liberty · equality · eternity

Film lobotomist Jack Valenti, died last week. Recently I saw “This Film Not Yet Rated.” I wouldn’t rate it great, but the parts about Valenti and his MPAA ratings are enlightening.

Speaking of censorship, Russell Simmons, mogul and co-founder of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, was on “The O’Reilly Factor” last week. Simmons said that the “N-word,” “bitch” and “ho” should be excluded from the “Clean” Rap versions, those played on the radio and purchased by pussies.

It’s not language, it’s the message of Rap lyrics that are offensive, promoting negative stereotypes and ignorance of music. I have no problem with entertainment companies refusing to market junk. So long as Rap makes money, the companies will have a problem with good taste.

iTunes concept of censorship is amazing. Julie Andrews sings a song listed as “A C**k-Eyed Optimist.” That’s written by those gangsta fiends, Dick Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein. And by the way, “cockeyed” is not hyphenated. How would iTunes list The Mighty Sparrow’s song about roosters, “More Cock,” inofensively?

Scared to be wild
In the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan writes how scary it is for children these days. Admittedly, Rosie O’Donnell grabbing her crotch is frightening. Baby boomers only needed to fear a nuclear war. “Apart from that, apart from that one huge thing, life didn’t seem menacing and full of dread,” she noted. In the nineteen- fifties and sixties, the thought of the whole world being destroyed seemed pretty damned scary, or was I being childish?

Speaking of scary stuff, I drove on I-580 in Oakland on Saturday evening. Several hours later, around 3:45 AM, a tanker transporting 8,600 gallons of gasoline blew up and burned after crashing into a pylon. It melted an overpass. Luckily, no one was killed, but East Bayers with San Francisco jobs are screwed.

It may take months to repair, making this the worst Bay Area commuting disruption since the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom said this incident reveals the fragility of Bay Area transportation. Speaking at the California Democratic Party convention in San Diego, he called it “another giant wakeup call.” He did not predict how many giant wakeup calls would be needed for the Democrats who control California’s government to take precautions. Talk about scary!

Is any book really non-fiction? Search me!

Books can be educational and boring. Do As I Say (Not As I Do) is breezy and amusing. Peter Schweizer is serious, but you’ll smother yourself laughing at some of these pillows of virtue.

Some hypocrisy is forgiveable. Let those who have never belied their words with actions schedule the first stoning. But those on the political right seem to be held more accountable. Rush Limbaugh is no hero, but his taking Viagra is none of my business. Frankly, I’d prefer ignorance.

Liberals get a pass from environmentalists, feminist groups and the media far too often. Remember Clarence Thomas v. Anita Hill? She claimed his sexual innuendo bothered her at the time. So what? Several years later, President Bill Clinton’s numerous peccadillos were excused by those normally indignant about such things. When caught lying about Monica Lewinsky, he still got a pass from women’s groups. (Clinton may not have committed the most heinous act but, unlike Thomas, he touched the women.) Everyone makes mistakes, especially where sex is involved. Anyone can get drunk, dress in drag or drown his date.

What infuriates me is someone living one way, while trying to coerce everyone else to live antithetically. If Norm Chomsky is anti-capitalist, urging higher estate taxes and greater income redistribution, he shouldn’t maintain a trust fund designed to avoid the laws he advocates. His response that, “I don’t apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren,” is ludicrous. He should apologise for expecting that others not do the same. Turns out that many famed fans of appropriating inheritance and wealth exclude themselves from such inconvenient limitations through trust funds.

We know all about moral rightists, who opppose drugs, sex and freedom for others. If you are expecting me to defend bogus “conservatives,” you’ve Googled the wrong Blog. Hypocritical lefties are exposed far less often. This book balances the scales, demonstrating yet again why politicians and do-gooders should have less, not more, control over our lives.

The author exposes the lives of eleven “Liberals.”

Take George Soros, Bill O’Reilly’s favourite villain. Soros, one of world’s richest men, gives generously to liberal causes, candidates and web sites, like MoveOn.org. “Soros’s moral stature on the left comes from the fact that he made money as a capitalist and has now seemingly converted to the leftist cause,” writes Schweizer. While making pronouncements about putting “the common interest ahead of our individual self-interest,” Soros speculates in currencies, a business that adds no value to the economy and profits off the misery of others. Although some of his activities appear to be illegal, his businesses are established offshore, exempting them from Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules, allowing them to operate in secret. The latter, despite his public pleas for more openness in business. Soros calls himself “the classic limousine liberal,” telling TV’s 60 Minutes, “I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.” His trusts bypass the gift and estate taxes he publicly lauds, apparently just not for him.

