Saturday, December 05, 2009

Yep, This About Says it All...

You're All Racists...

Leave it to the New York Times to publish a steaming load of horse crap disguised as an editorial.

The aptly named Charles M. Blow, wrote this, and it's overwhelming message is:

America is still a racist country. It's why, even with the elevation of a black man to the highest elected office, the plight of American blacks has not improved. It doesn't mean to be, but it can't help itself. Obama was supposed to hook us (blacks) up, but instead he pays attention to you white people -- who have a love/hate relationship with him which will invariably poison race relations in this country for many years to come, giving American blacks even more excuses not to work and succeed. Blacks are being victimized by one of their own (Obama) for the sake of white folks, and because white folk's racism is such a powerful, subliminal force that it can even make a good black man forget what color his skin is -- but then again, it's not like Obama was really one of us, what with that bi-racial crap that y'all lapped up -- so what could you expect?

Oh, and by the way; America is a racist nation.

He begins with this piece of crap, describing the Reign of Obama:

"So far, it’s been mixed. Blacks are living a tale of two Americas — one of the ascension of the first black president with the cultural capital that accrues; the other of a collapsing quality of life and amplified racial tensions, while supporting a president who is loath to even acknowledge their pain, let alone commiserate in it."

Translation: Obama is not "authentically" black. He doesn't understand what it is to be black, really. Raised by white people, educated in elite, white schools, Obama doesn't understand the 'hood. He cannot communicate with us because he is not one of us. This is the argument that a Je$$e Jackson or Al Sharpton would have used against Obama a decade ago (in much the same way they used it against Alan Keyes, Ward Connerly, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza Rice, et. al.), the only difference this time is that Barack Obama actually managed to win an election, something even they never believed could happen. Then, of course, he was always black (so much so that his half-white heritage was never mentioned again after the election). Until he wasn't. Why isn't he? Try this one:

"Last year, blacks dared to dream anew, envisioning a future in which Obama’s election would be the catalyst for an era of prosperity and more racial harmony. Now that the election’s afterglow has nearly faded, the hysteria of hope is being ground against the hard stone of reality. Things have not gotten better. In many ways, they’ve gotten worse."

Translation: Where's the reparations I was promised, dammit? Obama hasn't given anything to black people, Mr. Blow says. Of course, policies like Cash For Clunkers, Porkulus and Onmibus, all the Mortgage renegotiation schemes, propping up unionized labor with Government funds, all the Health Care nonsense, are, arguably, policies that were specifically aimed at the black community. They failed of their purpose because of the realistic limitations of government power in a free society, and because they were fundamentally bad policies (although the jury is still out on Healthcare). They were designed to hand out benefits quickly, before anyone would notice they were welfare-by-another-name.

But, what makes Mr. Blow believe blacks are actually entitled to anything? I mean, other than 50 years of white liberal excuse-making and mollycoddling, and all the patronizing bullshit of several generations of so-called "Civil Rights Leaders"? Worse, what makes him think they're entitled to anything at a time when the productive class is losing it's security?

According to Mr. Blow, Mr. Obama has been stopped dead in his otherwise-well-meaning tracks by the spectre of racism (hey, wait! I thought it was because he didn't understand black people?). Obama will never get a chance to 'do' for the black community because America is a racist country that doesn't care about the black community. In fact, American racism runs so deep and is such a pervasive and powerful force that:

"This means that Obama can get away with doing almost nothing to specifically address issues important to African-Americans and instead focus on the white voters he’s losing in droves. "

In any universe other than Mr. Blow's, you could accuse Mr. Obama of being a 'realist'. Of course, Mr. Blow then nullifies his own nonsensical assertion (again!) when he writes just a few lines later:

"The hard truth is that Obama needs white voters more than he needs black ones. "According to my analysis, even if every black person in America had stayed home on Election Day, Obama would still be president. To a large degree, Obama was elected by white people, some of whom were more able to accept him because he consciously portrayed himself as racially ambiguous."

