal of victory was “unchanging,”” he added: “What is changing are the tactics we use to achieve that goal. Our commanders on the ground are constantly adjusting their approach to stay ahead of the enemy, particularly in Baghdad.”
.... Can't wait to see how these "tactics" are interpreted .
I don't recall who said it, but in my reading this weekend, someone referred to the many "fronts" in the War on Terrorism:
In the Middle East, in jihadist cells around the globe, on our borders, in the halls of Congress and in mainstream media.
I tend to agree that these general fronts exist. Regretfully, it appears that the most dangerous battle fronts are on American soil -- among political opponents to strategies against terrorism, in clandestine cells across our nation and in the MSM.
I hold these home-soil fronts accountable for our inability to stand united and for subsequent attacks -- here and abroad.
Will this war-on-many-fronts be concluded before GW leaves office? No.
Barack Obama on reconsidering a run for President of the United States: "We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the pages pretty well."
Visions of John Edwards and Jesse Ventura flash across my mind's eye ..... egads!
Please, God. Don't give us another inexperienced (took office in Jan. 2005) DNC poster-boy who has yet to complete one term in a major political office or to be anything but window-dressing for Hill-the-Shrill's campaign.
Hope springs eternal at the Washington Post . It's the newspaper of hope , in the sense that Canadian Liberals (as Michael Ignatieff claims) are the party of hope.
What the Washington Post hopes for is the end of George W. Bush's presidency . Since that's probably two years away, the editors are praying that the mid-term voting on Nov. 7 will hobble him by putting the Democrats in control of Congress .
On Wednesday morning, they ran on the front page approximately their 93rd story predicting this happy outcome , "Elections May Leave Bush An Early Lame Duck."
You can hear the chuckles of satisfaction in the newsroom when they agreed on that head. Not just a lame duck but an early lame duck! Yes!
It's safe to say that millions of Americans would also enjoy that prospect . Hatred of Bush has become a popular emotion, almost as popular in the United States as in Canada and Europe. But have those who yearn to see him go, thought about how they will feel when they no longer have Bush to kick around?
For more than five years they have grounded their response to world events in their view of Bush as a uniquely malign force . They may not know it, but their emotional well-being depends on him.
In a time of danger and instability, Bush has provided a perfect whipping boy.
Andre Glucksmann , the French philosopher, summarized the European view of Bush in a recent article : "He is the cause of all our evils. If he disappeared, universal harmony would be re-established."
Glucksmann pointed out that Bush can be (and often is) blamed whenever Muslims slaughter each other, in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else. It's his fault when Iran or North Korea builds nuclear weapons. Glucksmann considers that nonsense, a "fantasy of an all-powerful America and a satanic Bush."
Still, it's become a necessary form of nonsense, a perverse kind of consolation.
What will Bush-haters put in its place? My guess is that his departure will induce mass trauma.
Millions of people, all over the world, will pine for the happy days when they knew whom to despise . The place where they nourished Bush-hatred will contain nothing but a void, with a touch of nostalgia.
It won't improve their mood when they realize that the Post-Bush Era looks a lot like the Bush Era.
Militant Islam will still be militant.
Russia will still be ruled by an autocratic kleptocracy, likely worse than now.
China will still be trying to get rich without freedom.
The United Nations will be just as useful as it is today.
Iran and North Korea will still be real or incipient nuclear powers. Iraq will be a mess, as it has been for decades, a little better or a little worse than in 2006.
Robert Kagan, the author of Dangerous Nation , the first part of a two-volume history of U.S. foreign policy (he's up to the Spanish-American War), was at the Munk Centre in Toronto on Tuesday to talk about American power and related issues.
He believes that from the beginning of the republic Americans have found it natural to involve themselves in the affairs of others. As he puts it in the current issue of The New Republic, "America's expansiveness, intrusiveness and tendency toward political, economic and strategic dominance are not some aberration from our true nature. That is our true nature."
The Bush Doctrine , dealing mostly but not exclusively with Islamic terror, echoes the Truman Doctrine, which defined the U.S. as Russia's principal enemy in the Cold War. Bush's approach doesn't deviate from tradition; it's a style and mindset embedded in the American DNA.
Whether it improves the world, as it manifestly did in the 20th century, can only be judged case by case. And there are plenty of cases. In the period 1989-2003 the U.S. deployed combat troops or used aerial bombing on nine separate occasions, beginning with Panama.
It maintains a "martial tradition," particularly when compared with other democracies in this era. And its reliance on force increases as Europe edges away from foreign involvement.
Kagan, who lives in Brussels, says, "You cannot live in Europe today and believe that Europe has any answer to any of these problems," meaning problems of geopolitics requiring force.
"Europe is self-involved, much more even than a few years ago."
In the winter of 2009, when Bush is back home in Texas, obsessively clearing brush , the U.S. will still be the only military power of global significance. And, following tradition, will act accordingly.
Icon and bold type added by moi. Get used to it. I'll use such techniques as the Lame .... Blame Ducks start quacking.
I really need to get out more. 
I hate when I do that. 
to 
mouthpieces
.... lest we forget ....
I don't recall who said it, but in my reading this weekend, someone referred to the many "fronts" in the War on Terrorism: 
Barack Obama on reconsidering a run for President of the United States: "We have a long and vigorous process. Should I decide to run, if I ever decide to, I'll be confident that I'll be run through the pages pretty well."