Then there’s Ted Kennedy, a liberal version of Strom Thurmond. Another advocate of the rich paying high taxes to aid the poor, Kennedy collects his money from a trust his father set up in Fiji as a tax dodge. Senators aren’t subject to many of the laws they write subjugating others, but they do pay taxes, or would if they didn’t evade them with offshore tax shelters.

But Kennedy’s pro-environment, right? He claims to be. Only the Kennedy family own mineral rights (including oil) in several states, earning them over $1,000,000 a year. Remember that next time Teddy complains about greedy oil men, or calls Bush an “oil” president. Ted is one of many anti-gun voices carrying his own well-armed bodyguards. And despite his oil profits and efforts to foil environmental projects that might inconvenience him, Kennedy once told an opponent, “You have to pay more than lip service to the environment.” That is, unless you are a “Kennedy.”

Nancy Pelosi’s chapter is a revelation. This champion of the poor is one of the wealthiest members of Congress, who used her rich connections to become a successful fundraiser for the Burton Political Machine in California. In fact, she inherited her Congressional seat from Sala Burton, who had inherited it from her husband, Phil. And you thought America had no imperial succession. How else could we get royally screwed? Pelosi ignores environmental regulations and the poor in her real estate dealings. Her vineyards use non-union labourors to pick grapes, despite her public support for the UFW. Her hotel and restaurant have no union workers, either. The unions forgive her because she supports them politically, so long as her interests aren’t involved. Reading about progressive poseur Pelosi is worth the price of the book.

Michael Moore is another capitalist in liberal garb, dressing shabbily in public, living luxuriously in private. He advocates a “very strong affirmative action policy regarding gender and race.” Yet, in several projects where Moore did the hiring, Schweizer computed 134 producers, editors, cinematographers and so on, of whom three were Black, although one white producer majored in African-American Studies. Moore proudly proclaims that he does not invest in the Stock Market out of moral principle. His investment portfolio, which he denies owning, has included shares in Pfizer, Merck, Sunoco, Noble Energy, Williams Companies, General Electric, Ford, McDonald’s, Honeywell, Boeing, even Halliburton. Nothing wrong with profiting from the Stock Market, just lying about it.

Read this book to learn about the aforementioned hypocrites, not to mention Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, Barbra Steisand and others. Remember, most of us are hypocritical sometimes, we just don’t set ourselves up as moral authorities forcing others to do what we refuse to do ourselves. The media ignore glaring discrepancies between what liberals say they believe and what their actions reveal. These inconsistencies seem more newsworthy than Anna Nicole Smith or whatever irrelevance they are peddling today.

The media do not cover the real Liberals, they provide cover. Peter Schweizer’s book pulls back the covers.

Nothing like reading a book so awful it’s funny.

The Brainless jacket resembles that of Godless by Ann Coulter. How flattering!

I wasn’t sure what to expect, until the second page checklist:
□Black
□Hispanic
□Asian
□a Democrat
□Jewish
□Muslim
□Gay/Lesbian
□Open to Learning Something
My first encounter with reader profiling. “If you meet one or more of the preceding criteria, read on,” writes Joe Maguire. Maybe I enjoy being irritated. Maybe I resent being pigeonholed.

Brainless is no good-natured parody, it’s an assault on Ann Coulter. Not a very effective one, either. The book’s target is perfectly capable of defending herself, but who will protect its readers from this drivel?

Acknowledging her writing talents, Maguire overlooks the essence of her zingers against political correctness (PC). She mentions a gay group’s complaint about a senator quoting the new testament, “You shall know them by their fruits.” [The gays pretend to misunderstand the meaning of fruits.] Coulter writes, “All I can say to that is: how niggardly of them.” Maguire points out correctly that niggardly is misused, then makes the same point Coulter is satirising: “Niggardly” sounds like the N-word, so you shouldn’t use it, according to the author, “but the sum of Ann’s sniggering is unquestionably discriminatory.” Come again? “Sniggering” not only sounds similar, it contains the N-word. Maguire should exile himself for using that mis-interpretable noun.

