This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Society

  • To that Sicko guy

    I’ve never been to Cuba, I’ve known only a few Cubans in all of my travels, but I’ve always been in love with the place. I love the Caribbean culture (the pale white guy from Upstate New York dairy country that I am), I love the music, I love the food, I love the cigars and I love the rum. I can’t keep from dancing (well, my version thereof) everytime I hear Celia Cruz or Tito Puente.

    I fell in love with Gloria Estefan back in the early 80s when it was just the Miami Sound Machine and the only place you could watch her was on that old Spanish-language network SPN – and all of her music was in Spanish. 

    I feel cheated by Castro – admittedly not to the extent that Cuban exiles feel cheated, of course – but cheated nonetheless of steamy tropical nights in Havana with the smells and sounds that accompany my imaginary forays through that magical and historical city. The first thing I do when get out of the US is buy a Partagas Lusitania and a bottle of Havana Club Anejo Especial (most often at the Bodega Mi Amiga on Via Porra in Panama City) and head for the nearest beach with my big straw hat to do my best imitation of a colonialisto.

    Anyway, thanks to the internet, I get to read what life is like in Cuba and what it was like before 1959. So some of my favorite “recreational” blogs are Cuban – pale white guy from Upstate NY dairy country that I am.

    But anyway, today from Uncommon Sense (a great Cuban blog to keep up on Cuban and Cuban-exile politics with some historical perspective thrown in) I read the best refutation of Michael Moore’s latest low-budget-poorly-written-poorly-acted-film-masquerading-as-a-documentary from a recent Cuban immigrant who has witnessed first hand Castro’s healthcare system at her blog Cubanita in Colorado. I don’t want to spoil it for you by quoting from Mailyn – please go read it for yourself.

  • That terrible talk radio again

    Remember the “Progressive” think tank Think Progress where Harry Reid went to complain about Joe Lieberman’s opinion that we should strike Iran? Now this “think tank” is advocating reintroduction of the “Fairness Doctrine” – the unfair practice of government regulating free speech on the broadcast industry. According to Think Progress;

    Two common myths are frequently offered to explain the imbalance of talk radio: 1) the 1987 repeal of the Fairness Doctrine (which required broadcasters to devote airtime to contrasting views), and 2) simple consumer demand. Each of these fails to adequately explain the root cause of the problem. The report explains:

    Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system, particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management.

    […]

    Ultimately, these results suggest that increasing ownership diversity, both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming, more choices for listeners, and more owners who are responsive to their local communities and serve the public interest.

    See? The problem is “ownership diversity” – those rich, white Republicans own too much stuff while us hippies can barely scratch together enough money to buy used roaches for our morning doobie.

    Then how do they explain that Air America, the Left’s answer to the EIB network, filed for bankruptcy just two years and a half after it was founded by Democrat deep pockets. Is it because the hippies don’t have enough money to buy the stuff that’s advertised on Air America? I doubt it.

    “Fairness” is one of those words the Left likes to use like “equality”. It only applies to stuff they want. I had an emailer tell me that it was “unfair” that the Gathering of Eagles held a counter-protest at “their” protest. But I guess they thought it was “fair” that a small band of moonbats tried to crash the “Veterans Against Kerry” rally in September, 2004.

    Let me explain to these folks what fairness and equality are in this country. We are all born equal – we all have the equal opportunity to succeed. It’s what you do with that opportunity that defines you as a person. Everybody, E-V-E-R-Y-B-O-D-Y, came to America with nothing except what was carried on our antecedents’ back – so we all come from the same background. You make your own fairness with the sweat off of your own brow, not with the stroke of a judge’s pen.

    You are NOT guarenteed mulligan’s – if you make bad choices, live with your mistakes, but don’t make your neighbors pay for you own stupid mistakes. You are not guarenteed to live equally with your neighbors if they work while you sit on the front porch whittlin’ your life away.

    We are all individuals – we all do different stuff – that’s why life is not fair. The guy who designs and builds medical equipment in his basement is going to be better off than the guy who designs and builds dreamcatchers. That’s just life. The playing field starts off level, what you do in those first couple of steps determines how well you do when the field isn’t in your favor any longer.

