Poor Teddy...

I read a more in-depth article on Ted Turner’s babblings at the award ceremony earlier this week and found a few things I would like to bring to light.



Let me just say that I know he’s known for shooting his mouth off in public while drunk, sober, and every other way he could be, but I honestly think he believes what he says. This is why I feel the need to analyze it a bit today.



Speaking wistfully of the past, Turner said CNN was able to overcome initial fears that it would spread American propaganda around the world. It worked hard not to push a pro-American position "like Fox News does."

I understand that the media is supposed to report the news without bias, no matter what. I get that. The problem I have with the idea that not standing against America is taking a ‘pro-American position” is that without news outlets like Fox News out there, no one will stand up and speak for America and Americans. CNN constantly calls America’s actions and motives into question when it should be stating them. Rather than painting our intentions in a negative light they should be trying to find the truth, not report their version of it. Of course these days that’s asking a lot of the media.



"If you are looking to make friends, they're everywhere," Turner said. "In fact, I can't think of one enemy but [Fox News founder] Rupert Murdoch. One out of 6.5 billion is not too bad." In contrast, Turner said Bush has made enemies around the world. "The damage is going to take years to repair," he said.

Well there you have it. Turner thinks that being President of the United States is about making friends. Bravo. Jimmy Carter thought so too. In order to make ‘friends’ with the other countries of the world he gave away fun things like the Panama Canal, fighter jets, oh, and the lives of several American hostages.

Don’t count me a fan of everything George Bush has done, I follow no man blindly.

That being said, Bush has got the national defense part right. He’s not in that chair to make friends, he’s there to protect America, Americans, and American interests both at home and abroad. The ‘damage’ he speaks of should be repaired on the world’s part, not ours. If we as a country are your enemy it is for one of two reasons. One: you declared it so, or Two: You’ve jumped into bed with murdering religious zealots bent on genocide, mayhem and a world-wide Muslim theocracy. It’s that simple.



All things considered I think it’s probably for the best that Turner has no control over any media outlet. From what I hear he’s still hitting the sauce pretty heavily and given the power he could actually do some damage. At least the people over at CNN might keep their jobs longer for his absence.

Ah well, Ted shouldn’t cry in his scotch for too long, he’s still a billionaire. He could always get his own cable access show…



TED’S WORLD! TED’S WORLD! COMMIE TIME! EXCELLENT!



Cheers folks,



Captian.

Bit 'o' News...

A few things of note worth mentioning today.

The always entertaining Ted Turner used an awards ceremony to shoot his mouth off again, though this time he may have actually been sober for the occasion.

Read the whole article here.

To highlight Ted’s rant; he basically sounded like a bitter old man lamenting the world around him and the mistakes of his youth.

"We can't afford the war in Iraq," Turner said. "This is a big waste of time. "I wish we would say, 'We won and we are going home.' We shouldn't be there. Bombing isn't a way of changing people's minds. You do that with education."

Yes Ted, we should stop shooting at the nice terrorist people and offer to teach them the ways of the western world.

Oh, wait, THAT’S WHY THEY’RE TRYING TO KILL US ALL!

He also took the requisite swipe at Bush, pointing out that he’s got his finger on the nuclear button and he’s an ex-alcoholic. I’d say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black except ol’ Teddy is still a drunk. It’s no mystery why Time Warner was able to take over CNN and edge the old sot out of the captain’s chair.

I guess I just find it a bit sad when the people who are their own clichés or caricatures become pathetic, wasted shadows of themselves. It’s just not as much fun to laugh at them.


Canada grew some balls today when it refused to have any contact with the new Hamas-run Palistinian government. It would seem that having a right wing government in place is doing Canada some good. The funny thing about this whole Hamas in power thing is that the dweebs in Hamas can’t understand why countries are turning their backs on them. Check out this quote:

"I think the Canadian position is hasty and shows obvious bias," newly installed Palestinian Information Minister Youssef Rizka told The Associated Press in Gaza City. "What we need from the Canadian government is that it ask the Israeli authorities to admit that they are occupying Palestinian land."

Do you see the amazingly one sided thinking involved here? The Hamas and those who follow them (Muslims in general) don’t understand the idea that people are different, they have different beliefs, and don’t expect or tolerate being forced into a backwards way of thinking just because your religion says so. He starts the sentence “What we need from the Canadian government…” Really? Is that what this is all about, what YOU need from Canada and other governments of the world? Well then, why didn’t you just say so. While you’re at it just tell us to wear towels on our heads and make our wives quit their jobs, stay at home, and wear burkhas.

What these douchbags need is a good swift kick in the ass. And from the looks of it it’s on the horizon. I’m glad several governments are standing against them and hope others follow suit. The sooner Hamas is eradicated the better for the people of this planet.

And to wrap up the news blurbs for today we go regional to my neck of the woods and look at one of Georgia’s own making an ass of herself….again. Congressional Crack-Head Cynthia McKinney (Democrat) made news again for hitting a Capitol Police officer today. Apparently she has a nasty habit of not wearing her congressional lapel pin to work and was stopped (again) at the security checkpoint because (go figure) the guard didn’t know she was a congresswoman.

See the whole thing here.

This is the same Cynthia McKinney who came forward with allegations that 911 was planned and carried out by George Bush only days after it happened. She has constant altercations with authorities and has generally been a disgrace to Georgia and every office she’s held. She is an A1 first rate moonbat. She has accepted contributions from known Islamic terrorist front groups and seeks to actively undo this countries defenses at every turn.

Seriously, if you have nothing better to do one day and want to exercise a good, rueful headshake, just google this wacko and read away.

Well kids, that’s all for today, it’s pool day and I’m already late.

Miles to swim before I sleep…

Captain.

Knock knock....who's here?

With all the talk about the illegal immigration bills running through congress I thought I would sidestep the normal rant (it’s been done by everyone and their brother) and propose a solution. Now, I understand that I can be a bit arcane in my thought processes sometimes, but on this one I’m serious. No Thomas Payne style humor here. The solution itself would take a great amount of balls on the part of our government with regards to certain other nations, but at this point the rest of the world already has us on its shit list, so why not go for broke and fix a huge problem while we’re at it.

Here’s the solution: Round up illegal aliens in a somewhat slow but methodical manner (not gestapo style). Interview each one and find their country of origin.

For the sake of argument here we’ll just use Mexico as an example. Mexico has been historically lazy and even a bit casual about guarding its borders. But then again, why keep the people in when letting them leave makes more room and jobs for an already overcrowded and largely impoverished society.

So, for every illegal Mexican alien we find in America we charge Mexico $5000 US dollars as a maintenance fee. This fee will go towards several ends. First we’ll use it to erect a border network of defensible fences and trenches along the U.S. – Mexico border. It will also be a deposit on lawful naturalization of that alien should he or she wish to become a legal citizen.

Should he or she become a citizen we introduce the following:

One: They will pay one year’s back taxes for any time over one day spent working in this country illegally.

Two: They will not be ineligible for welfare, Medicare, or any other government based, tax-payer funded service until those taxes are paid.

Three: Should they ever be convicted of one felony or two misdemeanors under U.S. law they will be stripped of their citizenship and summarily deported back to their country of origin. This deportation shall be paid for using the newly alienized person’s assets.

Four: If you are female and caught in this country illegally you will not be allowed to bear any children until you are legally naturalized. If you have a child (or are already pregnant with one) while you are illegally here you will be deported along with the child (born or not). The child will have to go through the same naturalization process as you in order to become a legal citizen. The one year tax back-payment will be pro-rated to the child’s age. No more automatic citizenship for illegal aliens born on American soil.

Does this sound cruel? Unduly harsh? That’s fine. I would like to know how many of my tax dollars and the tax dollars of every other American citizen have gone to paying for someone who’s not even a citizen of this country to live. I’m fairly sure that the good citizens of Mexico wouldn’t give me one red cent if I were to crash their country and need a doctor or food stamps.

And even if Mexico had a problem with the new way of doing things, it might just get them to pay attention to the illegal immigration issue.

Think about it. With all the illegals from all the countries we are currently harboring; even if none of the countries paid one red cent, we could just delete it from the national debt.

See, it’s a good solution.

Think about it.


Cheers,


Captain.

Wi-Fi crybabies...

Just a short note on something I heard on Boortz this afternoon. They were discussion the act of ‘piggybacking’ someone’s Wi-Fi signal on a computer. Neal felt that it was right that the Illinois government has outlawed it as it is an invasion of privacy.

While I understand his sentiment, I cannot fully agree and here’s why:

A wireless internet signal is a broadcast signal just like radio, television, and anything else with a transmitter that puts out waves that are receivable with the proper equipment. If I’m sitting on my couch, in my house that I’m paying for, that sits on the property I own, and a signal intrudes into my home and is unprotected by encryption or coding, it becomes mine to use. Every wireless transmitter you can buy on the market allows the owner to encrypt the signal so that those without a password cannot access the signal for use. If a person knowingly broadcasts a signal into my home with no way of controlling it (except for locking it) then he or she should have no control of the signal once it is within the borders of my yard.

The FCC regulates signals of every sort and does so because many signals will effect electronic equipment in unforeseen ways.

For instance: I have a wireless computer on my road bike. It transmits a signal from the piece mounted on the front fork to the computer base which is attached to my handlebars. Total space: about a foot and a quarter. Its total broadcast range is only a bit over 2 feet because the FCC says that wireless cycle computers cannot even be able to broadcast over 3 feet. Why? I have no idea except that the signal might interfere with other electronic equipment.