From that confusion, Maguire concludes, “Rather than admit she doesn’t understand black people, Ann reverts to broadsides about their culture.” A Godless highlight is Ann’s statement that “various weeds and vermin liberals are always trying to save are no more distinguishable than individual styles of rap music.” Maguire asks why she didn’t say “no more distinguishable than individual styles of multigrain bread at the Whole Foods market?” Maybe because breads look and taste different. Coulter errs in that Rap is not music, Maguire in the assumption that all Blacks must be Rap aficionados.

Then there’s money. Like Michael Moore, pretending to be of the masses while living in luxury, Coulter has become wealthy. Except she never pretends to be one of the little people, as Maguire does with his phony folksiness. [e.g. "Even carrying forty-nine states ain't gonna get you there."] Ann knows how to promote herself and satisfy readers, or they wouldn’t buy more than one of her books, even at wholesale prices.

Joe Maguire evaluates her looks as well as her books. She’s an author, not a model. She may be a huckster, as Maguire claims, but Ann is entertaining, more attractive and at least as likely as Al Franken to say something credible.

Maguire laments her “attacks against women.” Coulter does not oppose women; she’d prefer having men work, while women stay home eating chocolates and watching their stories or shopping for trinkets. As a woman, she’s as entitled to her opinion as Maguire. Plus, opposing the ERA is not the same as denying women equal rights. Surely women have the right to oppose the Equal Rights Amendment. He observes that Geena Davis can’t even keep her job as a fictional US president. Cute. Too bad it take 69 pages to reach that mildly amusing tidbit, which is more than offset by many self-proclaimed puns that miss.

There is rhetoric and lots of it. “Ann is so militantly antichoice it’s a wonder she hasn’t yet advocated the bombing of Planned Parenthood clinics.” Of course, Maguire chooses the word “choice” because he is pro-abortion, at least partially. Many Americans are anti-abortion. It’s a fact. As far as Roe v. Wade, there is nothing in the Constitution about abortion.

In his “Ann on Sex” chapter, Maguire follows commentators (of all genders) down the detestable road of describing her sex life, as he imagines it. Sexual conduct rarely comes up in studies of male authors.

Coulter has been “romantically linked to” Bill Maher and Bob Guccione Jr, according to – Joe’s not sure, gossip? Bill Maher said that he hung out with Coulter, as friends. Or can’t a man and woman be just friends? Maguire says Bill is “often mislabeled as a liberal. In fact, Maher describes himself as a libertarian.” Suddenly, he’s taking people at their word? It requires little investigation to conclude that Maher is no libertarian. Not that his politics are relevant, even had he dated Coulter.

Then the author suggests Ann has other personal problems, aside from being romantically linked to Bill Maher. Seems “…countless websites speculate that Ann, herself, suffers from some form of eating disorder.” As I must observe, “countless” means either he was too lazy to count or found so few, he decided “countless” was more impressive. Of course, when a web site speculates, you can be sure there is no evidence at all. Web sites make up shit all the time.

Ann keeps her sex life private, which leads to the revelation that she makes a joke instead of answering “none of your business.” Maguire says her jokes offer “very little insight at all.” If Maguire needs to know, he should reveal his sex secrets first.

The book’s low point is a disturbing anecdote about an actor being asked if he would rather sleep with Ann or Dianne Feinstein. Yes, former San Francisco Mayor, current California Senator and embodiment of evil Dianne Feinstein. I can forgive Joe for whining about everything Coulter says, writes or performs in his dreams. I cannot forgive him for planting that image in my brain. Even Feinstein’s billionaire spouse avoids that fantasy.

Some of Maguire’s complaints border on the paranoid. When Coulter sites a Fox News poll, his retort is “the results are from respondents to a Fox News poll!” As if a Fox poll is less trustworthy than any other, just because you stick an exclamation point at the end of your statement.

Maguire spews on and on. Ann “has been accused of plagiarism.” Is being accused of something a crime? For someone boasting that his book is all fact, some proof might be helpful.

Not:
In defending her “controversial” comments about the 11/9/01 widows, Coulter is not the first to suggest they get a free pass. Dorothy Rabinowitz made the same point, less stridently, two years previously. “Ann’s admission of this is pretty ironic given the current focus on her alleged pilfering of prose. It lends a certain validity to the allegation that Ann not only pinches actual passages from other sources but also that many of her ideas are borrowed.”

