Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Deconstructing Jill
Jill Zuckman’s Valentine to “the pudgy huckster” (to quote the late Steve Neal) on the front page of Sunday’s Chicago Tribune (“Dick Durbin’s passion ignites foes’ ire,” 6/19/05) begins by celebrating his “unassuming Midwestern demeanor and genial bearing,” in other words, the Eddie Haskell act that many of us find can trigger our gag reflex faster than another story about Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise.
Speaking of true love, it may be time for Durbin and Harry “the Mortician” Reid to consider getting a room. Reid has fallen hard, if this article is any indication. Consider these nauseating professions of affection “For me to have him as my partner is a dream come true,” Reid said. “If I have a problem, he’s the first person I call.” And the other quote that Durbin “has all the talents I don’t have.” What--like being able to appear to have a pulse? All this effusive praise came AFTER Sen. Durbin’s contemptible statements about our military, so once again we have more evidence of the reason we can’t trust these people with our national security. The leadership stands by Durbin’s statements, statements that are used as anti-American propaganda and will no doubt endanger our troops. That is the important, albeit unintentional, take-home lesson of Ms. Zuckman’s article.
My favorite paragraph involves the Democrat response to the GOP leadership’s threat to use the Constitutional option (which Ms. Zuckman calls “the so-called nuclear option”). Ms. Zuckman admiringly writes of Durbin’s politically astute suggestion that the Dems not shut down the Senate, but simply use parliamentary rules to control the agenda. In other words, more obstruction and attempts to undo the will of the people, who after all put the dems in the minority. That’s an innovative strategy? Isn’t that what they’ve been doing since 2001? Ms. Zuckman explains that Durbin’s genius move “would force Republicans to object and to quash Democratic initiatives such as improving education, lowering gasoline prices and raising the minimum wage.”
Say what? How exactly are Democrats going to lower gas prices? With more regulations against domestic exploration? More taxes on gasoline? Refusing to protect companies from legions of rapacious trial lawyers? As far as improving education, everyone knows that when Democrats run a school system, academic achievement goes through the roof! Just look at the schools in Washington, D.C. It’s a good thing we have those brave Dems in there to protect us from those evil Republicans who want to destroy education, raise gasoline prices and eliminate the minimum wage. That last one's not the worst idea in the world, but I digress. . .
Ms. Zuckman, as a fearless seeker of truth, I wonder how this next one got by you. At the end of your piece, under the sub head “the gift of gab,” you describe yet another example of Durbin’s incredible brilliance: the time he emerged from a meeting with pollsters and advisers with an agreed-upon strategy for responding to Pres. Bush’s Social Security plan. All the other lawmakers went back to their offices to discuss the plan with their staffs, but not our Dickie. No, he “walked straight onto the Senate floor and delivered an extemporaneous speech about the pitfalls of Bush’s proposal, hewing perfectly to the agreed-upon message without the benefit of notes or charts.” Amazing! Has their ever been a more brilliant mind! After all, it’s not easy to remember which deceptive cliché to use, even when your party has been repeating the same lies for 60 years. In this case, since the "strategy" consists of simply obstructing any effort to fix this broken Ponzi scheme, what could there have been to discuss? Then, at the end of the next paragraph, Ms. Zuckman, you note that Durbin's "office budget has grown by almost $1.5 million, enabling him to hire a ful-time speechwriter, two floor assistants and a third press secretary." Speechwriter? Just exactly why does Mr. Brilliant Extemporaneous Speaker need a full time speech writer? And let me just mention, based on the B.S. this guy spouts whenever he gets in front of a camera, whatever the scribe is getting paid is WAY too much, especially if the speechwriter was the one who came up with that compelling and persuasive screeching rant "Right on, moveon!" To describe watching our senator deliver that as excrutiating would be an understatement. The question here, though, is why didn't Ms. Zuckman ask why taxpayers need to spend money so that a speechwriter can string together a series of dishonest demagoguery-filled canards when Eddie Haskell can do it on his own. Instead, she sees the fact that Durbin can waste more of our money as evidence of how cool he is.