Nothing like accusing people of racism, Mr. Blow, and then conceding that accusation is groundless. Don't they teach you not to undermine your own arguments within two paragraphs at the Times? Obama wouldn't have been elected without white votes, and his socialist utopia will never come close to realization without them because...guess who he needs to accede to it, and then pay for it? When he says "tax the rich" do you really think he means anything other than "Tax Whitey"?

But having made the accusation of racism in spite of the logical evidence against it, Mr. Blow then goes on to make himself look even more ridiculous:

"In a study to be published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences this month, researchers asked subjects to rate images of the president to determine which ones best represented his "true essence." In some of the photos, his skin had been lightened. In others, it had been darkened. The result? The more people identified him with the "whiter" images, the more likely they were to have voted for him, and vice versa."

There's that "Obama isn't really black" theme again. But, really; you didn't just go there, Charles, did you? I was beginning to have sympathy for you, misguided comm-symp that you are, but not any more. I'd tell you to be ashamed of yourself, but it's apparent that it would do no good. After all, you managed to write an opinion piece which contradicts itself every other paragraph, and then took a paycheck from the Times, so shame is not one of your strong suits, is it?

If that was the only rhetorical club in your arsenal, Mr.Blow, and the only message you really wanted to deliver, perhaps you should have saved a lot of newsprint, and maybe even not taken that check from Mr. Sulzberger in his time of need.

Friday, December 04, 2009

Global Warming: The Academic Conspiracy...

Unless you've been living under a rock, you have probably heard a thing or two about the "Climategate scandal". I won't link to any articles, since they're all over the place, and many of them are confusing for the layman or uninitiated in the the double-crapspeak of the Global Warming Crowd, but the basic gist is this:

It appears as if a bunch of Climatologists at the University of East Anglia (in Britain) conspired to do one or more of the following:

1. Falsifying/and or deleting temperature data that did not fit their pre-conceived notions or political views, so as to show a steady increase in Global Temperatures when such temperatures were, in fact, either flat lining or falling, indicating a decade of actual global cooling. They have also failed to explain how they prepared or 'modeled' the data for use in their computer models, leading to a suspicion that either the data was tailored to fit the program, or the program tailored to fit the data

2. Deleting data that was the focus of a Freedom of Information Act request, so that it could not be seen or tested by those who requested it, and to hide the fact that the data was incorrect and/or fabricated. According to the scientists in the middle of this mess, that data is easily reproducible, but they refuse to reproduce it because it's too much work to do so.

3. Using their scientific clout in their field to silence dissenters who dared to disagree with them, corrupting the peer-review process which by allowing anyone to test a scientific theory or repeat an experiment to verify results, is vital to the advance of science. Destroying the careers of, or taking actions to publicly embarrass those, who might disagree with you (or worse, prove you are a fraud) is at the very least, bad form, in the context of what these scientists were entrusted with, it's probably criminal.

What, exactly, were they entrusted with?

Why, proving that Man-Made Global Warming exists, that's it a continuing trend, and that it has dire consequences for the entire planet. Oh, and they were the main laboratory providing European Governments, the U.N., the United States Government and a host of alphabet-soup organizations with the information they "needed" to regulate global economies and CO2 (Carbon dioxide) production.

In other words, these are the guys who were going to create the justification for World Government. In fact, one of the Euroweenies who is supposed to be a high muck-a-muck in what passes for government over there, recently bragged that this week's Copenhagen meetings on Global Warming, are the first step in crafting a single world-wide government.

That the data upon which this presumption was based now turns out to be (allegedly) false, I should think they shouldn't be having that meeting. But no, the Global Warming Crowd wouldn't let anything like a massive fraud which undermines the entire foundation of their cause stop them from 'saving the planet' by destroying Western Economies, taxing everything in sight, and having the pretext to push their noses into every aspect of every citizen's life. Of course not!

True believers never give up the ship, even when they've been proven wrong. It's a defect built into liberals, especially (see: Kennedy Assassination, 9/11 Truthers, The CIA brought Crack to the Ghetto, and so forth). Most liberals don't have the same sense God gave a cross-eyed Cocker Spaniel.