Such convoluted reasoning could have originated with a disbarred lawyer, like Bill Clinton. Stating that someone else made the same point before is not an admission. You admit to wrongdoing which, of course, Maguire links to her alleged plagiarism. Plagiarism is easily proven. Were there proof, innuendo would be unnecessary. If borrowing ideas is bad, we are all in trouble. Ideas are original once. Is the Declaration of Independence bad because it incorporates other writers’s ideas or because it promotes freedom? Is Brainless bad because it repeats lame arguments from web sites and television? Poor example.

Maguire omits nothing irrelevant, including jobs where Ann got fired. Joe was fired from Reuters. Although his book ignores his employment difficulties, the jacket mentions that he has worked for “several news agencies, including The Wall Street Journal online edition and Bloomberg News.” Maybe Reuters wasn’t prestigious enough.

Is Ann provocative? Sure. While I enjoy Coulter’s writing, it isn’t for everyone, certainly not for Joe Maguire. Then again, anyone titling his book “Brainless” is asking for it. Especially when he does everything he accuses Coulter of doing. Maguire demonstrates to his satisfaction that she is contradicting herself, then disagrees with both sides. He quotes Al Franken saying that endnotes are harder to reference than footnotes, which may be true. Maguire use endnotes. He accuses Ann of being mean, yet his book is more vituperative than anything I’ve read in years.

She’s mean to women, charges the sexist. “She can turn a phrase with the best of them, and, perhaps most importantly, knows how to cover her rear end – legally speaking, anyway.”

His web site boasts, “Let’s face it. You don’t ever want to read a book by Ann Coulter. Read this book so you don’t have to!”

I do not pilfer my opinions. If Ann Coulter wrote such misleading trash, reading something of hers would be more convincing than Brainless, which is like judging a CD from a review. It’s not the same thing as listening.

I read one of Coulter’s books, Godless, and listened to How To Talk To a Liberal. I enjoyed them, something I cannot say for this fatuous waste of paper. At least it is mercifully brief, with a pleasing font. Coulter’s books are fun and challenging, Brainless is brainless.

L·I·N·K·S

• Nancy weighs in
• more reviews
• Firing Squad
• gt’s Godless review

Another American massacre gets trumpeted by the media as the “Worst” yet. They air the madman’s video, instead of ceremonially burning it unseen. Few will remember the victims’s names, but the perpetrator is famous. Well, infamous. And those are a lot of names to remember.

Regarding the impulse to pass more laws intended to prevent future occurrences, I decided to wait before pointing out the obvious, but the wonderful Ann Coulter did such a fine job, I’ll defer to her on this issue.

Give us the right to defend ourselves. Oh, that’s right, we already have it.

There was an unfortunate incident at a Virginia college Monday. I wrote nothing knowing that everyone and her uncle would have something to say, concluding with, “So you see, I was right.” [We should have banned guns, legalised guns, banned fraternities, forgiven Mel Gibson, and so on.]

However, even I, gt, was surprised when reading this morning’s paper:
Attorney General Gonzales and other aides flew in to aid investigators. The Senate put off to Thursday questioning of Gonzales in the US Attorney flap.

Let me check that, I thought.
Attorney General Gonzales and other aides flew in to aid investigators.
No, that’s what it said.

Since when does the US Attorney General assist investigators, except when they are investigating him? And then, not so much. Let the police and FBI do their jobs, Mr Attorney General. They don’t appoint US attorneys for your office, don’t mess with their duties.

It’s as if Bertie heard about the tragedy and thought, this will be a great excuse to postpone that Congressional hearing. If I were on the Judiciary Committee (unlikely, since I’m not a big enough weasel), that would be my first question. “What could you do to help anyone?” Mr Attorney General.

Upon further research, Fox News reported that committee Chairman Pat Leahy postponed the hearing, calling it inappropriate because of the shootings. A Justice spokeswoman said Gonzales “is anxious to testify” but would defer to Leahy to reschedule the hearing “out of respect for the family members impacted by this horrific tragedy.”