Oh, yeah, don’t worry about it: there’s no such thing as liberal media bias!
Jill Zuckman’s Valentine to “the pudgy huckster” (to quote the late Steve Neal) on the front page of Sunday’s Chicago Tribune (“Dick Durbin’s passion ignites foes’ ire,” 6/19/05) begins by celebrating his “unassuming Midwestern demeanor and genial bearing,” in other words, the Eddie Haskell act that many of us find can trigger our gag reflex faster than another story about Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise.
Speaking of true love, it may be time for Durbin and Harry “the Mortician” Reid to consider getting a room. Reid has fallen hard, if this article is any indication. Consider these nauseating professions of affection “For me to have him as my partner is a dream come true,” Reid said. “If I have a problem, he’s the first person I call.” And the other quote that Durbin “has all the talents I don’t have.” What--like being able to appear to have a pulse? All this effusive praise came AFTER Sen. Durbin’s contemptible statements about our military, so once again we have more evidence of the reason we can’t trust these people with our national security. The leadership stands by Durbin’s statements, statements that are used as anti-American propaganda and will no doubt endanger our troops. That is the important, albeit unintentional, take-home lesson of Ms. Zuckman’s article.
My favorite paragraph involves the Democrat response to the GOP leadership’s threat to use the Constitutional option (which Ms. Zuckman calls “the so-called nuclear option”). Ms. Zuckman admiringly writes of Durbin’s politically astute suggestion that the Dems not shut down the Senate, but simply use parliamentary rules to control the agenda. In other words, more obstruction and attempts to undo the will of the people, who after all put the dems in the minority. That’s an innovative strategy? Isn’t that what they’ve been doing since 2001? Ms. Zuckman explains that Durbin’s genius move “would force Republicans to object and to quash Democratic initiatives such as improving education, lowering gasoline prices and raising the minimum wage.”
Say what? How exactly are Democrats going to lower gas prices? With more regulations against domestic exploration? More taxes on gasoline? Refusing to protect companies from legions of rapacious trial lawyers? As far as improving education, everyone knows that when Democrats run a school system, academic achievement goes through the roof! Just look at the schools in Washington, D.C. It’s a good thing we have those brave Dems in there to protect us from those evil Republicans who want to destroy education, raise gasoline prices and eliminate the minimum wage. That last one's not the worst idea in the world, but I digress. . .
Ms. Zuckman, as a fearless seeker of truth, I wonder how this next one got by you. At the end of your piece, under the sub head “the gift of gab,” you describe yet another example of Durbin’s incredible brilliance: the time he emerged from a meeting with pollsters and advisers with an agreed-upon strategy for responding to Pres. Bush’s Social Security plan. All the other lawmakers went back to their offices to discuss the plan with their staffs, but not our Dickie. No, he “walked straight onto the Senate floor and delivered an extemporaneous speech about the pitfalls of Bush’s proposal, hewing perfectly to the agreed-upon message without the benefit of notes or charts.” Amazing! Has their ever been a more brilliant mind! After all, it’s not easy to remember which deceptive cliché to use, even when your party has been repeating the same lies for 60 years. In this case, since the "strategy" consists of simply obstructing any effort to fix this broken Ponzi scheme, what could there have been to discuss? Then, at the end of the next paragraph, Ms. Zuckman, you note that Durbin's "office budget has grown by almost $1.5 million, enabling him to hire a ful-time speechwriter, two floor assistants and a third press secretary." Speechwriter? Just exactly why does Mr. Brilliant Extemporaneous Speaker need a full time speech writer? And let me just mention, based on the B.S. this guy spouts whenever he gets in front of a camera, whatever the scribe is getting paid is WAY too much, especially if the speechwriter was the one who came up with that compelling and persuasive screeching rant "Right on, moveon!" To describe watching our senator deliver that as excrutiating would be an understatement. The question here, though, is why didn't Ms. Zuckman ask why taxpayers need to spend money so that a speechwriter can string together a series of dishonest demagoguery-filled canards when Eddie Haskell can do it on his own. Instead, she sees the fact that Durbin can waste more of our money as evidence of how cool he is.