It’s the same thing with air travel. Talk to any pilot and they’ll tell you, the biggest reason for not allowing the electronic devices to be used below 10,000 feet is because the plane is using several forms of navigation and communication instrumentation during that time. And the funny part is that even the FAA doesn’t know what your Ipod or CD player can do to the radar, radio, GPS, and other instruments of that plane, but they know there’s a chance, and that’s all the reason they need to disallow you from using them.

On the Wi-Fi issue my point is this: Instead of letting our government pass yet another series of laws and spend time talking about it (when they might actually be getting some work done), why don’t we the public take a little personal responsibility on ourselves and either encrypt our networks or shut up about your next door neighbor piggybacking your signal.

This is just another example of the whiny few making it easy for the government to step in and assert its influence and authority where it is not needed.

Two lies, no wating...

Patriot: from Late Latin patriota, from Greek patriOtEs,
from patria lineage, from patr-, patEr father

:one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests


Fascism: from Latin fascis; to bundle

a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition


Ok, since I’ve cleared up the confusion over those two terms, the ‘terms du jour’ for lefties and commies everywhere for our current leadership, let’s take a pointed look at how these two terms are misused by the bleating masses of protesting sheep.

Since I’ve found that a good shot of logic will destroy any leftist argument I’m faced with I just thought I’d take aim at this particular batch of misnomers being spread about lately.

Misnomer #1) The people who stand outside with signs and banners, protesting the war in Iraq, the President, America, Capitalism, etc. call themselves “Patriots” and say that they are the ones acting in the interest of this nation and it’s people.

Why this is wrong: to be a patriot is to support your country, its authority and its interests. By protesting the President, you are standing AGAINST its authority. By protesting the war in Iraq, you are standing AGAINST its interests. Some would say that they stand for a different America; one of pacifist nature and different values. This too is a fallacy. You cannot stand against America as it is while standing for an America that never was and call it patriotism.

However, if you take this stand violently, you can call it sedition.

So, we know now that Democrats, Liberals, Lefties, and commies alike are giving themselves a false name in order to lie to the people of this country. Does it make what they’re doing ok? No. It makes it no more OK than a thief telling the police he stole out of love for the victim.

Misnomer #2) We have a fascist government: Even as a young boy I was always entertained by the incorrect use of this word by the politically disaffected. In the late 70’s it was the punk scene that first slurred the term over crashing drum tracks and power chords, preaching anarchy as a cure all for society. Then we have the alternatrolls of the 90’s, wearing plaid, mumbling over acoustic guitars in coffee houses, spouting similar rhetoric. Now it’s the battle cry of the ultra-liberal, socialist pupa.

Why they’re wrong: This is one of the more glaring inaccuracies in the robotic anti-Bush, anti-America speech we hear day in and day out. First and foremost, let us look at the first tenet of Fascism: that exalts nation and often race above the individual. The last time I checked the republican and libertarian parties were the parties of the individual. They stress individual liberty, responsibility, and freedom. The Dems want more government control, more government programs, less responsibility (ask the ACLU how many home invading thieves, rapists and would be murderers they’ve helped sue the victim because of injury incurred during a crime) and less freedom due to increased government control over every aspect of our lives. As far as exalting one race over another, it’s a weak argument indeed that says that a Presidential cabinet that is the most diverse EVER (republican or democrat) stands by a President or government that exalts any race over any other. The sad truth of the matter is that it’s people like Kanye West and Fiddy Cent who hate black people, not George W. Bush. If you love a people you wish to see them flourish and do better with each successive generation. Listening to albums from West and Cent you’ll quickly get an idea of the future they have in mind for their people. Somewhere in the last forty years or so the American dream has gone from Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to “Get rich or die trying”.

Next let’s look at “a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation”

This one is easy. Since the election of 2000 the left has sought to undo President Bush in every legal (and I’m sure several illegal) way possible. In the main stream media he’s referred to as “Mr. Bush” instead of the President. Democrats take pot shots at him from every venue possible, the Oscars, movies, TV, you name it, they’re doing it. They have tried their best to make him out as a despotic, all powerful ruler sitting on a lofty perch, drinking oil and actively hating black people. Well, even if he was this evil tyrant bent on destruction and mayhem, he could never be a dictator or autocrat, the foil for any who sought that kind of power in our government was built into our constitution. As for severe economic and social regimentation, we’re out of a recession that came from Bill Clinton’s reign of terror, the markets are up, jobs are up, jobless rates are lower than at any time in history, and any personal freedom that is taken from us by the government is done on the local and state levels by large groups of men and women we are all responsible for electing.

And finally there is “forcible suppression of opposition”. Hmmm, this one should speak for itself, but then again, I guess you’d have to be listening to hear it.

If the United States Government forcibly put down it’s opposition, half of Hollywood’s elite would be behind bars, the streets of several west coast towns would be littered with the bodies of hippies, and Cindy Sheehan would have vanished about two days into her moonbat camping trip, never to be heard from again. The United States puts up with more opposition than any country in the world, allowing it’s own citizens to publicly bad mouth it’s President, it’s officials, it’s policies, and anything else they find grievance with without ANY threat of rebuke. If you want to see forcible suppression of opposition, take a look at the video tapes of over 9000 Kurds being gassed and buried in mass graves in Iraq because they opposed Saddam Hussein.

So there you have it folks, two of the biggest lies the left is using to create the illusion that they give a damn about this nation. Calling leftists “Patriots” is a disservice to the word. Calling our government “Fascist” is a disservice to America.

I’m not saying what we have here is perfect, but it’s better than anywhere else and we should guard it with our lives to make sure it stays that way.

Here endeth the rant.

Capt.

Someone else usually says it better...

After reading The Captain's post about the Frenchies tearing themselves apart, I felt inspired to post the pic below. It's one of the many wonderful Demotivational products available here. I'm a big fan of their work. Enjoy!

Le frogs are in Le touble…

Oh the humanity, the frogs are at it again. Well, this time it’s mostly the tadpoles.

When faced with the thought of actually having to work for a living at a job where, if they don’t perform for whatever reason, they can actually be fired, the youth of France takes action.

What’s that, you say? They unite under a common voice to debate the government leadership about the law and stage peaceful sit ins and non-violent protests? Oui?

No.

They riot. They break. They destroy their own country from the inside out. They show their leaders and the world around them what they’re made of. This new united generation of French youth are making a statement to any who would oppose their will: “We will not tolerate anyone who takes away our free meal ticket”.

For the full effect read this.

The saddest part of this whole thing is that the French government is, well, being French about the whole conflict. They’ve already folded. In this the French government is making another in a long line of statements to the world about what they’re made of. They not only get in bed with any third world despot who will funnel money and goods to them (no matter who gets murdered for it) but they’ll run and hide from any threat, no matter the origin. It makes me wonder what kind of oath if any the French President takes upon entering office. American Presidents take an oath to defend their country. But hey, who am I to compare apples to oranges?

If you have any doubt about the outlook of these young people and whether or not they realize what they’re doing, check out these quotes:

"We're sick of being treated like idiots," said Emilie Spituel, 18, among thousands at the Paris march.

"This is our big chance as a generation, because we're all united. Me alone, I can't do anything, but all of us together are going to achieve our goal," said Ivan Dion, a 17-year-old high-school students at the Paris march.

So let me get this straight: You are being treated like idiots because the employers you work for don’t want to have to put up with your sorry ass if you don’t work for what they pay you? And therefore you riot and destroy your own cities and towns?

Brilliant.

There you have it folks. Look at the wonderful effect unions have on society. We live in a time of unprecedented comfort both in our jobs and home lives. Over the past 100 years governments around the world have adopted laws which protect workers and allow for redress of conflict when needed. But there are those (in this country and others) who think that unions are still a necessary thing, that without them “evil corporations” would surely take advantage of them and turn them all into 19th century bobbin boys.

Like everything else in this world, it comes down to power. The unions and their members know that they can pull strings they shouldn’t even be pulling because of the collective bargaining power unions provide. In short, unions can be bullies and so they are, there is no disconnect, the ideas are not mutually exclusive anymore.

If you ever need a real world lesson on how ‘great’ unions are, just look at the airline industry in America, or the entire country of France. Even more frightening than the unions themselves is what they represent, an idea that most don’t even recognize…mob rule. There’s another word for mob rule:

Democracy.

Pure democracy is NOTHING more than mob rule, mob law. When asked what kind of government the United States operates under you’ll hear one great misconception; that we are a Democracy, not a Republic. So many people don’t even know the difference. Well, if you still need to know then look at what unions do to companies. Want to drive down production and drive up costs? Allow your workers to unionize. Want to plow a well oiled corporation into the ground in 5 years? Let the unions in.

I mean, why not? France did it on a national scale and look at all their success…

Pardon me while I leave my non-union job to go home and laugh my ass off. France disserved this one big time.

Captain.

Attention.

I have to admit I’ve been relatively uninspired to write anything lately and luckily I have AeroSarge to back me up when that happens. This morning, however, I saw a few pictures that started one of those stirrings deep down that eventually makes it’s way up to the brain and becomes a full blown blog piece. It started when I clicked on this link from Bornagainredneck’s site. If you don’t choose to click it right now I’ll just tell you it’s a slideshow of a Native American Marine’s wake. You should follow the link and let the images burn into your brain because this post will mean more if you do.

There, all finished? Good.