    You can’t make us equal, you can’t make life fair by forcing everyone to be miserable. When the Left understands that, then they’ll truly live up their self-proclaimed label “Progressive”.

    Michele Malkin characteristically does a much better job on the Fairness Doctrine and calls it a “Hugo Chavez approach to the radio airwaves”.

  • Shoot out at Walter Reed

    Remember a few months ago when I wrote that the problems at Walter Reed were more about the civilian contract labor than about the Army leadership, and that was due to Walter Reed’s location in a bad neigborhood in DC? Well, the Washington Post reports just how right I was;

    A security officer at Walter Reed Army Medical Center pulled a handgun and fired 10 rounds at a fellow guard during the morning rush hour yesterday at the hospital’s main gate, striking no one but sending stray bullets into two cars and a utility pole, D.C. police said.

    Police said the incident started on hospital grounds just inside the front gate along Georgia Avenue NW after one officer jokingly referred to an armed colleague as “retarded.”

    Of course, The Washington Post doesn’t see it as employee problem;

    The shooting is the latest high-profile embarrassment for Walter Reed, which has faced scrutiny and criticism over its aging facilities and the treatment provided to wounded veterans. The gated hospital complex is set back from one of the city’s busiest thoroughfares.

    The guards involved were contract employees under the supervision of civilians, not military guards. So how can the Washington Post figure this is an embarrassment for the facility? Well, because it sounds better, I guess.

    The only problem I see is that Army decided to use civilians to guard Walter Reed instead of using MPs like they did just after 9-11. But security guards with guns is a problem across DC with the expansion of the need for security personnel at Federal facilities and a decreasingly eligible labor pool.

    My sources at Walter Reed say the argument was over a lady, but my sources are notoriously gossipy, so I’ll stick with the Washington Post’s account – but like I said on Monday, these problems can be fixed by moving the medical facility to Bethesda as determined by the BRAC – if we can get past the Democrat crybabies in Congress who are more worried about traffic jams on Wisconsin Avenue (between trendy Bethesda and trendier Georgetown). 

  • Republicans for Obama?

    Proving that the media doesn’t understand Republicans or conservatives, the Chicago Sun Times ran this bit of wishful thinking as hard news yesterday;

    There is an interesting phenomenon that has arisen over the last few months: a trend of moderate Republicans who want to vote for Barack Obama. It may seem counterintuitive, conservatives supporting a candidate who wants to tax the wealthy and embrace the conventions in the Kyoto Accord, but there is something in Obama’s message about ridding politics of partisanship that is appealing to these Republicans.

    Of course Miss Hunter, the Sun Times columnist supports this contention with tons of evidence – namely three Obama supporters. Let’s look at this crowd, shall we?

     “From a philosophical point of view I still see myself as a Republican,” says Kenneth Wehking, 38, a Denver man who works for a software company. That means being fiscally conservative and moderate on social issues, Wehking believes.

    At one time he supported John McCain for those very reasons, but now he is attracted to Obama and belongs to a group called Republicans For Obama. He likes Obama’s philosophy: the need to rid the country of the red/blue divide that has made it impossible to move forth legislation in immigration or health care.

    “Obama is one of the first candidates who truly seems to embody a spirit of working together and moving forward,” he says.

    Yeah, who cares that Obama is diametrically opposed to every Republican and conservative issue – he wants to move forward while we’re working together. Never mind that we’re moving forward in the wrong direction and working together to bankrupt the nation.

    Randy Cooper, a 60-year-old lawyer from Eaton, N.H. — not a member of Republicans for Obama — says he grew up as an Eisenhower Republican. He supported George Herbert Walker Bush and John McCain. But Cooper began to feel that George II and his acolytes, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were being disingenuous about the reasons for going into Iraq.

    At first Cooper supported the war “based on what the president told us.” But then he began to ask questions: “I absolutely feel we were lied to. There were other reasons [Bush] wanted to go into Iraq. It wasn’t just about weapons of mass destruction.”

    And Cooper became so disillusioned that in 2004 he voted for John Kerry.

    Yeah, this is the guy the media loves – he swallowed every bit of their red meat and voted for Kerry – cuz Kerry was just like Bush only not Bush. Did you know John Kerry had been to Vietnam – that fact is seared, seared in my memory.