Oh, yeah, don’t worry about it: there’s no such thing as liberal media bias!
Marin(e) Life—Dolphins are Smarter
Regular listeners to the Teri O’Brien Show know that I am fond of what I like to call “the Name Theory,” which states that a person’s name can predict his future. For example, we rarely have guests, but a couple of months ago we were fortunate to have one of the 6 trustees (and one of the only 2 private citizen trustees) of the Social Security Trust Fund. His name is Professor Thomas Saving. No lie. You’ve got to stretch the theory a little, but consider the name Carol Marin (pronounced ‘ma-REEN). Is it a coincident that a dolphin is smarter than this radiant light of pompous ignorance?
Why does anyone think that if someone has the ability to read a TeleprompTer, he or she is some sort of intellectual? That’s what I wonder whenever I read Carol Marin’s foolish blathering in the Chicago Sun-Times. In her latest (6/17/05), she attempts to defend the disgraceful national embarrassment that is our senior senator, Dick “al-Jazeera’s Lead Story” Durbin against the “attack” against him by the American Life League. These vicious critics had the audacity to suggest, in an ad in the Chicago Sun-Times, that Senator Durbin “can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion.” I’m not Catholic, but based what I’ve read about the doctrine of that church, that’s hardly a controversial statement. To Ms. Marin, though, it’s outrageous, an example of “classic Swift Boat Veteran style,” devoid of “truth or any sense of fairness.” But wait, before we address Ms. Marin’s confusion about the issue at hand, a question: weren’t the Swift Boat Vets telling the truth? If not, why didn’t John Kerry respond by signing Form 180 before the presidential election? So apparently the libs are going to try to use this “Swift Boat Veteran style” quip to dismissively respond to any serious and accurate criticism. I guess it’s better than “Oh yeah?” or the other possible responses. It’s tough to come up with the pithy killer response when you have no facts on your side and are nearly incapable of logically thinking. Speaking of the logically-challenged, let’s get back to Carol. She challenges the very idea that anyone can be “pro-abortion” (or as she puts it “PRO-abortion”), mouthing the usual line that abortion is “always a tragedy,” and that “not even the most pro-choice among us takes it lightly.” I’m sure that when Susan Smith strapped her kids into the back seat of the car and sent them to their deaths by drowning she didn’t take it lightly either, Carol, but that doesn’t change the fact that she killed them. The simple fact is that Senator Durbin’s voting record and statements demonstrate that he is takes his marching orders from NARAL and other abortion absolutists. The most obvious proof that he is a toady for these extremist groups is his vote (along with Sen. Kerry, by the way) against Laci and Connors Law, a law that would make a crime against a pregnant woman that results in injury to her unborn child as two crimes, not one. Remember that precious “choice” that is so important to the “pro-choice” crowd? What about the choice of a pregnant woman who wanted to give birth to her child, but is deprived of that right by some scumbag? The militants that hold Senator Durbin’s short leash are so terrified by any suggestion that an unborn child is anything other than some sort of undefined tissue mass that suddenly all that talk about “choice” is out the window. That’s what people mean by “pro-abortion,” Carol.
She then laments the “relentless insertion of religion into the world of public policy.” Once again, the libs need to look in the mirror. For nearly 200 years, religion was considered a normal and acceptable part of community life. Youngsters said prayers at graduation. Displays of the Ten Commandments, like the one in the Supreme Court, stood unchallenged. All was well with the world. And what happened, Carol? Who changed the rules? Who inserted the issue of religion, or rather the need to expunge any and all references to it from the public arena? Did average citizens run to court and sue to stop their children from saying prayers at high school graduations? Of course not! Secular humanist wackos like Michael Newdow and their ACLU allies enlisted the aid of activist judges to distort the intent of the Founding Fathers and once again read things into the Constitution that aren’t there.