There's legislation in the U.S. Senate right now that will pass a Cap-and-Trade regime, which will severely restrict the use of energy for every conceivable purpose, and impose huge fees and taxes upon American business and citizens in the name of 'saving the planet'. Considering that the whole idea of man-made Global Warming is now, at least, severely put into question by the shenanigans of a bunch of politically-motivated professors who's basic experiments cannot be reproduced and verified, perhaps we Americans had better call our dopey Senators and tell them to kill this bill. Like right now.

And then it's time to start this whole "Man is wrecking the planet" stuff again from square one, and to do it right; with transparency, verifiable data, and scientific integrity. If the Warmers are right, then fine, but if they can't prove their hysteria, then they should leave the rest of us alone.

Update: Al Gore is now cancelling personal appearances, beginning with, oddly enough, the Copenhagen Conference.

Pajamas Media has a go at Gore's suddenly-low public profile, and the man himself.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

A New Link...

Some funny stuff from a blog called "Barack Obama's Teleprompter's Blog", which bills itself as:

"...Reflections from the hard drive of the machine that enables the Voice of the Leader of the Free World..."

I recommend a good, long visit. It was quite enjoyable and it it will be added to the link list, for sure.

They're Complaining?

Here's an article from the New York Observer, in which a bunch of whiny, metrosexual guys are complaining that they are being, wait for raped.

Now, I don't know about you, but when I was a younger man on the New York Social Scene (such as it was in the days of rampant AIDS -- thanks Baby Boomers!), this was something we dreamed about. We'd have given a lung for it. If it ever happened to us, we'd take out full-page ads in the NY Times and brag about over and over and over until your ears bled...hell, we'd remember it for the rest of our lives. Ask any straight man my age (early 40's, and yes, it has happened to me, too) if he would turn down sex if it fell into his lap this way, and the answer you get would be something along the lines of:

a) No! and,

b) Hell No!

But, it seems today's pussy yuppie-wannabe Metrosexual lives in a state of constant fear of just this very phenomenon. Worse, they are creeped out by the thought of a sexually-aggressive woman who does what many men have done for centuries (taken advantage of a drunk) because ... ewww...she may have done the same thing with his friends. Yeah, like that ever really stopped a guy before?

The Cheetah, we're told, preys on a small circle of associates, treating her friends as sexual objects to be taken advantage of, and this causes great consternation and alarm to them (so much that the guys interviewed in the article -- when they aren't really bragging about being pursued by a woman who really, really wants lusty, consequence-free sex, remember to inject a smidgen of manufactured indignation into their tales). Poor bastards; they have chicks jumping their defenseless bones while they happen to be in an inebriated state. Why, I'm simply outraged (not!) at this abuse of an entire generation of young men!

Actually, I'm surprised to find out this many of them might be straight.

But of course, they (the metrosexual pansies) lie. Through their teeth. They love it. The purpose of the article was to not complain about a 'new' social phenomenon -- when I was younger, we had Cheetahs, too. Only we called them 'Sluts', 'Hosemonsters' or 'Slambags' (and far worse) and we didn't have to come up with a name full of groovy-super-clever-slickly-marketable cat connotations that make the allusion to the word 'pussy'. I'm certain that if we were to run unimpeded backwards through history, we'd find the Cheetah in Egypt, Ancient Rome and Angkor Wat, and she'd be pulling the train at Stonehenge, only she'd be called something else.

Usually, that would be...Desperate.

In my own time, my circle of male friends (on the rare occasion we're all assembled) can still make this particular boast; in any gathering, you are assured that at least 25% of the men in the room screwed 'Stephanie' at one time or another (name changed to protect the not-so-innocent). Stephanie was such a hyper-sexually-aggressive girl that the only otherwise-amazing thing about her is that she didn't do all those guys at once, just to save time. It was once said that Stephanie's highest ambition in life was to fuck her way through the telephone book. We'd laugh at that joke...and then secretly wonder what Stephanie was doing right now. You think this sort of thing hasn't happened before?