    “I went to India last February,” recalls Chicagoan Dian Eller, who works in philanthropy. “And the first thing my driver asked was if I had voted for Bush.” Eller did vote for Bush the first time around, but not the second because she “was angry and disappointed about the war.” But the pointed questions from the Indian driver made Eller very uncomfortable. “I am so upset about the way people feel about our country.”

    Yeah, it upsets me that an Indian cab driver thinks poorly about my country, too, so much so that I’m willing to vote for a socialist just to appease those ignorant third-worlders who so badly want a say in how our country operates.

    Those three folks accurately portray the entire Republican party, though – in the Bizzaro land of media. By the way, I found this article while perusing the Leftist blogs and they seemed pretty excited that you’re going to vote for Obama.

  • WaPo back on the Walter Reed kick

    I guess the Washington Post has run out of things to bash the Administration with, so they’re back on their Walter Reed/Army bashing this week;

    At Walter Reed, Care for Soldiers Struggling With War’s Mental Trauma Is Undermined by Doctor Shortages and Unfocused Methods

    By Anne Hull and Dana Priest

    Washington Post Staff Writers
    Monday, June 18, 2007; Page A01 

    Yeah, I’m going to admit that the Army does alot of things badly – mostly administrative stuff and the way the Army treats soldiers is pretty bad, too. But, ya know, it’s all a part of being in the Army – it’s a big bureaucracy run by kids right out of high school. I hate it when civilians try to apply their standards to military life – just like I’m sure Hull and Priest would hate it if I came over to their respective houses with a white glove and applied my standards to their lives.

    I know their whole point is that the President went to war before he had enough psychiatrists on staff at Walter Reed – just like he rushed to war before they’d cleaned up some of the transient quarters on WRAMC, too. But buried way down in the middle of the article is this;

    One of the country’s best PTSD programs is located at Walter Reed, but because of a bureaucratic divide it is not accessible to most patients. The Deployment Health Clinical Center, run by the Department of Defense and separate from the Army’s services, offers a three-week program of customized treatment. Individual exposure therapy and fewer medications are favored. Deployment Health can see only about 65 patients a year but is the envy of many in the Army. “They need to clone that program,” said Col. Charles W. Hoge, chief of psychiatry and behavior services at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research.

    Instead, Deployment Health was forced to give up its newly renovated quarters in March and was placed in temporary space one-third the size to make room for a soldier and family assistance center. The move came after a series of articles in The Post detailed the neglect of wounded outpatients at Walter Reed. Therapy sessions are now being held in Building T-2, a rundown former computer center, until new space becomes available.

    In the Army we all know what Buildings with “T” in front of their number means – a corregated steel barn the Army throws up while it’s building another one. There is construction going on WRAMC – it’s been going on since before the war. I didn’t see that mentioned in the Walter Reed story.

    Neither did I find a reference to the Washington Post’s Walter Reed story I wrote on back in April;

    A review panel’s recommendation that the Pentagon accelerate the expansion of the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda drew a wary reaction yesterday from local officials and neighbors concerned about traffic problems.

    The Pentagon’s Independent Review Group, which is examining flaws in outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, released a draft report Wednesday recommending that the Army hospital be closed as soon as possible and replaced by a facility to be built on the Bethesda campus.

    The Pentagon recommended speeding up the process of building the new Walter Reed facilities at Bethesda to overcome some of the problems at the cramped old facilities on Georgia Avenue in the District – but my dork-ass, elitist, pot-smoking, punk Congressman Chrissy VonHollen is blocking it because residents in the flashy, trendy Bethesda are worried about traffic (there’s a subway that runs right through the area, but why buy a Mercedes if you can’t park it in traffic on Wisconsin Avenue five days every week).

    VonHollen wasn’t alone, by the way. Jimmy Moran sobered up long enough to become somewhat coherent and gurgled out;

    But some members of Congress, including Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), insist that Walter Reed be kept open. “What you’re doing is changing horses in the middle of the stream at a time when soldiers need the best medical care,” Moran said yesterday.

    So which is it, Moran? Are they going to get the best medical care in the cramped Georgia Avenue Walter Reed or at the brand-spanking new facility in Bethesda – 12 miles away. Are you trying to say we can’t build the new hospital until the war ends? Do you even know what you’re saying?