Seeing these images reminded me of watching the Extreme Makeover Home Edition where they build a house on a reservation for a family (A Native American man and woman who’s daughter died in Iraq, and their daughter’s little boy and girl). On that particular episode they also built a veteran’s center for the “Code Talkers” and other veterans who fought for this country in past wars. Needless to say it was a very moving bit of television.

With these two examples in mind I feel I have to take issue with a large part of our populous. My issue stems from our treatment of those who fight for us. Until the Korean war we as a country always spoke highly of our soldiers and swelled with pride whenever someone mentioned American military might. Most importantly we as a country mourned the deaths of our warriors with reverence and solemnity befitting the loss. Lately our media (and therefore a large part of the sheep who eat what they offer) use the deaths of soldiers in the field as nothing more than a political tool. To be sure the families mourn and grieve their sons and daughters and hope that no more have to die to complete the mission, but outside of familiar circles there are others with designs on death.

Even though this war has fewer American casualties than any war in history (and let’s face it folks, we’re not even CLOSE to amassing the casualties of other wars) there are many who lick their lips when the body count rises, seeing an opportunity to deepen the divide between the anti war crowd and the rest of America. I won’t rant on this fact, I’ll just call it disgusting and move on.

I would have to call this way of thinking the “Can’t see the trees for the forest” syndrome. People like the Hildabeast, Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Alec Baldwin are probably not happy about death on a personal level. As much as the feuding political parties in this country want to make each other out as demons, heartless and cruel with nothing but evil in mind for all, I imagine that any one of the major players on each side would cry their eyes out when a loved one parishes. In short, they’re human (and that’s me stretching big time calling Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, and Hildabeast human). It’s easy for them to cry about one person dying. Death is most often a sad thing. Dying young is most certainly always sad. Where these people lose their humanity is when the big picture takes over and the lives become numbers.

I know, you’ve spotted the flaw in my logic: “What about Bush and his warmongers? They are sending these boys and girls over there to die”.

Wrong.

The mission of this war is not for any American soldier to die or even to be wounded in their service. The mission is freedom. Forget the semantic arguments going on day in and day out about WMD’s, Oil, Revenge, whatever. Even if these were the reasons for us being there the by-product would be freedom for the Iraqi people. We send troops to fight for people who can’t fight for themselves. We don’t get money for it, we just do it. We do it knowing that our men and women can and will die while fighting, but we are and have been since our conception a country who will pay the price for freedom. We taught England that lesson twice in 1776 and 1812. We taught Germany in 1917 and 1944. We taught Russia that for the 50 years following WWII. Now that our freedom is more secure than in any time before, we seek to bring that freedom to others.
How dare we. Apparently we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Politics and semantics aside, I see a larger problem with our attitudes towards those who chose a life of service. We allow things in the name of the first amendment that demean people who die defending us and then turn around and deny others the same free speech by labeling their opinions “Hate Speech”. We ignore the nobility and sacrifice of our soldiers and focus on the politics of the conflict they’re fighting in. We label them “baby killer” and “fascist” without a single thought about them as a person. We take half truth and lies from the media and pass them to others as gospel. We doubt the goodness inherent in the American spirit of freedom, justice, and liberty, instead focusing on the few here and there who pervert it. We’re so hell bent on pushing the limits of every freedom we have that we don’t even stop to think about whether what we’re doing is right. But of course with our new sense of relative morality it doesn’t matter what you do, because you can just change the rules to make it right.

Seeing those Native Americans give honor to a warrior, one who was brave and chose to serve others instead of himself makes me think we should take it all back to zero. We need to focus on goodness, weed out the destructive behaviors we see through social change not government legislation and move forward towards better things.

We’re 230 years old and we still have so much to learn.

SWAT according to Sarge...

Since I haven’t seen any movies lately & spent most of Sunday looking for a leak in my water heater, I’ve been a little devoid of blog material. Okay not really, though I wanted to add my observations and experiences as another angle to Whit’s post regarding SWAT over usage.
To lead off, please remember a central thought, which is my outlook on this issue: SWAT teams ARE being used inappropriately and entirely too often. Plus there are far too many SWAT teams lurking around, waiting for anything to happen.
I wanted to get that out in the open, since I will try and maintain a dissociated, neutral tone throughout most of this, which might lead one to believe I support this nonsense and think a tactical assault to bust some teenagers drinking beer while the parents are away is justified. Nothing is further from the truth. But I do want to offer some explanations as to why I think this has become the problem it has. Not excuses, just the factors that contribute to the current problems with these teams.
If one looks at the history of SWAT, or at least the concept, one can understand why a paramilitary division would be justified in a large city. You cannot train every police officer to effectively handle the rare, dynamic events like a riot, hostage situation, terrorist operation, etc. People who handle those types of things need special training and constant practice to maintain a competitive edge. It should not be a surprise this type of unit was forged in the battleground of LA during the 60's. Where things went wrong, I think, was when even SWAT-type outfits were further subdivided and the powers that be took the approach of “if 60 SWAT cops are good, then 300 should be great”!
My father was a member of one such offshoot. He was one of the first members of ATL’s Tactical Response Team when it was created in the mid 1990’s. Think of it as a SWAT team without the special benefits, no fancy weapons and nowhere near the attitude. Atlanta’s “Red Dog” squad is (sort of) another example (easiest way to explain them is that they are the main anti-drug group). These subgroups fill a large gap, the one between the regular policeman and the elite SWAT. So they have more specialized training (the Red Dogs are good at busting into crack houses, the TAC Team was for riots & widespread civil unrest), but not as much freedom/leeway/whatever. In fact, Dad wore his spiffy TAC uniform to work every night for the years he was on the team and I can count on one hand the number of times they were activated, and they never handled anything of note. But they were there, doing their regular job and only called IF NEEDED. What a concept. Other than riot gear, Dad never was trained on or even saw an assault weapon. And, without the perception of do-what-you-want, there was never a single incident from his Team.
So what makes a cop want to be a SWAT member? If you look at their makeup, you will find a lot of people who have some degree of military service. In fact, I’d be willing to bet you could find a lot of people who wanted to be part of “elite” military units (i.e. SEALs, Rangers) but couldn’t make the cut. They get out, join a police force and the SWAT idea appeals to them. If they are actions junkies, look out: we have another seed for problems.
I think one of the biggest reasons, though, is both sheer number and cool toys. Another anecdote: several years ago I did an intro Scuba class for a group of SWAT police. What blew my mind is that they weren’t even with the City-o-Huntsville; they were from one of the little “suburbs”!!! (may not be the best word since HSV is only 300,000….kind of hard to have ‘burbs at that size). But sure enough, there they were. Drove their tricked out cars LOADED with special equipment and all the trimmings. After talking to them, I got some great insight: starting a SWAT Team got their little city substantial extra money for law enforcement work. They get those funds every year and HAVE TO SPEND THEM. So they buy lots of expensive gear, specialized training, blah blah blah. AND, here the best part: since they can be trained for anti-terror operations and response, they are ALSO eligible for money from Dept. of Homeland Security!!! These days, all you have to do is say something is for terror preparedness and a town basically gets a blank check from Uncle. Maybe I’m exaggerating a little, but not much. Lots of money means lots of other ways for city officials to skim off some cash, get more funds for their projects, so why not get a massive, well-armed team of adrenaline junkies to support YOUR agenda?!?!?!
Here’s why: they have to DO something. The numbers of SWAT officers they have cannot just sit around all day lifting weights (else they couldn’t justify the numbers to watchdogs and auditors and hence couldn’t get as much money), so they have to do something. Can you begin to see why SWAT guys are writing tickets and serving papers? You couple that, with the “we’re untouchable” mentality and you can see why these bullshit incidents are happening. You take some young, masculine aggressive Type-A guy, train him extensively for bad things, equip the hell out of him, and then what? Tell him to go cite some schmuck for jaywalking? This poor dude is primed and just looking for an excuse to put his testosterone and training to use. Unfortunately his superiors give him enough leeway to go overboard and we see things happen.
There isn’t a reason in the world for the increased numbers of bullshit SWAT assaults (and that’s what they are). With the amount of surveillance technology at their fingertips I can’t think of a single reason the wrong house should be stormed or they should bust in and literally scare an old woman to death. If they aren’t disciplined enough as individuals then they have no business wearing a badge. That’s probably why they aren’t doing this in the Military in the first place, since they are very good at screening people out who are there for the wrong reasons. And if some mid-level commander OK’s an OP on a flaky tip from a junkie, then his ass should be canned without wasting time. If these cops can’t control themselves and can justify in their own minds beating down some pot-head who was sitting at home watching TV… then I think they should be busted back down to the bottom of the chain and Patrol on foot, armed with nothing more than a whistle and a can of Mace. They mess up again? Jail time buddy. I’ll leave these thoughts for you folks to digest; a bit long again, and I really hope this crap stops before it gets any further out of hand (the SWAT thing, not you good people reading my ramblings). For that to happen, though, the higher ups would have to admit mistakes and take a stand, and we can’t have that now, can we? How on Earth with they keep getting promoted if they rock the boat?

The Matrix needs rebooting...

So I saw "V for Vendetta" this weekend and like most I have mixed feelings. While I'm a sucker for a guy in black kicking someone's ass and clever dialogue spoken from behind a mask, I found the message a bit convoluted. I went in with my Hollywood Eyes on, ready to see what our lovely liberal filmsters had done to an otherwise nothing to do with anything liberal story, so I wasn’t shocked at what I saw. That being said I was a bit saddened by the Wachowski brothers’ lack of originality in their not even veiled right wing bashing. This film took no risks, said nothing shocking, and overall just ushered the viewer down the leftist wack-job’s daily thought process with special effects thrown in for flavor. It’s not wonder the writer took his name off of it.