Far from being traumatized and embarrassed and put-upon by your Cheetah stalker, you guys know you love it, and the purpose of the article is really not to complain about a growing social problem, but to encourage other women to take up the Cheetah lifestyle. Because if there's one thing we know about women, it's this; they'll often believe and take to heart (almost) any shit they read. It's why Cosmopolitan has stayed in business for so long running articles entitled "What He Really Wants in Bed", always written by some chick you wouldn't screw with a stolen dick, and never once are the words "Corned Beef Sandwich and a Cold Beer" mentioned in the same sentence as Oral Sex. Some experts! But I digress...

I'm certain the 'feminists' will be out in force, defending their sisters from this gross portrayal of young 'womyn' as devious, potentially-dangerous, sexual predators...just pay no attention to the 40 years of 'feminist' nonsense that encouraged them to behave that way. In the end, this idea of women behaving rather badly will still be The Man's fault...somehow, someway. Always is. However, the idea that there are men being 'victimized' by these broads is laughable; the article simply yet another expression of a common male fantasy (and a much more common occurrence) which used to be a staple of Penthouse Letters.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

More on Autism...

Okay, so I got a bunch of e-mails yesterday (I can't reproduce many of them) about my post on Autism. Most of the responders were frightened by my stunning ignorance on the subject. How dare I say that some diagnoses of Autism are fake? How dare I say that the recent upsurge in the number of cases are really not indicative of a rise in numbers of actual Autistics? How dare I say that if you have an Autistic child that you are a bad parent?

Hey, slow down. First, I never claimed to be an expert. I'm only telling you what I have seen, witnessed and experienced, personally, and that is;

a) There are people who are truly autistic, they need help and support that comes from loving parents, families and healthcare providers who see them as people first, not guinea pigs for supposed Wonder Cures based on faulty science, and of questionable value. They are people, too, you know.

b) There are far more ignorant people claiming their child is autistic because they are poor parents, or they can't bring themselves to face the (personal) shame and embarrassment of having given birth to a genetic mess (why this should be an embarrassment is beyond me), or, they simply can't face the fact that their child may, indeed, have issues; but correcting those issues requires an effort on their part. They'd rather just spend money, and wear the badge of courage (and get the pass) that having a hopelessly 'afflicted' child is supposed to bring you in our greater society. In the meantime, the children suffer horribly, both the truly autistic and those only deemed slightly-autistic-like.

c) There is a tendency, because the problem is more prevalent than it previously was, to diagnose autism in people who show some symptoms (like late talkers, preference for solitude, in some cases seizures or reactions to light) which might appear to be Autism, but in many cases, are indicative of another illness entirely. Because Autism is front-and-center in every one's mind, when a child displays one or more of these symptoms, they are more likely to be labeled Autistic without a more thorough examination, or without eliminating other possibilities before making that diagnosis.

d) The Medical Establishment has a vested interest in finding autism everywhere...ever since the "Awareness" crowd brought it to the government's attention and there's scads of taxpayer money being thrown at it. That's the one problem I have always had with "Awareness" groups; I can promise you that people who have the affliction are aware of it, their families are aware of it, too. So are the physicians and scientists who treat them. The illnesses you champion are not secrets. All you do with your so-called advocacy is to attract the attention of Congress, and all they ever do is throw money at problems. When that much money is floating around devoted to a specific problem, then guess what? That specific problem turns out to be more widespread than was previously know. Why? Because who wants to work for money when you can just get a federal grant that has no strings attached, no oversight, no enforcement provisions, and with no requirement for an actual result to be achieved?

And in the meantime, people who are in need get shafted, and people who aren't afflicted are treated as if they are, and their lives are often irrevocably fucked up because of it.

No, I'm not an expert on Autism, but I do know what I have read and experienced.

And some of you need to work on your reading comprehension.

How To Lose A War...On a Timetable...

Giving credit where it's due, at least Barrack Hussein Obutthead committed 30,000 of the 40,000 troops that Gen. McChrystal asked for, and then demanded that NATO and Pakistan "do more". That's 30,000 more and one gentle rebuke of our "allies" then I expected, honestly.

It's what was between-the-lines that made me spitting-mad.

General McChrystal now has a timetable for turning Afghanistan into something at least resembling secure (by what means that standard is measured is still undefined), and then he has to come home.