I’d like to think only American politicians could come up with such an idiotic link between totally unrelated events, but I fear Mahmoud Ahmadinejarhead has done better. How the hell would this hearing affect persons who knew the victims? [Out of respect for those impacted by this tragedy, I changed the phrase above from "How the fuck" to "How the hell."]

Say, Income taxes are due today. The IRS should extend the deadline out of respect for the victims, their families and friends. Seems the least they can do.

Justice Committee here I come.

Today being special, I am sharing ten comments commemorating government theft.

• Today is the first day of the rest of your taxable year.
  — Jeffery L Yablon
  
• 
  
• As I sit in my poverty-stricken home, looking at the place where the piano used to be before I had to sell it to pay my income tax, I find myself in a thoughtful mood.
  — PG Wodehouse
  
• 
  
• We must get rid of the IRS. It’s a bureaucracy fraught with totalitarianism.
  — Sonny Bono
• 
  
• From the earliest records of civilization, tax laws have taken away liberty more often than foreign invaders.
  — Charles Adams
• 
  
• The avoidance of taxes is the only intellectual pursuit that still carries any reward.
  — John Maynard Keynes
  
• 
  
• It’s time we tell the bar associations and the IRS to shove their opinions up their cash cows.
  — James Traficant
  
• 
  
• We have a tax code that favors those with the best accountants.
  — Shane Keats
  
• 
  
• I’m against an income tax because all the rich people hire lawyers and accountants to be sure that they don’t pay income tax.
  — Ann Richards
  
• 
  
• Avoid falsehoods like the plague except in matters of taxation, which do not count, since here you are not lying to take someone else’s goods, but to prevent your own from being unjustly seized.
  — Giovanni Morelli
  
• 
  
• There is no such thing as a good tax.
  — Winston Churchill
  

Something everyone can agree on, possibly even our pals in the Middle East.

Random

On the news the other day, some critic of US immigration policy stated that “illegal aliens is new.” We never had this moniker before. He’s right. They were called wetbacks. Now there’s a PC movement afoot to change them from illegals to foreign residents or undocumented immigrants or something less insulting than alien. Alien is no more insulting than tourist.

Amy Holmes appears next week on “Real Time with Bill Maher.” If I hadn’t been waiting months for a payment from a state university, which shall remain nameless, I’d see if I could drive down there to give her some support. Ms Holmes is Black and, as you may know, Americans of African descent have many rights, except the right to be conservative or Republican.

Another lovely conservative, Michelle Malkin, filled in on “The Factor” while O’Reilly was in Ireland, brushing up on his Irish. What better time to discuss Culture Warrior, which I read recently?

Not a review, an analysis from a libertarian perspective…

Everyone has the right to hate Bill O’Reilly, unless they have never seen his show or read one of his books. That is ignorance. I’m suggesting that before you hate the man, you read Culture Warrior. It’s short. You may learn that he’s a decent guy, who may not be right about everything, but means well, more than you can say for most influential Americans.

Culture Warrior describes what the author terms a war between “secular progressives” and “traditionalists.” Creating only two sides is restricting, polarising. Calling it a “war” seems exaggerated. Current hot issues are not clearly delineated, whether capital punishment, abortion, immigration or racism. At least O’Reilly avoids Democrat-Republican or Liberal-Conservative as the only options because those are vague, as well as limiting. Where do Libertarians fit?

To make the “Culture” cut, you must believe the United States tries to be a force of good in the world; the “Secular Progressives” believe the US is evil. As famed cultural expert, Pappy Maverick observed, “There’s a little bad in the best of us and a little good in the worst of us.” Americans are basically decent people. Unfortunately, The Incumbents are not. Unchecked demagogues can destroy any country.

Mr O’Reilly is strict with what he regards as serious criminal behaviour. As a libertarian, I believe judges and juries should have flexibility, mandatory sentencing violates my principles. I might allow some exemptions for child rapists or all rapists because society is at risk if they are at large, but O’Reilly loves “Jessica’s Law,” with its lengthy mandatory sentences. I have no sympathy for child-molesters, only mandatory sentencing often has unintended consequences. What if a person is unfairly convicted of child molestation?

I’ve seen O’Reilly’s reportage of cases where men confessed to abusing, torturing and raping children over long periods of time and served shorter sentences than Martha Stewart got for whatever she is supposed to have done. I’m not convinced that’s a conspiracy, just evidence that judges are appointed for the wrong reasons and often are under-qualified.