Finally, in the lamest and most pathetic part of this mess, Ms. Marin notes that Dick Durbin is also in some trouble for his comparison of our troops to Nazis, the operators of the Soviet gulag, and Pol Pot of killing fields fame. She asks “why should Durbin apologize for condemning torture?” Can she really be so intellectually stunted that she thinks that Durbin’s despicable slander of those who make it possible for her to pollute the public discourse with her vapid tripe is the same thing as condemning torture? Can’t the Sun-Times find Flipper and let him write this column?
Regular listeners to the Teri O’Brien Show know that I am fond of what I like to call “the Name Theory,” which states that a person’s name can predict his future. For example, we rarely have guests, but a couple of months ago we were fortunate to have one of the 6 trustees (and one of the only 2 private citizen trustees) of the Social Security Trust Fund. His name is Professor Thomas Saving. No lie. You’ve got to stretch the theory a little, but consider the name Carol Marin (pronounced ‘ma-REEN). Is it a coincident that a dolphin is smarter than this radiant light of pompous ignorance?
Why does anyone think that if someone has the ability to read a TeleprompTer, he or she is some sort of intellectual? That’s what I wonder whenever I read Carol Marin’s foolish blathering in the Chicago Sun-Times. In her latest (6/17/05), she attempts to defend the disgraceful national embarrassment that is our senior senator, Dick “al-Jazeera’s Lead Story” Durbin against the “attack” against him by the American Life League. These vicious critics had the audacity to suggest, in an ad in the Chicago Sun-Times, that Senator Durbin “can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion.” I’m not Catholic, but based what I’ve read about the doctrine of that church, that’s hardly a controversial statement. To Ms. Marin, though, it’s outrageous, an example of “classic Swift Boat Veteran style,” devoid of “truth or any sense of fairness.” But wait, before we address Ms. Marin’s confusion about the issue at hand, a question: weren’t the Swift Boat Vets telling the truth? If not, why didn’t John Kerry respond by signing Form 180 before the presidential election? So apparently the libs are going to try to use this “Swift Boat Veteran style” quip to dismissively respond to any serious and accurate criticism. I guess it’s better than “Oh yeah?” or the other possible responses. It’s tough to come up with the pithy killer response when you have no facts on your side and are nearly incapable of logically thinking. Speaking of the logically-challenged, let’s get back to Carol. She challenges the very idea that anyone can be “pro-abortion” (or as she puts it “PRO-abortion”), mouthing the usual line that abortion is “always a tragedy,” and that “not even the most pro-choice among us takes it lightly.” I’m sure that when Susan Smith strapped her kids into the back seat of the car and sent them to their deaths by drowning she didn’t take it lightly either, Carol, but that doesn’t change the fact that she killed them. The simple fact is that Senator Durbin’s voting record and statements demonstrate that he is takes his marching orders from NARAL and other abortion absolutists. The most obvious proof that he is a toady for these extremist groups is his vote (along with Sen. Kerry, by the way) against Laci and Connors Law, a law that would make a crime against a pregnant woman that results in injury to her unborn child as two crimes, not one. Remember that precious “choice” that is so important to the “pro-choice” crowd? What about the choice of a pregnant woman who wanted to give birth to her child, but is deprived of that right by some scumbag? The militants that hold Senator Durbin’s short leash are so terrified by any suggestion that an unborn child is anything other than some sort of undefined tissue mass that suddenly all that talk about “choice” is out the window. That’s what people mean by “pro-abortion,” Carol.
She then laments the “relentless insertion of religion into the world of public policy.” Once again, the libs need to look in the mirror. For nearly 200 years, religion was considered a normal and acceptable part of community life. Youngsters said prayers at graduation. Displays of the Ten Commandments, like the one in the Supreme Court, stood unchallenged. All was well with the world. And what happened, Carol? Who changed the rules? Who inserted the issue of religion, or rather the need to expunge any and all references to it from the public arena? Did average citizens run to court and sue to stop their children from saying prayers at high school graduations? Of course not! Secular humanist wackos like Michael Newdow and their ACLU allies enlisted the aid of activist judges to distort the intent of the Founding Fathers and once again read things into the Constitution that aren’t there.