Nothing like telling the enemy when you intend to stop fighting. That's awesome strategy there, Barry.

This war is now irrevocably lost. Obama's heart, despite all his rhetoric, was never in it. It's why he's dithered over requests from his own, hand-picked General. It's why, even when men are being shot at and killed, there has been little talk of victory and a lot of show over the formulation of an 'exit strategy'. The subtle nuances of that speech before the future leaders of the U.S. Army last night was a virtuoso display of what I like to call Noballs-itis.

The excuses that will be used to cover the Administration's behind were trotted out last night. In case you missed them, they are:

* NATO hasn't done 'enough'. (That NATO is incapable of doing anything will conveniently forgotten).

* The Pakistanis haven't done 'enough'. (That Pakistan created the Taliban will be conveniently forgotten).

* We left a 'stable' Afghanistan, and the 'mission accomplished', we left. This will be followed by the paradoxical refrain of "The Afghan government was corrupt, and undermined our efforts." (The fact that the Obama Administration accused Karzai of stealing the election, and called him a crook while standing beside him on his Inauguration Day, will be conveniently forgotten).

* Hey, I sent the troops, but McChrystal still fucked it up. (That McChrystal was Obambi's 'guy', his hand-picked commander, will be conveniently forgotten).

* The strategy was flawed from the beginning, when George Bush started the whole thing. No one could have 'saved' Afghanistan at this late date, no matter how many troops went, since the war in Iraq 'distracted' us from the mission in Afghanistan (That Iraq is largely pacified and it's government is beginning to take over more day-to-day security and military missions, will be conveniently forgotten).

* If you criticize this President, you're a racist. (The race card is always the last resort of a scoundrel).

* It's George Bush's fault. (Didn't you know this already?).

* It's George Bush's fault. (Why do we have to repeat this? You should know by now!).

* Oh, and it's George Bush's fault. (One last time because we like saying it, and the man doesn't defend himself and because no one except Dick Cheney will call us on it.)

Some other details that irked the hell out of me;

The Prezzzident trotting out his best Bill-Clinton-I-Feel-Your-Pain schtick talking about signing letters of condolence, visiting the military hospitals and his once-in-a-lifetime photo-op at Dover AF base, 'honoring' the fallen. How crass. That was thrown in there to silence critics who will claim the man doesn't care about our military.

Well, I'll say it; the man doesn't care about our military.

You can talk all you want about the importance of winning, Barry, but you certainly didn't back that talk up last night. That was schoolyard rhetoric of the kind used by children who want to act tough in front of their friends, but who really are scared to death of an actual fight. You put up the front (the 30,000), but then said the fight has to end before your Momma calls you in for supper...and no punching in the face, okay?

Good luck, General McChrystal. I'm sure things will be nice and quiet for the next 18 months as the Taliban and A'Qeada cause just enough trouble for you to remember them by, biding their time until you leave. I'm sure the Administration during that time will trot out all sorts of charts, PowerPoint presentations and statistics about how 'violence is lower now than in 2008' (just like the last one did in trying to justify it's lack of warfighting), and then everyone comes home.

And six months later, there will be a smoking crater in Chicago. Or Los Angeles. Or Philadelphia.
And all the perpetrators will have worn turbans, trained in Afghanistan, and if any are captured alive they'll be given trials in the Federal Courts, with all the rights and privileges afforded any criminal defendant, and free attorneys.

Barrack Hussein Obutthead will shed some crocodile tears, and then go back to making sure every illegal Mexican in this country has free dental and access to cosmetic butt implants, and how to put a tax on breathing to pay for it, because that's where his heart really is.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

Experimenting on Children...

I've just read this over at Ann Althouse's blog concerning treatments for autism.

It's pretty sick. It's bordering on Spanish-Inquisition-sick. Doctor Menegle would approve, I'm sure.

First, a word about autism.