At least O’Reilly defines what a traditionalist (or culture warrior) believes. Yet it would seem that members of a free society might differ on particular issues, not make Bill their final arbiter.

For instance, he consistently pairs “narcotics” with gay marriage. Gays have no right to marry and, frankly, should count their blessings. Marriage is no picnic. However, the government have no right to regulate or criminalise drugs. None. Even if you think certain drugs, arbitrarily selected by some bureaucrat, should be illegal, the so-called drug war is a costly failure. Costly in money and lives. Criminalising random drugs does not stop their use, especially among the addictive personalities, it does punish regular folks who relax with an occasional joint.

O’Reilly claims that using drugs is not a victimless crime because drug-abusing parents might neglect their children or create other problems. Child abuse is a crime. If a drug user steals money to buy drugs, theft is a crime. When the drug itself is illegal, otherwise law-abiding citizens become criminals. That’s bad, especially for those with no children. He writes, “Millions of lives have been ruined by drug dealers,” justifying harsh treatment. By that reasoning, gun dealers have ruined thousands of lives.

He claims: [George] Soros’s big-money backing of medical marijuana legislation has led to chaos in San Francisco and parts of Oregon.” I’ve never been to Oregon, but San Francisco is no more chaotic than usual. A statement like that deserves documentation.

Also, “legalised narcotics is frowned upon by many organised religions because intoxication is not considered a healthy act.” I was unaware of that, but I know some religions oppose “self-abuse.” Should that be criminalised, too? The government could declare all-out “war on masturbation.”

I agree with Bill that many far-left fanatics will not submit their ideas to discussion. [see: How to Talk To a Liberal by Ann Coulter] They are more comfortable hurling charges and insults. I watch “The O’Reilly Factor” because he tries to book guests who disagree with him. In fact, if he is going to attack someone, he invites that person on to defend himself or herself. You may say it’s his turf, so he has an advantage, but Bill will let his guests speak if they aren’t what he considers “nuts,” and do not make unsubstantiated claims, like suggesting medical marijuana has made San Francisco chaotic.

One of O’Reilly’s leading Secular-Progressive villains is the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). [Name provided for readers who may have had public schooling.] Liberty is great. Like George Carlin, I love all the freedoms we used to enjoy in this country. Nor do I feel obligated to support a group because they have civil liberties in their name. O’Reilly reports that the ACLU was founded in 1920 by Roger Baldwin, whom he credits with the statement, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion.”

Surprisingly, O’Reilly ignores the contradiction of socialism and abolishing the state. Socialism requires a state to compel obedience, voluntary compliance being impossible.

I believe that while the ACLU can make democracy stronger by defending unpopular views, sometimes their choices are questionable. It is obvious they are selective in whom they defend, using political criteria, not the quest for justice.

Then there is foreign policy, an area with few rules, and numerous countries requiring different approaches. Preemptive military action is not an American tradition. The Federal government is supposed to protect Americans from foreign enemies, which they failed to do on 11 September 2001. Rather than taking responsibility for their colossal ineptitude, their solution was more government [Homeland Security Department] and invading Iraq. The S-Ps, as Bill calls them, do not believe in unilateral military action. Perhaps not, but what about unilaterally stupid military action? In supporting the Iraq War, O’Reilly goes so far as to defend the Vietnam debacle, which even Robert McNamara (Secretary of Defense at the time) has admitted was disastrous and wrong. According to Bill, Vietnam was “a war that was fought to prevent the spread of totalitarianism and communism.” Was it successful?

A veteran Letterman viewer, I agree that O’Reilly’s last appearance on the “Late Show” was, well, strange. Cindy Sheehan has as much right as anyone to be anti-war and O’Reilly has the right to object to her comments. In fairness, Letterman has been supportive of the troops, so I disagree with O’Reilly’s calling “Late Show” and “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” S-P venues. Both programs present various viewpoints. The Republicans being in power, so to speak, for several years, might make comedians seem anti-Republican or anti-traditional, but they are as comfortable picking on anyone powerful. When Bill Clinton appeared with Dave promoting his book, My Lies - Volume 1. Dave said he guessed Clinton never saw the show.