Finally, in the lamest and most pathetic part of this mess, Ms. Marin notes that Dick Durbin is also in some trouble for his comparison of our troops to Nazis, the operators of the Soviet gulag, and Pol Pot of killing fields fame. She asks “why should Durbin apologize for condemning torture?” Can she really be so intellectually stunted that she thinks that Durbin’s despicable slander of those who make it possible for her to pollute the public discourse with her vapid tripe is the same thing as condemning torture? Can’t the Sun-Times find Flipper and let him write this column?
Welcome Back My Friends to the Show that Never Ends, or the Rest of the Stack for Sunday, 6/19, Part 1
Every Sunday at approximately 2:56 pm, Producers Jo Wheeler, Brian Jones and I find ourselves asking the same question. No, not “Why aren’t there any Twinkies in the vending machine?” although that’s a very good question. No, the perennial question is “Where does the time go on the Teri O’Brien Show?” That’s almost as big a head scratcher to us as that missing $180,000 of federal job program money is to Cook County Board President John Stroger. Fortunately, we have this Teri O’Blog, so effectively our show never has to end. If you have a question about something that we didn’t get to, or anything else, such as a suggestion or comment, please drop me a note through this website wlsam.com. Thanks again for listening and for all of your encouragement and support!
Who Said it?
We ran out of time before we could tell you the name of our “Who Said it?” We were quite surprised that no one called to guess that the woman with the foreign accent who talked about the “open, spontaneous” and athletic 17-year-old who said “he said ‘don’t worry, Mom,’” was the mother of Aruban party boy Joran Van Der Sloot. We were struck by the similarity between her suggestion that her son is a good boy and that of the mother of Adrian Missbrenner, who faces trial in that disgraceful Burr Ridge episode involving a passed-out 16 year-old girl, 3 guys and a video camera. The jury will decide on young Missbrenner’s criminal liability, but one thing is acknowledged by his parents: their son did something that “wasn’t nice” (to quote Mom), by which she means that he and his friends did engage in underage drinking and do-it-yourself porn, in her house. She probably thinks her son is “spontaneous” too. Come to think of it, she told my friend Walter Jacobsen on Fox Chicago Perspective (Sundays, 8-9 am, Channel 32) that her son may have decided to videotape his drunken escapade on impulse when he saw that her camera was in the room.
For More From the Rest of the Stack, see the next two posts on Carol Marin and Jill Zuckman's Valentine to Dick Durbin
Every Sunday at approximately 2:56 pm, Producers Jo Wheeler, Brian Jones and I find ourselves asking the same question. No, not “Why aren’t there any Twinkies in the vending machine?” although that’s a very good question. No, the perennial question is “Where does the time go on the Teri O’Brien Show?” That’s almost as big a head scratcher to us as that missing $180,000 of federal job program money is to Cook County Board President John Stroger. Fortunately, we have this Teri O’Blog, so effectively our show never has to end. If you have a question about something that we didn’t get to, or anything else, such as a suggestion or comment, please drop me a note through this website wlsam.com. Thanks again for listening and for all of your encouragement and support!
Who Said it?
We ran out of time before we could tell you the name of our “Who Said it?” We were quite surprised that no one called to guess that the woman with the foreign accent who talked about the “open, spontaneous” and athletic 17-year-old who said “he said ‘don’t worry, Mom,’” was the mother of Aruban party boy Joran Van Der Sloot. We were struck by the similarity between her suggestion that her son is a good boy and that of the mother of Adrian Missbrenner, who faces trial in that disgraceful Burr Ridge episode involving a passed-out 16 year-old girl, 3 guys and a video camera. The jury will decide on young Missbrenner’s criminal liability, but one thing is acknowledged by his parents: their son did something that “wasn’t nice” (to quote Mom), by which she means that he and his friends did engage in underage drinking and do-it-yourself porn, in her house. She probably thinks her son is “spontaneous” too. Come to think of it, she told my friend Walter Jacobsen on Fox Chicago Perspective (Sundays, 8-9 am, Channel 32) that her son may have decided to videotape his drunken escapade on impulse when he saw that her camera was in the room.