It's a truly debilitating condition...if your parents are convinced that it is. I know a couple of people with autism or Aspberger's Syndrome, and yeah, they are often socially awkward and they can creep you out some if you don't know they have it, and yeah, they can get pretty bad about hurting themselves, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them that a little love and understanding can't help 'fix'. A man I know is a mathematical genius who probably could have been anything he wanted to be -- if he hadn't been treated as if he were 'special'; instead he's spent his life performing low-paying, physical labor. A woman of my (very close) acquaintance was treated by her doctors and parents (and also severely medicated) to the point where she was little more than a bag of skin. Despite the fact that her 'autism' was a misdiagnosis -- that wasn't caught for over 20 years. She, incidentally, is a perfectly-functioning human being who simply needed some encouragement -- and then a personal accomplishment or two -- to figure this out.

I have yet another friend who has an autistic child and all she does is fight tooth-and-nail with her local school board to help create the conditions where her son may simply get a decent primary education without the We Care Brigade letting their good (but entirely misguided) intentions inadvertently pave his road to a personal hell.

Yeah, I get it; different people are afflicted to different extents, and not all autistics are capable of such (for lack of a better word) 'normal' lives. But I wonder how many actually are, or rather, would be, if the words 'autism' didn't evoke the kind of fear and stupidity that they do. I also wonder how many children are being diagnosed as autistics simply because they merely display a symptom of two --- without actually being autistic. It's becoming the Designer Illness du jour for parents with little sense and loads of disposable income.

Of course, once the word 'autism' entered the daily lexicon of most people, it's suddenly found everywhere, and every parent who gets upset because their tyke isn't speaking fluent Japanese by her third birthday is, in part, responsible for it. So are the doctors who simply categorize people without first making certain of a diagnosis because it's easier to tell a parent who is already convinced what they want to hear.

For many people nowadays, children are not a responsibility and a labor of love. They aren't tiny human beings who require love and guidance and life lessons to be taught by an attentive parent . They are a fashion accessory. Having kids is simply what you must do when you can't figure out what to do with your weekends anymore, or worse, they are the key to a whole new social world of Little League, the PTA and the Soccer Mom pre-school set. So, when the kid exhibits some sort of behavior which reflects badly on the parent, there simply must be something wrong with the kid, and the parent will take the little guy to every doctor, and subject him to every imaginable test to prove there must be some reason beyond bad genes and poor parenting skills to explain why Little Bobby hasn't built a Super Hadron Collider in the basement -- even though you bought him the kit for Christmas.

There must be something wrong with him, because the alternative is simply too embarrassing. Usually, the first 'hint' for these overly-sensitive parents is that Jenny hasn't talked by age 2, and Timmy would rather watch Power Rangers than engage in conversation with Mommy, tuning her out. It can't be because Jenny hasn't anything to say, or because Timmy's Mommy hasn't bonded with her child, what with him being left with nannies while she resumed her career, and all.

And so they drag their kids from one doctor to another, unwilling to believe that Doctors A-through-Y made a solid diagnosis of gross 'normality' -- until they find Doctor Z who agrees that 3-year old Sam's seeming inability to accept the basic premises of the theory of Anthropomorphic Global Warming simply must be a sign of autism.

Of course, Doctor Z is a child behavioral expert, but the fact that maybe she graduated last in her class, maybe after repeating her last year of med school and failing her State Licensing Exam twice, means nothing. She's more than happy to help the over-sensitive Parents realize their Worst Nightmare while taking their cash. Sometimes, Doctor Z has a vested interest in telling you what you're already predisposed to believe, whether it's true or not, whether or not she's competent to make that call.

Which begets fear about inoculations, medication, oxygen chambers and blood transfusions for no apparent reason other than the hope that something 'changes'. What changes they're expecting is beyond me. If your kid is a dope, then too bad. However, if your kid is really ill, or really is autistic, then what the hell are you trying to do? The science on these treatments is sketchy, at best, and any doctor who tells you they understand all the vagaries and mysteries of both genetics and the human brain is a flat-out liar.

In the meantime, children who really do need help are either having real treatments denied or delayed by this witchcraft, or the witchcraft is simply a substitute for what many of these kids really need -- parents who love them and who are willing to devote the time, and display the patience, needed to help them out. They aren't 'sick', they aren't 'abnormal', and yes, many have 'special needs', but the first need on that list is a parent with common sense.