    You’ll notice the Bethesda story is on page three and two months old. That’s how worried the Post is about our troops when alleviating some of their problems involves inconveniencing some Democrats in Bethesda with more traffic and its blocked by a Democrat punk-ass, dork Congressman Chrissy VonHollen.

    Maybe Hull and Priest will have a little more credibility on the subject when they tell me what they’ve done to help the Pentagon build the new Bethesda facilities.

    Oh, and all ya’all bloggers ain’t no damn better – there’s 34 links already to today’s WaPo hit piece and only six links to the story about punkass, sissy Chrissy VanHollen blocking the new facilities. Before ya’all go off on how the Army treats people, have all of the facts.  

  • So learn English already!

    First of all, let me say this; I speak almost exclusively Spanish in my home. There are times when I speak Spanish with my wife outside my home when I need to speak privately to her. In fact, when I first saw Schwartzenegger make this comment last night, I was watching it on Telemundo – I watch Spanish language news programs. Well, here’s the report from SFGate;

    Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a gathering of Hispanic journalists that immigrants should avoid Spanish-language media if they want to learn English quickly.

    “You’ve got to turn off the Spanish television set” and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

    “You’re just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster,” Schwarzenegger said.

    “I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say, and I’m going to get myself in trouble,” he said, noting that he rarely spoke German and was forced to learn English when he emigrated from Austria.

    When I first heard it, I thought, well, that makes complete sense. The language of commerce for the whole world is English – someone wanting to make money should learn to speak English, for Pete’s sake. Then I listened to the outraged SPANISH-LANGUAGE journalists complain about what Arnold said, and they pretty much echoed the SFGate article;

    “I’m sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that,” said Alex Nogales, president and chief executive of the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

    “Naive and out of it”. Hey, Nogales, compa, you’re being naive and out of it.  

    From Hispanic Business.com, probably the most ignorant words in response to the governor’s statement that Latins should learn English;

    “They’re busy working,” remarked panelist Pilar Marrero, political editor of Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion. “They don’t have time to.”

    […]

    “Spanish media is there to do what the English media doesn’t do, which is to serve the immigrants,” Marrero said afterward.

    Spanish media is there to make money for the Spanish media, Pilar. If your audiences learned to speak English, they wouldn’t need you anymore and you’d have to become a real journalist instead of victimizing and stigmatizing your audience. And next time you’re talking to the governor, and you’re trying to present yourself as a journalist, don’t end a sentence with a preposition – it detracts from your credibility.

    I learned Spanish when I lived in Panama, I learned German when I lived in Germany. I already had jobs in boths places that didn’t have a language requirement for the local language, so I didn’t have to learn the respective languages – but I did out of respect for my neighbors and the people with whom I conducted daily business. There were English-language TV channels in both places, but I watched the local TV stations to immerse myself in the language.

    And who better to make that “naive and out of it” statement but Scwartzeneger – an immigrant who came here speaking no English? Is it politically incorrect because he happened to be an immigrant from a European country instead of a southern country? Pilar Marrero thinks so;

    Marrero said afterward. “As he said, it’s a political hot potato. I think he believes it, he thinks about his own experience. It’s different when you come from Austria than when you come from Latin America.”

    That’s pretty racist, Pilar. Are you saying that Europeans are genetically predisposed to learning multiple languages? Or are you saying that Latins are too stupid to learn another language besides Spanish? Or are you just yapping to hear yourself yap?

    Actually, the SPANISH LANGUAGE JOURNALISTS were upset that Schwartzeneger implied that they, SPANISH LANGUAGE JOURNALISTS, were contributing to the inability of their audience to function in an English-speaking society and conduct English-speaking business. And they are. They’re just angry that he said it outloud – to a group of SPANISH LANGUAGE JOURNALISTS.

    Like I said, who is being naive and out of it?

    By the way, I speak Spanish in my home to keep in practice for when I visit Latin America – out of respect for the people I’m visiting. I can do that because my English (the language of commerce) is just fine.

    Salud!