But, rather than bore you with my ineloquent ramblings on the matter I’ve copied an article here from Megan Basham of Townhall.com. I would have linked it but I want people to read the whole thing, and I know that clicking a link is hard work, so I’ve made your life a little easier….aren’t I nice?

This will tell you more…

I have seen the terrorist, and he is me. And you. And all of us. So says Evey (Natalie Portman), an acolyte of V (Hugo Weaving), the swashbuckling savior of future England who disguises himself as Guy Fawkes.

But don’t worry, because being a terrorist is now a good thing. As we've been told by the media, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter…or masked superhero as the case may be.

In fact, according to The New York Daily News' critic, Jaimi Bernard, even the term "suicide bombing" is now relative. "One person's idea of social liberation through symbolic fireworks is another person's suicide bombing," she insists in her review of V for Vendetta.

So even though V threatens to detonate a load of explosives strapped to his chest, killing dozens of innocent people at the BBC (oh, excuse me, BFC) if they don't give him air-time, just think of him as Batman — a little overly-dramatic and conflicted perhaps, but also sexy and an undeniable force for good.


I can see him this way because of all the Wachowski Brothers have taught me. My eyes have been opened, and I am no longer an automaton of the Right-wing religious-military-industrial complex.

Thanks to this "parable about terrorism and totalitarianism" (Roger Ebert) I have been "prodded to think" (The San Francisco Chronicle). And I now think that the Bush administration blew up the twin towers and tried to blow up two other U.S. targets on 9/11 in order to scare Americans into giving them more power. I think that conservatives hate art, literature, and music—especially jazz music—and want to lock it all away because, well, they’re just mean like that.

I think that Catholics are in league with Republicans, and that together it is they, and not radical Islamists, who would like to exterminate all homosexuals and execute anyone that produces material critical of the Church-State. I think it is Christians who persecute people for reading the Koran and not Muslims who persecute people for reading the Bible.

I think that the West's military personnel are the ones who place hoods over innocent people's heads then mercilessly torture and kill them, and that broadcasts of Islamo-fascists doing so are so much laughable propaganda.

But most of all, in true V style, I think that documents, like buildings, are only symbols, and that burning them can change the world. Therefore, I propose that we storm the National Archives and torch the Constitution—the document responsible for unleashing the Great Evil that is America.

After all, that's what the Wachowskis want, isn't it? When [spoiler alert] the English masses gather and cheer as Parliament, that British symbol of representative government burns, aren't we too supposed to cheer? Aren't we supposed to want to run out of theater ready to don our Osama Bin Laden masks, ready to confront the world's biggest terrorist mastermind on the White House lawn?

Oh, but wait, the movie is "dystopian" and therefore has nothing to do with current events. The "yellow-alerts" the vile dictator employs are a coincidence. The campy television show in which vaudevillian Al Qaeda operatives torture busty blondes, suggesting that the threat of terror is as fictional as it is ridiculous, means nothing. The balding talk show host with a pill-popping problem isn't intended to smear a real person.

And the fact that the script takes glee in constantly referring to the "former United States of America" and "their war" that left them "the world’s leper colony?" Umm, okay, that's a little hard to explain…let's just call that comic justice.

I could go into more detail, but really, there is no point. The fact the film's release had to be postponed when V’s final heroic act of loading explosives onto a subway car in the London underground proved too realistic illustrates how in-sync the Wachowski’s are with actual terrorists. Forget not being worth the price of admission, this ode to Al Zarqawi and his ilk certainly wasn’t worth the price of pretty Miss Portman’s flowing mane of chestnut hair.

But the worst part of Vendetta isn't the anti-Bush/anti-Blair agenda it pushes so feverishly. It's the legions of film critics who have lavished that agenda with praise.

To be fair, some admirers claim that it's only entertainment: "If you find a way to apply it to George Bush or Tony Blair, it’s only because the film's themes are so universal." (Cinema Blend) But most argue that the ideas it brings up are "important": "That it so cannily reflects specific concerns of this moment in history makes it an almost important movie." (Los Angeles Daily News)

The hangdogs can't have it both ways. Either the movie has nothing to do with the War on Terror and it's awful, or it has everything to do with the War on Terror and it's appalling.

Incidentally, after reading the script, creator of the V comic book, Alan Moore, insisted Warner Bros. remove his name from the project. He told MTV, "[My comic] has been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… [The film] is a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" [the comic] was about."

Thankfully, cartoonish acting and a juvenilely self-reverential plot means no one except teenage boys (the ones in the row in front of me kept muttering, "Yeah, anarchy!" as London blazed) and crazed George Clooney disciples will take this movie's "important ideas" seriously.

Those are the people who are this very moment wailing, "Free speech! Free speech! The Wachowskis have every right to promote their beliefs!" To them I say, yep, they sure do.

And I have the right to unmask them for the ignorant, irresponsible, paranoid filmmakers that they are.


Megan Basham is a film critic for Townhall.com.

They're after me lucky charms...

Ah, tis St. Patty’s Day once more. That day when good Catholics reflect on how one of their finest brought the heathen Celts the light of God, chased away all of Ireland’s snakes, and created a gothic fashion piece (the Celtic cross).

It’s also the day when many an Irish descendant in America celebrates their heritage by wearing the national colors and shouting Erin Go Bragh!

I, being neither Catholic nor Irish, will most likely don what little green I have in my wardrobe and head with friends to the local pub to pound pint after pint of what, in my humble Welsh Protestant’s opinion, is Ireland’s greatest export:



Not that I’ll be ignoring the other wonderful offerings Ireland hath wrought in our world. I have half a mind to sip some Jameson with my cigar this evening.

Not to be completely brutish and boring about the holiday, let me say a few words to my Irish brethren and sistren out there.

I am indeed tickled pink that Ireland will have a good showing in this year’s World Cup, and have always been hypnotically drawn to anyone remotely speaking in even the softest brogue.

I’m also happy that there is one holiday left out there that the ACLU doesn’t protest. My guess is that they just aren’t aware that it has any religious significance or else SOMEONE would be sued.

Not that I’m a pessimist, I just think people in general should lighten up, for all the right reasons. The ACLU just seems to be puckered for all the wrong reasons.

But let’s not make this a rant, after all, it’s St. Patrick’s Day as well as Friday! Could this get any better?

I’d also like to give a shout out to AeroSarge’s pappy, Wayne. This here also be his birthday. Many happy returns to the Wayne Man, may your steak be medium rare, your beer cold, and your bottle of Jack never run dry.

And as for the rest of you, do your best to pinch whatever you can get away with, drink Irish, and forget about your troubles.


Cheers,

Captain.

Poetry

Sometimes the forwards you get via email just make you smile, this is one of those:

FEMALE POEM


I want a man who's handsome, smart and strong

One who loves to listen all day long,

One who thinks before he speaks,

One who'll call, not wait for weeks.

I want him to be gainfully employed,

And when I spend his cash, not be annoyed.

Pulls out my chair and opens my door,

Massages my back and begs to do more.

Oh! For a man who makes love to my mind,

and knows what to answer to "how big is my behind?"

I want this man to love me to no end,

And forever be my very best friend.


MALE POEM


I want a deaf-mute nymphomaniac

with huge boobs who owns a

liquor store and a fishing boat.

I know this doesn't rhyme and I don't give a shit.

Here we go again...

Quick thought this morning about an article I read in the news. It seems that the Georgia Senate is the latest battleground in an old war.

See the article here.

Good old Hanoi Jane is rearing her botoxed head again, without actually being around. She has a talent for making controversy everywhere she goes, and even some places she doesn’t go. Former WXIA reporter turned Democratic Senator Steen Miles introduced a resolution to the senate floor honoring Hanoi Jane (Fonda) for her work with several charities around the metro Atlanta area.

This, of course, caused a bit of blowback from some of the other senators, most notably John Douglas, a republican. After several speeches from Douglas and others, Senator Miles tearfully withdrew the resolution from the floor. Miles said that she wasn’t thinking in terms of Fonda being a political figure, but a woman in the Atlanta community who is helping those around her. She further rebuked the senators for implying that she was anti-war or anti-military herself, sighting that her ex-husband and brother both fought in Vietnam.

The unfortunate part of this situation is that Steen Miles chose the one figure in public and political circles who, no matter how much good she does for others, will always be controversial. I don’t find fault with Senator Miles wanting to lift up those women who go out of their way to help others, it’s wonderful when good people get recognition.

That being said, I think she should have thought a bit more about who she was lifting up. There are few names that draw the ire of people in America like Jane Fonda. For about 5% of the country that name conjures images of spandex clad workout routines. For the other 95% it opens old wounds and brings back her sad betrayal. In any other country in this world (or this country up until 1955) Jane Fonda would have been tried and possibly executed for her actions in Vietnam. What she did was not only seditious, but brazen and in complete disregard for her country and those fighting and dying for it.

Say what you will about Vietnam, the reasons, the rhymes, nothing you can say would justify what Hanoi Jane did. Her actions were more damaging and far reaching than her drug hazed little mind could have conceived. The part that still angers me and millions in this country is that she’s completely unrepentant about her actions. She still tours the country, blasting our leaders, our soldiers, and America’s attempts to give others freedom.