For More From the Rest of the Stack, see the next two posts on Carol Marin and Jill Zuckman's Valentine to Dick Durbin
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Preaching v. Breathing: A Simple Explanation of the Difference for Liberals Who Call Rush Limbaugh
The raging confusion that afflicts so many on the Left means my work is never done, as I was reminded on 6/14/05 while listening to Rush Limbaugh. A caller challenged Rush’s ostensible claim to be a spokesman for morality and traditional values because, according to this walking, talking cauldron of blinding rage, Rush has been divorced three times and is a “drug addict.” Our compassionate friends on the Left always impress us with their willingness to make allowances and excuses for nearly any deviant behavior imaginable. Apparently, though, a person who admits a dependency on prescription medication and successfully completes treatment deserves universal and never-ending contempt and mockery. I can’t understand why you guys don’t consider this sort of talk hate speech, but perhaps that would require the accusation that the target is a GAY “drug addict.”
OK, Libs, please pay attention, because we are are getting sick of incessantly repeating the explanation of something that should be so easily understood. Yes, we know that you have a tough time with logical distinctions, even the simple ones, but you’re wearing some of us out.
Your resentment against what you apparently perceive as self-righteous preaching by some of us (Rush Limbaugh, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, me) is completely misplaced, which is another thing that should be obvious. None of the people you despise for their hypocrisy (a favorite liberal charge) purports to be some sort of bellowing Dr. Phil type, telling you or anyone else how to live. Our crime is speak the plain truth; that is, that men and women are different, that children born to a married man and woman do better in school and are less likely to be poor, that adultery is wrong, that the Founding Fathers understood that God, not the government, is the source of our rights, and—here’s the big one—some things are right and some things are wrong. Omigod, that’s so ---hold on to your hats!!—JUDGEMENTAL!
Here’s what you liberals won’t admit. What makes you angry is not that any of these evil hypocrites you call out is condemning behavior, yours or anyone else’s. They are not, nor are they claiming to not fall short of the standards they promote, since they realize that falling short is the human condition. What sends you into hysterical orbit is the mere statement that some behavior is functional behavior; that is, better for society and better for the individuals involved than other behavior. That message is so threatening to you that you defend yourself by attacking the messenger, a messenger who never claimed to be perfect in the first place. The mere existence of people, flawed as they admit to be, who recognize that there is something better to which we should aspire terrifies you. In your eyes, they condemn others by simply breathing without accepting the liberal position that the greatest crime is to be “judgemental.” As Oscar Wilde said “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” Because they want to happily wallow in the gutter of deviance and dysfunction, liberals want to pretend that there is nothing better, so those who say there is need to be silenced or destroyed.
The sort of invective you sling says more about you than it does about any of those you attempt to demean with your childish name-calling and unfair accusations.
The raging confusion that afflicts so many on the Left means my work is never done, as I was reminded on 6/14/05 while listening to Rush Limbaugh. A caller challenged Rush’s ostensible claim to be a spokesman for morality and traditional values because, according to this walking, talking cauldron of blinding rage, Rush has been divorced three times and is a “drug addict.” Our compassionate friends on the Left always impress us with their willingness to make allowances and excuses for nearly any deviant behavior imaginable. Apparently, though, a person who admits a dependency on prescription medication and successfully completes treatment deserves universal and never-ending contempt and mockery. I can’t understand why you guys don’t consider this sort of talk hate speech, but perhaps that would require the accusation that the target is a GAY “drug addict.”
OK, Libs, please pay attention, because we are are getting sick of incessantly repeating the explanation of something that should be so easily understood. Yes, we know that you have a tough time with logical distinctions, even the simple ones, but you’re wearing some of us out.