Autism can be a scary thing. I've seen it close up at it's worst. I also know from personal experience that a good many doctors of the behavioral sciences sort are full of shit (six years on the couch for me, hence the name of this blog). But this sort of thing, subjecting your children to what, at first glance appears to be torture based on little more than a personal hope generated by your own vanity, strikes me as barbaric.

For those who have children with severe autism, I'm on your side. Really. I would rather pluck out my own eyeballs than see a child suffer, and would gladly give you everything I have if it eased your pain, and helped your child for as much as five minutes. For those of you who simply can't accept that you're really poor parents and look to this sort of 'medicine' to absolve you of this sin, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves...oh, right; you're incapable of shame, which is why you put your kids through hell in the first place -- to prove their 'abnormality' is really not your fault.

The Doctors who do this sort of thing ought to have their own heads examined.

Reason # 5,128 why Your President is a Dickhead...

Afghanistan. The necessary war, you'll recall.

It's a straightforward process, Barry, really. You say we need to win the war there, the necessary war, not the one of choice -- your words, not mine -- then do something about actually winning it.

Oh, we've seen the photographs, the very serious, dramatic photographs of you speaking with your closest advisers in the Situation Room. Your people are good with manipulation of the media like that -- not like it's hard, you know. The media people would eat one of your turds as a sign of undying fealty and then beg for another, so they'll regurgitate whatever you tell them to. But the dramatic photos, even if they are designed to portray you as a serious, deliberative soul, manage to convey another message altogether. That feeling can be summed up, thus;

What the fuck are you people talking about... still?

This is a war that you say is good and necessary. Your own, hand-picked general says it can be won, but he needs another 40,000 grunts to do it. He says this is a critical time, that the next year spells the difference between victory and defeat -- and you've wasted a third of that time in serious deliberation and posing for West Wing-style head shots. Sorry, but Joe Biden in serious-deliberative-Washington-manufactured-crisis-mode photos just doesn't cut it. It actually is a bit creepy.

Shit or get off the pot, Barry.

Oh, right; you want to get off the pot without making it look like you've gotten off the pot? I got news for you; you're already going to lose House and Senate seats in '10, and you're already a lame duck, one-term President, Nothing short of the Republicans nominating Charles Manson for President in '12 (or one of those back-bencher, milquetoast non-entities they're always extolling the 'Conservative' virtues of, like Pawlenty or Huckabee,and I wouldn't put it past the ridiculously-stupid suits at Republican Central to misread the tea leaves and try that one), is going to save you.

You're also caught by your own rhetoric about 'good' wars and your chaotic, incomprehensible foreign policy wherein you call the guy who's running the joint a crook...and then send the Secretary of State to stand with him at his Inauguration.

Anything to get Hillary out of town and away from the microphones, I guess.

If you want to unilaterally surrender, then man up and do it. I know you want to. I see it in your eyes, Barry. You want to please the Berkeley Faculty Lounge, and Code Pink, and the loony wing of your own party so much, but it makes you look all wimpy and stuff. Even more than when Michelle makes it clear she really wears the pants, and shows off her manly-yet-ever-so-femininely-sculpted pythons. It's not Presidential to look wimpy...except when you're bowing to Saudi Princes and Japanese Emperors, and grovelling before the Iranians and Arab Street, and all that; that's not being wimpy, that's extending a hand in friendship or some other tommyrot.

At least that's how it's spun by the flapping rectums over at (P)MSNBC. That's between soundbites about 'exit strategy'. Only liberals (small 'l' intentional) talk about war in terms of how to finish one before you actually start to fight one. It's why they lose wars, badly, after spending a couple of decades and a few tens of thousands of men (see Vietnam).

Anyway, you will be gone, and then unfortunately, the real deliberative, serious, decision-making people (i.e. Adults) who might actually be prepared for this job will have to undo the damage you've done. With luck, it'll take less than 50 years. With luck, they won't have to suffer the impediment of having to repair the damage from another terrorist attack originating in Afghanistan while they do it. Perhaps, by some miracle, they might even find some money to rebuild the country with after that $12 trillion debt you'll leave them.