And so scenes like this will continue to play themselves out around the country. Jane Fonda is a marked woman. She has been since she stepped up on that anti-aircraft gun to mug for North Vietnamese cameras. She will carry this mark long after she’s dead and gone. The majority of the people in this country will never see her as anything but a traitor, a liar, and a brainless propagandist. This is fine with me. She needs this constant reminder of what she did until she has the courage and wisdom to stand up and apologize to the American public for the things she did.

I count today’s events as a victory. It shows the Fondas, the Sarandons, the Clooneys, and their ilk that though they may have a public forum for their simple minded socialist vomit, they don’t quite have the audience. I hope more people both inside and outside the government will take a stand against these threats to our country, our constitution, and our freedom.

Besides, that movie Barbarella really sucked.

Cheers,


Capt.

Some quick thoughts

A couple of quick thoughts that ran through my brain today:

- i've noticed several people driving around town with personalized/vanity license plates that have religious themes. When I see them, I think that it is not only great that they believe in God in varying forms (the majority are Christian oriented), but also it's really impressive that they display their faith that openly in a society that shies away from doing that, even from the anonymity of a car. However, if the driver of the car I noticed this morning is reading this, please do not include me or others on the road in your apparent plan to meet Him as soon as possible. You passed me like I was standing still ( i was moving at ~75 mph) and zipped across 3 lanes of traffic for your exit. Love Thy Neighbor, man; don't kill us because you're late for work!

- Saw today that George Clooney is criticizing Democrats for being afraid to speak up before the War started. I started reading his rant and began to think that maybe we were finally going to hear something ever-so-slightly intelligent and/or logical come from his mouth unscripted. Oops. I can admit when I'm wrong. By the end of his tirade, it's apparent he's riding the Oscar wave and willing to speak up when it essentially doen't matter. Real big of you to get aggressive when there is no one going toe to toe with you and no outcome from your "brave, against the grain" rhetoric. Just another person making loud noise. I wonder if he was against the first Iraq campaign. Seems he didn't mind that conflict when profiting from it. Somehow I doubt he refused a paycheck, even though that would be profiting from a war he didn't believe in...

- Heard a really awesome quote on last Friday's episode of Numb3rs, and I goofed and deleted the show from Tivo before rewinding to hear it again to commit to memory. The 2 professors were arguing about the validity of using a psychic to help solve crimes, and Charlie (the math guy) was steadfast in refusing to acknowledge it as a form of "science". Larry (as usual very well played by Peter McNichol) responded with something to the effect of: "To refuse to accept a different approach as valid and logical and discount it entirely based on your own perceptions ...that's not science. It's Politics". That was the gist, anyways. If anyone can remember how it was worded, please let me know!

Word for the day...

British Doctors are cool.

They’re the only people I know of who can use the word “Cogitate” in a sentence and sound perfectly normal.

*sigh*

Something to aspire to.


Liberals and Socialists seldom "Cogitate".

A Rose by any other name...

Ok, for your post breakfast enjoyment I have a little something to air out.

On our local news website this morning there was a report on more ‘inflammatory’ comments by Pat Robertson. Surprise. For the last few years he’s been doing what so many elderly and pre-elderly people do…he’s been speaking his mind.

The phenomena isn’t new, or strange, older people have been spouting inappropriate things in public without using their inside voice for hundreds of years. I’m of the belief that it’s the main reason the whole idea of senility came about, people unable to resolve in their minds that a person could just get to the point where they no longer care what people think of them and are fully willing to lay it all out in the open for all to hear.

Personally I think it’s hilarious. It’s the complete antithesis of Politically Correct, and therefore a good thing in my book.

In Pat Robertson’s case though, he’s got more than a few people in a restaurant listening to his unfiltered blurts. Not only is his normal viewing audience tuned in, but countless watch groups just waiting for something controversial to leave his lips. Well, this week they got something. His latest comments are again, surprise, about the Muslim world and the force he feels is in control of all the violence and hatred…the devil.

Let me preface my analysis of his comments with this: I am not a nut, religious or otherwise, I don’t think anyone should push any religion on anyone, and I think it’s important for people to say what they feel is the truth, even if it hurts. Being afraid to tell the truth has only ever gotten us as a people and a country into deep dog squeeze. Just look at Bill Clinton.

That being said, Pat’s comments went on to say that the sheer hatred and rage involved in the radical Islamic sects committing these violent acts around the world can only come from demonic power. After the show aired and his phones were slammed with calls from the media, his spokesperson pointed out a few things: He also talked about the non-radical Muslims and how they don’t stand up with the terrorists and doesn’t feel that the radicals speak for all Muslims.

Here’s where I take issue. This is a quote from one of Mr. Robertson’s detractors:

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called Robertson's new comments "grossly irresponsible."

What is irresponsible about saying that a group of people bent on murdering any who oppose them, including women and children, is doing so because they’re evil? How is this wrong? Is it wrong because a section of this country doesn’t believe in God so therefore saying there is a devil, an ultimate force of evil and it is active in our world is somehow offensive?

Pardon my French, but that’s the biggest crock of bullshit I’ve heard in months. If more people stood up and spoke the truth, that people who kill indiscriminately with no remorse in order to dominate others are evil, we’d all be a lot less confused about what’s going on. This just shows how backwards some people in this country tend to think. They’re against the war on terror. They speak out against young men and women who, besides protecting their freedom and that of every man, woman and child in this country, are tasked with stopping these killers. Soldiers follow rules of engagement; rules like ‘if an enemy combatant is unarmed and not an immediate threat they are to be captured and incarcerated with in a humane fashion’. In other words, if they’re not trying to kill you at the moment, you can’t touch a hair on their squirrelly little heads. Whereas the terrorist book of ethics (I know, it’s a stretch) just says KILL. KILL KILL KILL and then KILL some more.

So please forgive me if you feel I’m a bit extreme because I agree with Pat Robertson on this one, but I see nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.
*As a side not I looked up the origin of that saying (calling a spade a spade) and found something interesting.

Here’s the info:

Although the English language, and particularly American English, contains many examples of the influence of racism on popular speech, in this particular case there is ample evidence to prove the defendant phrase not guilty. "To call a spade a spade" not only predates slavery in North America by quite a bit but harks all the way back to the Ancient Greeks, occurring in the work of, among others, the playwright Aristophanes, and is still commonly heard in modern Greek. The original phrase seems to have been "to call a fig a fig; to call a kneading trough a kneading trough," applied to someone who spoke exceedingly frankly. Evidently, when the phrase was first translated from Greek in the Renaissance, the Greek word for "trough" was confused with the Greek for "spade," and thus the modern version was born. The "spade" referred to in the phrase, incidentally, was the digging implement, and not the black character on playing cards that underlies the racial epithet.

V for Verisimilitude

Today’s missive is a small offshoot of my movie tirade from last week. I want to bring to light an interesting article I found here.

This is an interview with Natalie Portman, an arguably decent actress who appears in the upcoming (and much anticipated by yours truly) V for Vendetta.

In the movie she plays a citizen of a modern London where a totalitarian government squeezes it’s vise like grip more and more each day, cutting off any remaining freedoms from it’s citizenry. Her parents were taken by a Gestapo like group of government thugs, never to be seen again. When she herself becomes the target of governmental harassment she find a savior in a masked vigilante calling him self ‘Code name V’.

What makes this film interesting for me even before I’ve seen it is that it’s the first thing to come out lately that could remotely be considered a non left wing propaganda film. In story line alone it more resembles the works of Orwell, Huxley, and several other futurist writers. Around my group of friends and family we’re all betting that the Hollywood types somehow found a way to make ‘evil corporations’ the ones making the government do all those horrible things…but we’ll see.

Ok, back to Ms. Portman. For those of you who are unfamiliar with Ms. Portman I’ll fill in some crucial blanks for you:

She’s very bright, speaks several languages, was born in Israel and attended Harvard. Most of you have probably seen her in the Star Wars travesties, or in one of the many feel-good movies she’s done with her buddies like Susan ‘I hate America’ Sarandon. In an interview a few years ago Ms. Portman, when asked who she admired, said that she really admired women like Hillary Clinton who were smart and politically savvy and strong. (pardon me while I gag).

So to put it lightly, Ms. Portman is a flaming liberal. Taught from childhood in the ways of the hippy, and sheltered from the truth.

So how is it that someone like Natalie ends up as a main character in a movie about what government becomes when liberal and communist ideology take control? I thought it strange too. Here are a couple of excerpts from the interview in question about the film and her feelings towards it’s subject matter:

CS: What first attracted you to the part of Evey Hammond?
Portman: I was really excited about the movie as a whole; just the prospect of making a really entertaining two-hour action movie that actually had substance in it. And for the character, I think that I've always been so interested by what would lead someone to commit violence. What would bring someone to the point where they thought that violence was a justifiable means to express their political beliefs and that was an exciting sort of mindset to try and understand.

So in her 20’s she still doesn’t understand why people resort to violence. Brilliant.

CS: What kinds of things did you do to prepare for this role?
Natalie Portman: Well, the graphic novel is an amazing place to start. It's such a great thing to have an almost storyboard of the movie and to have David's illustrations of what she goes through physically. It was an incredible place to start. And then obviously there are so many things you can refer to from history that have related storylines. There are many totalitarian regimes and those who rose against them to sort of draw from, you know documentaries on people who were in Nazi Germany or people who rose against the United States from inside during Vietnam. I read about someone from a Siberian prison. These things were very helpful.

Ah, there it is, she got a shot off at the good ol’ U.S. of A. way to tow the line. Sister Sarandon would be proud.