Your resentment against what you apparently perceive as self-righteous preaching by some of us (Rush Limbaugh, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, me) is completely misplaced, which is another thing that should be obvious. None of the people you despise for their hypocrisy (a favorite liberal charge) purports to be some sort of bellowing Dr. Phil type, telling you or anyone else how to live. Our crime is speak the plain truth; that is, that men and women are different, that children born to a married man and woman do better in school and are less likely to be poor, that adultery is wrong, that the Founding Fathers understood that God, not the government, is the source of our rights, and—here’s the big one—some things are right and some things are wrong. Omigod, that’s so ---hold on to your hats!!—JUDGEMENTAL!
Here’s what you liberals won’t admit. What makes you angry is not that any of these evil hypocrites you call out is condemning behavior, yours or anyone else’s. They are not, nor are they claiming to not fall short of the standards they promote, since they realize that falling short is the human condition. What sends you into hysterical orbit is the mere statement that some behavior is functional behavior; that is, better for society and better for the individuals involved than other behavior. That message is so threatening to you that you defend yourself by attacking the messenger, a messenger who never claimed to be perfect in the first place. The mere existence of people, flawed as they admit to be, who recognize that there is something better to which we should aspire terrifies you. In your eyes, they condemn others by simply breathing without accepting the liberal position that the greatest crime is to be “judgemental.” As Oscar Wilde said “We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.” Because they want to happily wallow in the gutter of deviance and dysfunction, liberals want to pretend that there is nothing better, so those who say there is need to be silenced or destroyed.
The sort of invective you sling says more about you than it does about any of those you attempt to demean with your childish name-calling and unfair accusations.
Monday, June 06, 2005
Welcome Back My Friends to the Show that Never Ends: You Should Have Been There The Last Few Days
If you missed yesterday’s show, or the shows I did while I was filling in for my good friend Deborah Rowe (9 pm-12 midnight) last week on Wednesday,6/1, Thursday, 6/2 and Friday, 6/3, missed a lot, including:
The latest insane ravings from Howard Dean (Friday afternoon—and the media claims the Pentagon is trying to release bad news late in the week to avoid excessive attention—what about this guy?!), plus, from our we-watch-C-SPAN-so-you-don’t-have-to file, the jaw-dropping incredible blathering of the dems’ new linguistic guru, Prof. George Lakoff (don’t call him “Lackoff”), from UC-Berkeley. It’s hard for our side not to get over confident when you see these guys, which is why Joe Biden showed up on George Stephanopolis’ show yesterday trying to distance himself from the Good Doctor. Ditto John-Boy Edwards, who refers to Dean as “just a voice.” Yeah, and a crazy one at that!
Speaking of Dean, hot off the presses, Ken Mehlman from the RNC with former-Mario-Cuomo aide turned mainstream-media-journalist Tim Russert on MTP. His answer on that idiotic Downing Street memo—hey, Leftists, whatever happened to “let’s just move on?” That can’t possibly just apply to presidents who are so busy bracing themselves against the wall with their pants around their ankles that they can’t deal with the imminent terrorist threat, can it?---was good. So was his answer on the horror of Koran abuse, although as I said on the air, I’ve got a better answer: no more Korans. As my dad used to say, that will give them something to cry about.
The Chicago City Council’s jihad against Wachovia inspired caller Juanita to tell us that after attending a workshop on reparations held by Alderman Dorothy Tillman, she cut up her Bank One credit card because some predecessor company of theirs owned slaves, or held them as collateral, I don’t know which. Frankly, I don’t really care, and while I support Juanita’s right to choose to do business with anyone she chooses for any reason, wacky, wrong-headed or otherwise, I don’t believe it is the legitimate function of the city government to punish law-abiding corporate citizens for things that happened in the 1700’s. I also fail to see how it benefits the residents of the Kenwood neighborhood, who will benefit from the planned low-income housing that Wachovia is helping to make happen, to have the deal blown up to satisfy a passel of bitter, power-mad, race-baiting petty tyrants. Maybe we should put these criminals from Wachovia in stocks and let people throw rotten tomatoes at them, or set up a re-education camp in which they are forced to assume uncomfortable positions while recanting their thought crimes. Do you suppose that William Schulz guy from Amnesty international, you know the one who contributed to the campaigns of Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, would think that was a “gulag?”