I know you really only wanted this job for the perks, but, Dude, seriously, the job entails work and the making of difficult decisions, especially where lives are at stake. That's not a cliche, either. There are people being shot at over there so that we don't have to eat kamikaze airliners over here.

Do the right thing, for the first time your life, Shithead. You don't need Michelle's permission, really.

Either send the boys to the battle or don't -- and then man up and tell the truth about how you arrived at your decision. Don't keep the brave men and women already in Afghanistan in suspense; they have a right to know if help and victory are on the way, or if their Commander-in-Chief has decided to fold up the tent and run away.

On Tiger Woods...

Methinks I smell a rat...or two.

I mean, first of all, the guy doesn't speak to the cops after he's allegedly pulled from his crumpled Escalade, bleeding and dazed. If there was ever a time to give the police, and the other emergency workers who showed up to help you, some information about how you got into that condition, it was as soon as possible. So far as I know, it's been four days since the 'accident', and Tiger hasn't spoken to the cops. People who have something to hide don't talk to the cops.

Second, I know guys who's first instinct upon seeing a really hot Nordic chick wielding an 8-iron is not to run away. Yeah, I know that's sick. Then again, if you somehow managed to get a Scandinavian angry enough to engage in weapon-brandishing physical violence, you must have really fucked up. These are the Nobel Peace Prize folks, after all. There's got to be a fascinating story behind it all.

Third, you know you're screwed when your alleged paramour skips town (with 500 photographers in tow, conveniently) and finds herself in league with Gloria Allredd. That always scares the hell out of me. And by the way, can this Rachel Uchitel chick do any more posing for the cameras? Every shot in the local papers I've seen of her has her in some sort of model-ly action pose. Always with the pursed lips, too. She's a walking advertisement for...something. Homewrecking? Infidelity? Pretending to be more important than you really are? More likely herpes...but what do I know? All I know is what I see and the feeling it (ahem) arouses; this chick is having way too much fun and is obviously set to milk the rumors for as long as she might be able to make a few bucks. I wonder; what potential public embarrassments must lurk within that dark swamp?

Now, I don't know jack about Tiger Woods as a human being, or do I give a rat's ass for golf, which isn't a sport, isn't a game in the same way Monopoly is, and in my experience, seems to be more of a hobby for men with very low self-esteem, but very fat bank accounts. Likewise, I was sick and tired of the whole Tiger Woods Beatification Project which started it seems like 20 years ago, and was based on the faulty premises that a) black men never played golf before Tiger, and b) that winning a whole mess of golf tournaments while being half-black was the racial equivalent of simultaneously winning the lottery and discovering a cure for AIDS. Like Tiger being really good at a shitty game was somehow a deliverance for an entire population (still!) claiming to be suffering from 400 years of slavery and second-class status, even after nearly 200 years of racial progress. Now we find out that Tiger is a human being and not The Savior, after all -- and one with what must be one helluva story that's just dying to be told.

You just know that A-Rod is, at this very moment, jealous that his own knucklehead-ery has been knocked off the front pages by a guy with less personality (and far more money) than a truckload of wet cardboard.

So much for celebrating diversity, huh?

Not that I really give a crap; I'm just thinking the details must be funny as hell for a guy to crash his SUV in his own driveway...twice...apparently running from the Little Woman, while she chucks golf clubs, and he's so panicked that he can't avoid trees and fire hydrants that he probably knows are there. The image of Tiger Woods -- World's Biggest Pussy -- springs to mind. I'm practically giddy.

After that, I have absolutely no interest in this, ummm, affair. Talk to the cops, Tiger, go through the "I've-made-mistakes-in-my-personal-life-but-I'm-going-to-rehab-and-hope-to-forge-a-stronger-relationship-with-my-family-and-God" speech, and get it over with.

And by the way, what a great advertisement for Cadillac, huh? Have you seen the condition of that Escalade after a pair of (allegedly) 3-MPH crashes? Makes you so proud that you could shit to know the Taxpayer now owns the company that can make that sort of product!