CS: Did you see this movie as pure fiction or do you see parallels to things going on in the world?
Portman: I think the luck of having it take place in an imaginary future is that it sort of respects the audience to make their own connections to real historical and current events. And so people see so many different things in it. Joel tells this story about this South Korean reporter who was convinced it was about North Korea and was like, "Is this movie going to be shown in North Korea?" So you see how people, what context they come from, they bring to the story.

Aha! Wait, we have a breakthrough here. Apparently some people ARE aware that there are regimes like the one in the movie in our world and understand how they came to power…but only because it comes from their ‘context’. So in another ‘context’ you could say that removing a terrorist dictator who tortured, raped, burned, gassed and generally cut a bloody path through Mesopotamia for four decades makes the U.S. a ‘totalitarian regime’. Nice cognitive leap.

CS: Have any of your own political opinions changed since making the movie?
Portman: I don't know about political (thinking), but my thinking about violence has definitely deepened. I guess the main thing I thought about was what it would take for me to become violent, and I thought, "to defend my family." You realize how that can be extended on such a large scale if you think your religion's your family, or that your whole country's your family, and if the threat you're perceiving is just perceived or if it's real, and how that can turn into wars, which is something that I think all of us have had the feeling of "Why can't they just talk it out"? (laughs) It's naïve certainly, but it's in imagining how violence starts that the whole thing starts. I don't know. There are questions that don't have answers, but that you can get more complicated understandings of, I guess.

*Gasp* Did she just learn something? Better yet, did she just begin to THINK instead of FEEL? It seems that Ms. Portman no longer looks around her at the violence of our world and assumes that people are just not talking about their problems enough. I do love how she recovers her commi-composure at the end by saying that the question of violence doesn’t really have an answer, so she’ll just dwell on the question a bit more. Bravo


CS: Do you think that some of the things in Evey's past made her rife for the transformation she goes through?
Portman: Absolutely, but I think she has an innate aversion to it because of what happened to her parents too. That's always a really interesting conflict, where people have to sort of think about what they would want to do to help make the world better. She obviously was in a position where her parents chose their political ideals over her in a way, and there is also always the argument that by doing nothing you're doing a sort of violence, too, because its conforming to the status quo and allowing that violence to occur. So she goes from one kind of violence to another.

Oh, my bad. Apparently I was wrong in thinking that she had a grasp on reality. I think she needs to take a long look at real violence and get a good idea of the vast difference between nothing and something. I understand what she’s trying to get at, and generically I agree that sometimes to do nothing about a problem makes you a part of that problem. I think her misguided ideas about the existence and place of violence in society are really the culprit here.


I won’t bore you with any more from the interview, the rest of the questions are softballs and have nothing to do with her misunderstanding of life. What I find shocking is that Ms. Portman, an Israeli born Jew with a king sized brain and unlimited education at her fingertips fails to grasp certain aspects of reality, such as violence in the Middle East and America’s part in it. This leads me to wonder if she knows the truth about these things or would even recognize the truth if it walked up and forced her to wear a burka.

As I’ve said before, people who have never had violence visited upon them often do not understand it. It is unfortunate that many must learn this lesson the hard way. It’s even more unfortunate that there are those among us who incapable of understanding conflict and therefore seek to undermine American efforts to create peace and security among the nations of the Earth. They are a festering cancer on the face of freedom and the only means by which we may expunge this cancer is TRUTH.

I sincerely hope that Ms. Portman learns more about this topic the easy way, and one day goes on to tell others. That’s really all that any of us can do.

The Good and the Bad...

Today, I'll share 2 stories from the aerospace world from today. At the risk of seeming self-centered, both have personal significance to me.

First the good: NASA's Mars Recon Orbiter safely settled into its initial braking orbit today, clearing what is essentially the last major technical hurdle of the trip out there. It will spend the next 6 months dipping into the Martian atmosphere periodoically to slow down and gradually decend into its final orbit. Much more elegant and cheaper than trying to fire rocket motors and get where you want to go in one massive swoop. In November it will start collecting many different types of data from orbit, helping pave the way for future robotic and human explorers. My tie in: I did a tiny, tiny bit of analysis on some of the trajectory schemes to be used on this one and other unmanned systems out there. Also did a very small bit of work on the propulsion stuff they're using with a different group way back when.

This is the point in the mission where the infamous didn't-convert-English-units-to-metric quag happened some years ago. We (the US) only got 2 out of the 4 orbiters & stationary landers there going into today. Initial data shows it's right where its supposed to be, so our "batting average" just got better. Hats off to the outstanding people at JPL that made this happen.

Now the not so good news: the F-14 Tomcat, known to most Americans as the "Top Gun plane", has now been officially decomissioned/retired from U.S. military service. Yeah yeah, I'm being overly dramatic. The last "trap" happened last month, and the planes from that squadron just got back to Virginia today. So ends an impressive career of one of the finest combat aircraft ever built. The main reason was not only it being outdated, but it is too expensive to maintain, requiring up to 60 man-hours of maintenance for every 1 hour the thing is in the air, compared to 10-15 maintenance hours for the new F-18 Super Hornets.

My connection: I was a fan of that airplane for as long as I can remember (yes, even before the movie), and the desire to fly it was a major factor in my drive to be a pilot in the U.S. Navy. Well, I got older, decided I wanted to fly for a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Dept. of the Navy, and the Tomcat kept flying. The Good Lord finally got the message through my stubborn, thick skull that I wasn't meant to wear Navy/USMC wings and I went in a different direction. And the Tomcat kept doing awesome work for our country. Now that she's going to enjoy a well-deserved retirement, I guess it feels like another reminder that the old goals of mine are indeed history. Not a nail in the coffin per se, just that things are the way they're meant to be and life goes on. It's a good thing.

For some reference, that airplane entered service one year before Captain Dave, his wife, myself and a good number of our friends were born. So congrats to the Kitten; ya done good! I'll post a photo of yours truly and my favorite Bird tomorrow.

Wrap Up....

Just a little wrap-up of a fine evening on the town with my bride.

Got home and dolled up for the evening, nothing too fancy, just nicer than I schlep into work every day. Drove down to Buckhead and jumped out at Emeril’s where our 8 o’clock reservation awaited our arrival.

I honestly didn’t know what to expect having never been to one of his restaurants before, but I usually have my defenses up when eating at a place where they put your napkin in your lap for you. Generally I find one really good thing at each, but there are always a few things that seem to be a little too much for me. But I have to say, Emeril’s didn’t disappoint.

We started with bread, I chose the wheat rolls, Whit had the corn muffins. Whit’s were a little dry while mine were some of the best rolls I’d ever tasted. Then the surprise of the evening.

Ok, let me step back and give this surprise the proper setup. I was born here in Georgia, and aside from brief stints on the Gulf Coast and Alaska, I’ve lived here all my life. In that time I’ve learned that there are a few things about this state you can count on.

One: If you’re traveling within the Atlanta City limits and are going more than 5 miles to your destination, you will encounter two things every time; construction and a road with the word “peachtree” in it.

Two: Even though we are stuck firmly behind confederate battle lines down here you will not find sweet iced tea at any restaurant where they put your napkin in your lap for you. When you ask for it you will get the obligatory sneer along with the well rehearsed ‘we have unsweetened and table sugar’. Now, the practiced southern diner will have one of two reactions to this:

One:They will give a light chuckle, wave away the server and reply ‘just bring me a coke then’.

Or

Two:They will raise all hell in front of many strangers and lecture the poor server as to why their restaurant should be serving sweet iced tea, most obviously because of the fact they we are, in fact, well below the Mason-Dixon line and therefore in the land of all things southern.

Well, I’m happy to announce that I did not encounter this problem last night, because Emeril was good enough to do his homework on Atlanta. They not only had sweet tea, but wonderful sweet tea at that. I suppose I shouldn’t be all that surprised since Emeril cut his teeth in New Orleans, but you’d be surprised where you won’t find sweet tea in Georgia. Example: Whit and I wanted to have our rehearsal dinner at a restaurant called the 57th Fighter Squadron. As you may have guessed, it is housed in the old base of the 57th FS at Dekalb-Peachtree airport. We took my parents (the founders of the feast as it were) to eat there so they could sign off on it. When my father asked the server for sweet tea she politely repeated the above speech about unsweet tea and waited for the old man to order a coke.

What happened next is legend. Not because it happened, but because to this day it’s the only time it’s ever happened. My father looked at the server, looked at the catering/banquet manager who just happened to be standing there with us at the table, and said “If you want us to use your restaurant for this dinner you WILL have sweet tea….and lots of it. The poor server looked bewilderedly at the catering manager who smiled sweetly and said “of course”.

Booyah.

The rest of the meal at Emeril’s was great, good steak, good desert which included an item I’d love to learn how to make, since each attempt is guaranteed to get me hammered: Chocolate Jack Danial’s Ice Cream.

After Emeril’s it was back home for good champagne, good cigars, and a little TV watching before sleepy time.


So here’s to Emeril Lagasse. A New York boy done good who knows his art and cares enough about his customers to give them what they really want.

Good food

Good service

And really good sweet tea.

Anniversary

I’ll take a moment in between my rant style posts to recognize Whitney’s great accomplishment today.

As of 18:30 this evening she has been married to yours truly for four years. Though I can’t attest to her eyesight or taste in men, I can speak to her patience.

Thank you for hanging on for four years. It’s been wonderful.