Just as Governor Blago is touting his brilliance at enacting a law restricting access to violent and sexually-explicit video games—never mind that it’s probably unconstitutionally vague—ABC News reports (6/2/05) that video games, even the violent ones make kids smarter! We played you the soundbites of the experts. So not only does the governor want the state to be Big Parent, he could be contributing to the dumbing down of Illinois youngsters. Maybe he should stick to looting the state employees’ pension fund, huh?
There was lots more, as always, but this will give you a flavor. I’ll be back Sunday, of course, and this week for my friend Eileen Byrne from 9 am-11 am Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
Thanks so much for listening! You’ll never know how very much I appreciate it!
If you missed yesterday’s show, or the shows I did while I was filling in for my good friend Deborah Rowe (9 pm-12 midnight) last week on Wednesday,6/1, Thursday, 6/2 and Friday, 6/3, missed a lot, including:
The latest insane ravings from Howard Dean (Friday afternoon—and the media claims the Pentagon is trying to release bad news late in the week to avoid excessive attention—what about this guy?!), plus, from our we-watch-C-SPAN-so-you-don’t-have-to file, the jaw-dropping incredible blathering of the dems’ new linguistic guru, Prof. George Lakoff (don’t call him “Lackoff”), from UC-Berkeley. It’s hard for our side not to get over confident when you see these guys, which is why Joe Biden showed up on George Stephanopolis’ show yesterday trying to distance himself from the Good Doctor. Ditto John-Boy Edwards, who refers to Dean as “just a voice.” Yeah, and a crazy one at that!
Speaking of Dean, hot off the presses, Ken Mehlman from the RNC with former-Mario-Cuomo aide turned mainstream-media-journalist Tim Russert on MTP. His answer on that idiotic Downing Street memo—hey, Leftists, whatever happened to “let’s just move on?” That can’t possibly just apply to presidents who are so busy bracing themselves against the wall with their pants around their ankles that they can’t deal with the imminent terrorist threat, can it?---was good. So was his answer on the horror of Koran abuse, although as I said on the air, I’ve got a better answer: no more Korans. As my dad used to say, that will give them something to cry about.
The Chicago City Council’s jihad against Wachovia inspired caller Juanita to tell us that after attending a workshop on reparations held by Alderman Dorothy Tillman, she cut up her Bank One credit card because some predecessor company of theirs owned slaves, or held them as collateral, I don’t know which. Frankly, I don’t really care, and while I support Juanita’s right to choose to do business with anyone she chooses for any reason, wacky, wrong-headed or otherwise, I don’t believe it is the legitimate function of the city government to punish law-abiding corporate citizens for things that happened in the 1700’s. I also fail to see how it benefits the residents of the Kenwood neighborhood, who will benefit from the planned low-income housing that Wachovia is helping to make happen, to have the deal blown up to satisfy a passel of bitter, power-mad, race-baiting petty tyrants. Maybe we should put these criminals from Wachovia in stocks and let people throw rotten tomatoes at them, or set up a re-education camp in which they are forced to assume uncomfortable positions while recanting their thought crimes. Do you suppose that William Schulz guy from Amnesty international, you know the one who contributed to the campaigns of Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, would think that was a “gulag?”
Just as Governor Blago is touting his brilliance at enacting a law restricting access to violent and sexually-explicit video games—never mind that it’s probably unconstitutionally vague—ABC News reports (6/2/05) that video games, even the violent ones make kids smarter! We played you the soundbites of the experts. So not only does the governor want the state to be Big Parent, he could be contributing to the dumbing down of Illinois youngsters. Maybe he should stick to looting the state employees’ pension fund, huh?
There was lots more, as always, but this will give you a flavor. I’ll be back Sunday, of course, and this week for my friend Eileen Byrne from 9 am-11 am Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
Thanks so much for listening! You’ll never know how very much I appreciate it!