According to O’Reilly, “…the traditional forces break down like this: Most regular Americans do not want drastic change in the country and therefore lean toward the traditional.” Most people anywhere are comfortable with the status quo and fear the unknown. But is 21^st century America traditional? Not to me. Forget the erosion of rights under the Patriot Act and the explosion of government under a President who ran as being anti-big government. Consider the massive Federal power grab since the 1930s.

Which brings us to schools. Obviously, state schools are terrible. This puts me somewhat on O’Reilly’s side. I don’t think the words “under god” need be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, I just don’t think the government should force children to attend schools where they are compelled to recite a loyalty oath. That is more-or-less the definition of un-American. Forced loyalty oaths strike me as de rigueur for totalitarian governments. So maybe it is American after all.

A ridiculous court decision in California (where else?) said parents have “no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on [sex] in any forum or manner they select.” Agreed. But if they’re going to bring up the Constitution, government has no right to force instruction on children or adults. Moreover, the Federal government has no authority to be involved in the school business. Another of Bill’s nemeses, George Lakoff advocates a “vibrant, well-funded, and expanding public education system, with the highest standards for every child and school.” That’s not progressive, it’s absurd. US public schools are well-financed, yet seem to have few, if any, standards. O’Reilly apparently supports the tests instituted in the frivolously-named “No Child Left Behind Act.” Naturally “progressives oppose standardised tests.” The problem is not standardised tests, it is standardised schooling.

I attended public schools in New York City long ago. They were okay, but we had old books, so we only learned history up to the New Deal. They taught that the New Deal was wonderful, ending the Depression. Only years later did I learn that the Depression continued, until World War II’s massive military spending ended it.

Bill mentions the vision of the Founders, “which includes independence from big government.” That is misleading. There was no big government in the 1700s. The Founders tried to create minimal government. No one advocates that today, except Libertarians. Certainly not traditionalists or conservatives. It’s always more government, higher taxes. If the politicians aren’t out to destroy the US, maybe it’s another unintended consequence.

I enjoyed Culture Warrior, I like his cable programme, but I disagree with many of his positions. Then again, at least O’Reilly stands by his beliefs without spin. That’s worth a quite a bit.

Today’s (Friday 13^th April) Wall Street Journal contains a pithy article by Jim Cooper on “The Incumbent Party.” I always wonder how to depict them, usually settling on something like “Republocrats.” Cooper has come up with the noun I will use in future.

He lists ten lies agreed-upon by the Democrats and Republicans, in other words the Incumbent Party, because on the important issues, they are in perfect agreement.

I won’t list them all, since you can look up the Journal article. Number 5 echoes what I often write about the biggest fraud of all time:

Promise Social Security and Medicare benefits that the Social Security actuary says are not even promises, much less vested benefits. They are only “scheduled benefits,” which can be rescheduled, or eliminated, at any time by Congress.

For the record, Jim Cooper is a Democratic Congressman from Tennessee and the only Latin I know is Pig-Latin.

A televised commercial caught my eye. An office worker was asked to research answers to a couple of problems while his boss was at lunch. The worker says, “I’ve got it.” When his boss says to work on the other, the worker says he’s got both, pretty much in the time the boss described what he wanted.

I was impressed, so I watched to see what this unbelievably efficient software was. That’s what I want. All it said was Microsoft®. No specific program but, after years of waiting and waiting for Windows, all I could do was chuckle.

The mail is late (thanks, Postal Service), so I read some articles I missed in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. Sarah Needleman wrote “How Blogging Can Help You Get a New Job,” including tips on making your Blog “recruiter friendly.”

One suggestion is to show you are up-to-date, which I am. Include a concise “about me” feature. I figure a link to my MySpace is better than trying to sum up fifty-eight years in as many words.

Of course, after nine years creating and managing my wonderful web sites, I do not believe in web job connections. I am as likely to get a great job through the Internet as I am to get a great blow job. Far better to trust Obeah.

Currently there’s flack about shock-treatment jock Imus. What kind of name is that? Sounds like something requiring a doctor visit. (“Doc, this sore has imus. Is it infected or what?”) Now they’re calling for Don-boy to be fired from his job on MSNBC. Seems to me working there is more embarrassing than being fired. I mean, who watches MSNBC? It’s not as if Microsoft can force everyone who buys a PC to watch it, as they try to do with the flawed Internet Explorer.