If you do five I’ll make a few calls to the Vatican and see about getting you canonized…

Also I’d like to thank all the well wishers for the myriad e-cards and emails, Whit and I love you all and will toast your health this evening at Emeril’s.

At the Movies...

Excuse me, could you hold this while I step onto the bandwagon?

It’s been chattered about for a couple of years now here and there, and I personally am hearing more about it day in and day out, so here goes.

Movies. Getting worse?

I’ll start by saying that from an early age I have been completely addicted to good cinema. It was a natural progression from my love of books and stories in general. I can remember watching certain movies over and over until my parents would take them from me and force me to actually play outside for an hour. (Every minute of which I would pretend I was in the movie).

As I got older my love of movies led me to work at the local theater, a brand new 10 screen with state of the art everything (at the time). I started taking tickets but soon (along with AeroSarge) moved upstairs to run the projectors. By the time we graduated, the Sarge and I had pulled every one of the projectors apart to fix something or another and had probably saved the theater about $10,000 in repair costs. It was a great job because it allowed you to preview movies weeks before they hit the screen.

P.S. – Ask AeroSarge what happens when you ground out a 5/16 wrench on the 8000 volt rectifier….

Anyway, the widespread tussle lately has been over how bloody awful the Hollywood movie machine has become. I like to think of myself as open minded when it comes to movies, though Whit might have something to say about that, but still I tend to like things that make movie critics soil their depends. When in the right mood I’m fairly easy to entertain and therefore watch and enjoy things that many people wouldn’t dare line their bird cages with.

That being said; lately I’ve just been disappointed with Hollywood’s offerings. When Whit and I first started dating up until we’d been married for a couple of years we watched one or two movies a week in the theater. Now it seems that we make it at Most once a month if that. I’ve never stopped loving good stories. In fact, I read three times as many books as I watch movies. So if I haven’t changed fundamentally, then something else must have…

It would seem that Hollywood is falling into a trap set by those it seeks to illuminate…Pimps. The so called ‘artists’ who create the celluloid dreams on which we all should base our opinions and *cough* politics, are taking good ideas (well, some of them at least), dolling them up in too much makeup, and sending them off to indoctrination camp with the ‘elite’ actors of our time. During this metamorphosis, a once ingenious idea starts to take on extra baggage. This baggage comes in the form of social commentary, liberal ideology, and blatant pandering to a clutch of small minded individuals. By the time the movie makes it out of ‘finishing school’ it has left all semblance of entertainment behind and is now a full fledged whore for the politic.

Then the press conferences start, the actors mug for cameras and extol the virtues of the characters, how they raised their voice against injustice, broke the mold, and gave the finger to rich, white America. Then the stars of the film will feign interest in a charity or two that sounds close enough to the film’s “cause” and call it a day.

Now, lately this process seems to come full circle back to the news media with this question: “Why do you think the movie did as poorly as it did in the box office?” To which the actors and director puff themselves up with all the dignity that playing make believe for a living can offer and say something about how backwards most of the country is and how people just don’t understand what the movie is trying to say or, of course, it’s George Bush’s fault.

This last bit is something I find a bit more entertaining than the movies themselves. So here we are, a country whose entertainment machine is running dry because, like the government its chosen politic so dearly wants to enlarge, it knows better than we do what is best for us. The question stands, what will we all do while we’re not seeing movies? Will we read? Will we learn? Will we look around us at all that has been happening in our world for decades while we drooled in front of a movie screen? Doubtful. But at least the left coast movie barons will be forced to rethink their methods and learn to be a bit more tactful about their propaganda.

I think Ann Coulter has a great take on the Oscar scene this past week; check it out here.

Cheers,


Captain

**Warning**, ignorant media jackels ahead...

So earlier today I posted a link to a series of links to a story with which some people are trying to invent news they hope will prey on the gloom-n-doom fears about launching human beings into space. Yup, you guessed it: My dander is up yet again!!!

If you haven't, at least peruse the 4 links to aquiant yourself with the subject matter, namely the initial acceptance testing of the next shuttle flight's External Tank (ET). Apparently, during one of the last tests at the facility where they are made, one of the sensors that postponed last summer Return to Flight launch had an errant reading. These ECO sensors essentially act like part of the fuel gage in your car. When they indicate the fuel tank is empty (or very near it), they send a signal to a computer. In your car, it turns on a little light and sometimes makes a dinging noise. In the Shuttle, it says that its time to shut down the Main Engines if they are still running. The are necessary for safety in case the engines use too much fuel and the shuttle runs out of gas early (which could cause the engines to go bang). Or if the sensors tell the shuttle to turn the engines off too early, they may not be able to get to the orbit they want to (for the next mission that would mean not making it to the Space Station which is the whole point of this next trip).

So we've established they're necessary. When NASA couldn't nail down the problem last summer, they switched out the entire ET for another one and had a good launch. Cool. What blows my mind is that even though the tank hasn't been at the launch center for very long, people have already posted news updates about how there is a bad sensor and they are going to have to take the tank apart to fix or replace it and it's going to mess with the planned launch schedule. You can read more from the articles if you like; that's the gist.

Okay, Aviation Week & Space Technology is a well-respected publication and seems to give this story the right amount of attention, which is not very much at this point. They go on to describe some other concerns that the shuttle managers are trying to address right now that are a little more critical. Great; unbiased, factual reporting using facts gathered from interviewees with names.

The other 3 stories? Are you serious?!?!?! Granted, one of them is a blog from a newspaper writer in Orlando, but the other two are "news outlets". The one that surprises me is the MSNBC story. This putz, who according to the little bio at the bottom of the page spent over 2 decades AT NASA, is using a BRITISH BLOG AS HIS SOURCE OF INFORMATION!!!! Read here:
On Tuesday morning, the independent British-based NASASpaceFlight.com Weblog quoted sources as saying that there was a "99 percent chance" that the sensors would need replacing, and that the operation would set back the launch until July at the earliest.

WTF!? Does this guy not have a former co-worker or at least a name to call and get info? Maybe it's better he's not still at NASA (speaking of his little bio, I have no idea what an "Orbital Designer" is). Plus, he uses the WRONG EXPLANATION OF THE ACRONYM!!! Shouldn't NBC's "expert" know these things? And SHAME on him for his little statement at the bottom about how a source (unnamed of course) told him that there have been an increase in accidents lately due to overworked employees. Hmmmmm. They stacked the Solid Boosters some time ago, the ET got there last week and it's been so bad that people are working quadruple shifts. Sorry pal, I'm not buying in that easy. But it was a nice way to lay yourself an "I-told-you-so" foundation if something, God forbid, happens on this next flight.

Now these sensors may be bad and have to be replaced. And the launch might push until July. But am I the only one who detects a large amount of pre-mature naysaying and alarmist approaches? The shuttle folks are quite upfront that this is very premature. If there is indeed a problem, they will fix it. No need to put the cart before the horse for the sake of a news story. But wow, if someone with an anonymous source in a foreign country that hasn't exactly wowed anyone in space says there is a problem, then stop the presses!!! Might as well cancel the May launch date because of it.

Incidentally, there are 4 of these sensors. The original launch criteria stated only 3 of the 4 needed to be operating to be within launch limits. They changed it to all 4 during the post-Challenger safety melee. Which is fine; requirements can and should be updated as we learn. The fact still remains though: the shuttle is the most complicated machine ever built. The ET may be essentially a gas tank, though it is a gas tank with a 1/2 million parts. And one of those parts gave a goofy reading during a test. Yes, things break. No, you will never launch with everything working perfectly (that's why there are 4 sensors in the first place). I think the media would do well to cut the agency a little slack. These people go to work every single day paranoid of making a good old fashioned mistake.

I also find it entertaining that only one news source really quantified the problem. One of them stated that it was "out of phase" and "off by 2". 2 what? 2 phases? 2 radians? 2 gallons? 2 miles? 2 widgets? Hell, a simple "it does not work" or "it's broke" or "it didn't act right" would be fine. By the way, one source (in an effort to overload the readership with technical jargon) did say 2 ohms. Although it didn't mention what were the acceptable limits (or what constitutes off-nominal if you like the big words).

I'll wrap it up echoing something our Captain hit squarely between the eyes in a comment to my Grrrr earlier. This not-yet-an-issue thing with the ECO stuff is a good way of seeing the "experts" don't necessarily know what they're talking about. Now they are news folks and NASA has done some pretty underhanded things in the past to keep things quiet, so their professional news "guts" are telling them to dig. Great. Just do yourself a favor and do a little research before you open your damn mouth and embarrass both you and your organization. One of the few ways I found comfort in the days following the Columbia break-up was laughing at the "experts" on the news. I left my job at NASA the day after Columbia launched, so I still felt involved 13 days later. A lot of fellow residents of America's Rocket City and I were amused at the experts on national news channels & shows (it was weirdly comforting to walk into any bar that evening and see the same look on everyone's face. I'm sure I had it too). These morons talking about how Columbia was on its way back from the Moon or that it had just left the Space Station (it couldn't go to either of those places; the average shuttle orbital altitude is about 1/1000th the distance to the Moon) on national TV were somehow funny. The sad part is that's where people "learn" about the nation's space efforts. Most folks don't know such things and now they apparently have nowhere reliable to look. Rest assured, I'll be laughing at them as May (or July) approaches. If you hear something that sounds stupid and/or ridiculous, it probably is so feel free to laugh yourself silly.

Deep dark thoughts...

Since the news bores me today here’s a nice fluff piece.