  • The most ethical Congress deadlocked on earmarks

    The Democrats (in the person of Nancy Pelosi) established the lowest bar possible by promising “the most ethical Congress ever” if Americans would give them the majority this year in Congress. That’s not hard to promise, really – how hard is it to be cleaner than a groundhog? Slimmer than a hippo? And they may be the most ethical Congress ever, for all I know, but I don’t think the American voters want to grade something like ethics in Congress on a sliding scale in 2008.

    But, anyway, this “most ethical Congress ever” is deadlocked to a standstill on the issue of earmarks – earmarks are how politicians get reelected by paying off their constitutency with public works projects. Mainly useless public works projects like bridges that go nowhere built in one state with the tax dollars from the other states. Projects that local governments don’t feel are worthy of spending local taxes to build.

    Earmarks are why everything in West Virginia is named “Robert C. Byrd” – after all of the useless crap that Senator Byrd forced the Federal government to build in that State.

    Well, earmarks are the way that Democrats held on the House for more than 50 years – despite the fact that their majority voted against stuff like the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964, the fact that they approved the Democrat President’s combat forces being introduced into Vietnam in 1965, despite the fact that they raised taxes so high that the upper marginal tax rate was 70% by the time Ronald Reagan became President. Earmarks kept them in office despite the fact that they pretty near destroyed the country. Anyone remember the debt Congress ran up before the Republicans took over in 1995 and dragged Bill Clinton kicking and screaming into fiscal responsibility?

    Well Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma tells us, in the pages of the Wall Street Journal yesterday, what happened to Pelosi’s legislation;

    When we considered ethics and earmark reform in January, Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S. C.) ingeniously forced our chamber to vote on a strong earmark-reform package — written by none other than House Speaker Pelosi herself. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid initially blocked the “DeMint/Pelosi” amendment, but after it was “modified” in a face-saving exercise it passed largely intact.

    The DeMint/Pelosi language would disclose backdoor earmarks, often called report language earmarks, that are tucked away in non-binding, staff-written appropriations committee reports. Ninety-five percent of all earmarks are written as “coercive suggestions” to agencies in these explanatory reports that accompany bills. DeMint/Pelosi would make public the sponsors of earmarks, requiring members to file a public disclosure statement stating that neither they nor their spouse will benefit financially from a pork project. Finally, it would give members new procedural tools to block bills that violate these rules.

    However, the underlying legislation, S.1, a central Democratic campaign promise, has gone nowhere since it passed five months ago. House and Senate conferees have not even begun meeting to iron out a final bill. Each day, it looks more like another expired promise.

    Sen. Reid and top Senate Democrats have had two other opportunities to enact Ms. Pelosi’s earmark reform language. They blocked both attempts, arguing that ethics reform must be done comprehensively, not in a piecemeal fashion — conveniently making the perfect the enemy of the good and doable. Some members of Congress seem to be hoping the public will lose interest in earmark reform. That isn’t likely. Voters and taxpayers continue to be enraged — Congress’s approval rating is an abysmal 27%, in part because reform hasn’t happened. Presidential politics will keep the issue front and center, and the army of bloggers who have long led on this issue are ratcheting up their criticism of the status quo.

    Good old Harry Reid again. That spineless little goofball. So, apparently, because they can’t restrain themselves, the San Francisco Chronical writes that the House, even though they’ve passed the earmark reform bill, have inserted 33,000 earmarks in this year’s spending bills;

    Republicans cried foul over a plan by Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., for the House to pass all of the dozen spending bills without any earmarks.

    Obey said House members from both parties — even while expressing concern about rising government spending — had inundated his committee with 33,000 earmark requests. He said it would take the committee’s staff four weeks to study all those pork barrel requests and pare them to a manageable level.

    Obey proposed to put the earmarks into the bill as the House prepares to confer with the Senate to reconcile the two chambers’ different versions of the spending bills. Obey promised to disclose the list of the earmarks a month before such a conference, which Democrats hope to hold by late summer, so members and the public will have time to scrutinize and react to the projects.