*Warning: This is philosophy, it may bore you to tears*

Today I want to talk about virtue. I had first thought about talking about people I found to be virtuous, but that merely misdirects my fundamental thoughts on the matter, so I’ll stick with the intangible. Our society, to put it kindly, has lost sight of true virtue and sought to replace the intangible with the tangible. In much the same way as moral relativism has rendered morality less of a narrow path and more of a “connect the dots until you get where you’re going’ ideal, true virtue has faded from our vision, replaced by money, things, and the feverish pursuit of MORE.

The lessons from fairy tales have faded into obscurity along with the idea of true black and white, right and wrong. It is no longer important to be thought of as brave, strong, wise, patient, truthful, merciful, or kind. These ‘outdated’ virtues have been replaced by much more interesting and shiny monikers like ‘rich, powerful, stylish, and my personal favorite: ‘In’.

Think about what it means to be any of these things from either list. Which of these would you consider yourself to be? Which of these do you think about during your daily routine? Do you wake up and think “Today I will focus on being patient” or “I think I’ll really be brave today”. Most of us don’t unless forced to. If you have an annoying co-worker and are forced to exercise patience, will you do so in honor of being a good person or because lashing out at this person would only cause you trouble with your boss?

To contrast this point, have you ever woken in the morning and thought, ‘I need to strike it rich so I won’t have to work any more’. Or “I’m going to wear my new suit to work today and people are going to complement me on how nice it is”. I know it’s a natural thing to want complements and feel appreciated, even if it is only for your taste in clothing. Everyone is guilty of that now and then.

I guess this all comes from my sometimes overzealous introspection. Most often it’s when I’ve come to a place where I’ve met a goal of sorts. Even if it’s just buying something that I’ve been wanting to buy for a long time, or completing a task I’ve been working on or have been thinking about working on. In that quiet moment where I want no more, there’s a chance to look at where I’m at, who I am, and whether or not what I’ve accomplished made me better, or just brought me another thing. It’s a simple question to ask: “Am I a better person in some way for having accomplished what I have?”

Sadly enough there are many times when I find that what I have just done is fed a want, and am empty for it.

Here’s a fun experiment: Try finding a room in your house/apartment/trailer (wherever you live) that has very little in it. Empty that room of all you can, preferably leaving only the carpet and the paint. Now, sit in the middle of that room in silence. No TV, no radio, no Ipod, no animals. Just sit there and close your eyes and listen. Most of us will sit there for about 20 seconds and then begin to feel uncomfortable. You’ll want to open your eyes, or tap your feet, or make some sort of noise to fill the vacuum.

We’re so surrounded by distraction in our lives that any true substance is drowned out of our consciousness. True silence makes us uneasy, like something is missing. Once you become comfortable with silence and yourself in that silence, you will begin to see through the veil. Of course you might be frightened by what you find there, but the first step to improvement is awareness.

Back to my original point, do you know of anyone who displays a virtue that you feel you’re lacking?

I can name plenty: Kids in the cancer ward at Scottish Rite/Egleston children’s hospital here in Atlanta go to sleep and wake up fighting for their lives. Through it all they smile, laugh, and endure pain I can’t even imagine. They show a bravery unlike any I’ve ever shown.

Soldiers in our Armed Forces show a selflessness that I’ve never known. They are Americans and are entitled to all of the things I take advantage of every day. A home with a warm bed where I wake up to my spouse, my cats, my dog, and the breakfast of my choice. A drive to work that doesn’t include an armored vehicle, clothes of my choice… the list goes on. Instead they have all volunteered to wake up half way around the world in a place where death surrounds them, comfort is sparse and survival isn’t guaranteed. For any of you who haven’t seen a military paycheck, let me assure you that they aren’t there for the money.

My mother showed the patience of a saint in raising me. I see people every day with young boys and think to myself “I’d go crazy dealing with that day in and day out”.

This isn’t meant to be a beat yourself up post. It’s meant to bring to light the things we can do to be better than we are. Just stand back every once in a while and ask yourself whether you are part of the noise or part of the silence. You’ll more readily find the truth in the silence.

But remember, the truth hurts.

Grrrrrrrrrrrr........

Not that Captain Dave's post below about the ignorant media needed further support, though here is a small example that is making me grumble. If you have the time, read the 3 articles linked from this page for a little background and see what is currently being reported. I'm sure as May and/or July gets closer you'll see such stories being parroted loudly from the media at large. I'll be putting in my 2 cents later this evening.

Okay you people...

...time to listen up. I've been putting off a certain rant for a while & since my time has been in shorter supply than usual as of late, I feel compelled to sound off on a topic that bugs me periodically. Namely the obsession and borderline worship of celebrities in this country.

Okay, before you get turned off let me clarify: I think it's perfectly normal and actually healthy to enjoy being entertained by your favorite singer, actor, whoever. Everybody has their own tastes and hence favorite people to watch/listen to. I certainly have mine. What I'm referring to is the apparent promotion of any "news-worthy" entertainer to nothing short of demigod status.

What pisses me off? The lack of understanding of how a rational human being can yearn to follow the every move of what amounts to a total stranger. Go to any news site online and you are guaranteed to see an "Entertainment" section. Nothing wrong with that, though one would hope to find info on reviews, descriptions, etc. That stuff is there, but to find any USABLE info you have to sift through countless, pointless articles about who was seen sucking face in the back of some trendy club with some other celebrity. Or who was seen at a resort with someone else's spouse. Or was pulled over for driving drunk or arrested for drugs. But I digress.

Really people, is your life really that much better knowing what kind of shoes someone wore to their own friggin' movie premiere? Do you REALLY sleep better at night knowing that person X has a new boyfriend after being left by Person Y and they won't sleep alone? The worst part of it is that are many of the stories are not only absurd, they state the obvious OR encourage excuses for someone else's behavior. Take a random story from today on Yahoo. Is Macaulay Culkin REALLY having a mid-life crisis at 25? Or is he maybe realizing he has NO JOB SKILLS in his "chosen" profession?!?! That message should have been clearly received when his cute little kid shtick quit working for him around the time he was old enough to friggin' vote!!! Hey guy, you can't act. Suck it up and move on.

I could crash this server with stories and recaps about celebrity couples breaking up, getting back together, breaking up again, and who they're with now. Or any other tabloid fodder. You've all seen it and hopefully understand what I'm talking about. Steering back on topic, what in the hell is the big deal?

Granted, we (the ignorant masses) feed this publicity machine, giving attention to people who make a living by getting attention. Am I jaded that actors get millions of dollars to play "make believe"? Nope, that's how a free market economy works. They found a way to make money doing something more or less not difficult they enjoy, so for that more power to them. Where, though, is the line in the sand that separates obsession and passing interest?

I don't think there's an easy answer. Maybe some people enjoy the gossip, maybe there are a few other sadists out there that enjoy seeing sometimes pampered, spoiled grown-up brats fall flat on their ass and suffer from a breakup or having their work ripped apart by critics and their "loyal, adoring public". Yes, life is pain. And no one is immune. I don't buy the argument that seeing someone famous go through hard times somehow "humanizes" them and make them seem more like regular folk. Regular folk don't get to sulk for a few days and when they've had enough of that move on or take a vacation to an exotic resort to escape. John or Jane Public still have to go to their job every day and work out their problems on their own. For the stars that really hit rock bottom it's rarely anything but their own damn fault.

With the Oscars a few nights ago, there is still tons of what happened/who said what/post show analysis of the winners (I would wager for some this isn't too far from worshipping that Golden Calf). Is the award show itself a problem? No. They deserve to be recognized for good work like everyone else. What puzzles me is that there is more after-the-fact reporting than after the Super Bowl. Or any real world events. I think you could go to any random website and print out all the Oscar pics, you could watch the whole show as a flip-book.

So what was my point? The only reason there is this much info out there is due to public interest. If escapism is what you need, watch a movie. My MAIN thing is that if people focused more of their attention on dealing with their own problems, obligations and whatnot they would probably not NEED to know who Movie Star Z is sleeping with this week. Let's make it easy: most of them get drunk, many get high and many more have sex with anything with a pulse. I know generalities are bad but it supports the point. Plus, they seem to always have an excuse for everything they do. Worse yet, the are generally forgiven in the court of public opinion. What kind of message does that send? "That's okay, the big bad World won't hurt you since nothing is your fault. They're out to get you". Bullshit. That ideology is called "Fiction".

Let the famous do their own thing. WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN ASS FOR A CHANGE. Gossip is just as bad as an adult as it was in junior high. Why spread it? To feel better about yourself? I hate to ramble on this, but this country is becoming weaker and weaker because the people in it are becoming equally weaker and softer. Wasn't it Elanor Roosevelt that said something to the effect of those with weaker minds talk about people (I really wish I had that quote handy...)?

This is not a new phenomenon; even through the Middle Ages people were awestruck by "celebrities", who also filled the roles of politicians and sports stars (kings really had it made, didn't they?). And if more of the unwashed masses could read I'm sure some enterprising serf would have chisled out the Renaissance Enquirer.

I guess it blows my mind how enthralled some people can be with another human being simply because they are widely know. I can speak from experience; my dear sister gets far too many entertainment magazines than any one individual should. Call me a killjoy, but perhaps that money might be better spent on "needs". And the amount of attention/brain power exerted by people could certainly be put to better use. But I guess it's easier to imagine what it would be like to be famous rather than build a better life for themselves. That must be that thing called "Responsibility" that is rapidly vanishing from the American landscape.