    Well, the Washington Times’ Eric Pfeiffer writes that Republicans scored a small victory over Democrats – and a victory for the American taxpayer;

       The Democrats had planned to allow earmarks only during the conference process, when a limited number of lawmakers from each chamber meet to hammer out differences between the bills passed, while barring them during committee hearings and on the floor.
        Under current rules, earmarks must be made public while an appropriations bill is going through each chamber. Republicans complained that allowing earmarks to be added during conference undermines their “sunshine” reforms and they claimed victory last night.
        “Democratic leaders finally surrendered to our demands because supporting secret earmarks in appropriations bills is indefensible and the American people won’t stand for it,” said House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
        “House Republicans worked together to demand an end to slush funds for secret earmarks and the right to challenge wasteful spending on the House floor — and we won,” Mr. Boehner said.
        As a result of the compromise, several of the House appropriations bills will now be delayed until more than 32,000 requested earmarks can be publicly disclosed before coming to the House for a vote.

    Imagine that – the elected representatives of the American people wanted to spend our money without telling us how they planned  on spending it. I’m not blaming Democrats exclusively in this – Republicans are just as guilty of doing the same damn thing in the last twelve years. What I am blaming is the system – and the voters.

    Voters have come to expect giveaways from the government, and they reward politicians who give them stuff – not neccessarily the people who come to Washington to protect us from foreign enemies, or protect us from local whackos.

    The House of Representatives was supposed to made up of ordinary people off the street who wanted to do their part for the country and return to private life. Instead we built Congress a rich retirement plan that rewards them for longterm service, so naturally, they’re going to do everything in their power to stay in those jobs and reap the financial rewards instead of reaping the philosophical rewards and getting the Hell back to real life.

    The Washington Post today, writes about the wealthy local politicians in the Metro DC area and the one that really got me was DC’s delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton;

    In the District, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) reported assets valued at $823,036 to $2.2 million, including annuities and other retirement investments.

    For what? She can’t vote in Congress. All she can do lobby Congress for the interests of the District, yet she’s got the net worth of the annual income of about 50 of her constituents. For doing what? Helping former Mayor Williams getting that stupid “Taxation without representation” slogan put on license plates? That’s the only thing I’ve seen her do in the last eight years, besides complain that no one told her that the Federal Government sent all of it’s employees home on 9-11.

    We’ve come to expect experienced people in our legislatures and executive offices, but I’m not convinced that we need people with experience more than we need people with common sense and a common touch.

  • WHAT you are vs. WHO you are

    So I guess for all of the reasons that perky Katie Couric gave us for not watching her host the nightly news, the reason her boss chose to blame is good old convenient “sexism“;

    “I’m sort of surprised by the vitriol against her. The number of people who don’t want news from a woman was startling,” Mr Moonves said of the audience’s reaction to Ms Couric, who this month brought ratings for the CBS Evening News to a 20-year low.

    It couldn’t be because she presents Leftist commentary as hard news, could it? Or maybe her perkiness plays well to stay-at-home moms early in the morning, but not to working people who watch evening news. Nope, it’s gotta be because she’s a woman.

    Just like when the Democrats charged America with being anti-Semites when we didn’t elect Joe Lieberman as Vice-President. (But somehow it isn’t racism when they treat him the way they have the last few years) The Left is more concerned about WHAT a person is than WHO a person is.

    If you speak ill of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton it’s because you’re a racist – not because you can recognize a hustler when you see one (or two). If you report suspicious behavior of a group of imams, it’s because you’re an Islamophobe, not because you’re scared of crashing into a building during your flight home.

    When I was in college (at the age of 39), I mentioned to my professor that I’d leave the country if Hillary Clinton became President. A co-ed overheard the comment and charged me with being a sexist. I tried to explain that I’d leave the country because I don’t want to live under a socialistic government – but of course there was no explaining – I was a sexist because I didn’t like Hillary Clinton for WHAT she is, rather than WHO she is. But now I see that women support her 2:1 over Obama’s female support. I guess there’s no sexism or racism involved there, huh?

    I know it’s only natural for people to avoid confronting their own shortcomings by blaming them on other people’s shortcomings, but sometimes people don’t like you for WHO you are. Trust me on this – alot of you are jerks and no one has ever told you.

    Nah, sorry, Les, but CBS bet on the wrong pony – perky Katie Couric is a poor newsperson. That’s not America’s fault; it was a bad business decision from the get-go. And it’s not like you weren’t warned.