Goring Gore

Here’s what prominent conservatives are saying today about Nobel Prize winner Al Gore.

“Look, here’s the guy who lost to Bush in 2000 and has some kind of liberal religious conversion, and then goes tooling around the country spouting pseudoscience about the environment. He’s a sore loser and this is his way of getting back at Bush. It’s pathetic and just shows what a bitter, mean-spirited whack-job Al Gore is.”

Rush Limbaugh

“Who’s on the selection committee? That’s what I want to know. Who’s getting a little something under the table? No one in their right mind would give Al Gore the time of day let alone a Nobel Prize if there wasn’t money or favors changing hands. I’m calling for an investigation of this travesty here and now. Let’s get INTERPOL on this, folks.”

Bill O’Reilly

“This means nothing. The Nobel Prize has no meaning to anyone anymore. They gave it to Jimmy Carter for crying out loud, the wimpiest, weakest president in U.S. history. It’s a joke. Who’s going to win next year? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Osama bin Laden? Hillary Clinton?”

Michelle Malkin

“You know, if Gore really believed in saving the environment, he’d stop eating so much and shed about a hundred pounds. He looks like the Pillsbury Dough Boy in an expensive suit, except when you poke Gore in the stomach, instead of laughing he gives a lecture on the melting ice cap. Come to think of it, baking up a batch of Gore cookies (without nuts, wink, wink) doesn’t sound like a bad idea.”

Ann Coulter

Another successful frame-up by the Rethugs

How can people as inherently stupid as conservatives be so successful at framing issues? They’re doing it again with the military.

Although we don’t see ourselves in this way, America is a militaristic society. We love our weapons, violent games, and we tend to place men and women in uniform on a very high pedestal. I think part of the psychology around this is the guilt we feel when we (our government) send young Americans off to die in foreign lands and the rest of us go on comfortably with our lives. In other words, there is no equivalent sacrifice at home (not since World War II, anyway).

So we shield our military from criticism in the protective bubble of hyper patriotism. The irony, of course, is that those who never set foot on a battlefield (Bush, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Cheney, et. al.) pound their war drums the loudest (uniform envy?).

The latest MoveOn.org/Limbaugh brouhaha allows the framers of the anti-Constitution the opportunity to cower the Dems with their overblown, hyperbolic indignation at anyone who would dare criticize a soldier. The frame? Critics of the military are unpatriotic and anti-American. For Limbaugh and others, this even extends to military personnel who don’t stand on the right side of the issue.

So, as usual, the cowardly Dems succumb to the bluster and condemn anyone who says bad things about our military leaders. Never mind if what they say is accurate or not.

I was in the Army for three years. Believe me, people in uniform can make mistakes. And they can also be disingenuous, hypocritical, deceptive, and conniving, just like the rest of us. Why should they be held above criticism? Westmorland and others lied to us about the situation in Vietnam. Patraeus and others have lied to us about the situation in Iraq. They should be held accountable.

There’s nothing wrong with having a healthy respect for Americans who are willing to put their lives on the line for their country. However, a uniform does not automatically transform a human being into a deity.

It seems that for Republicans and too many Democrats, it’s not okay to criticize a soldier, but it is okay to use that soldier as a pawn to obtain political advantage.

What's the matter with Amy?

Once again, a vote by my senator Amy Klobuchar leaves me scratching my head in disbelief. She was one of a handful of Democrats to vote in favor of condemning MoveOn.org for its Petraeus ad in the New York Times. What could her rationales be?

a) I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want anyone to accuse me of not supporting our troops.

b) I believed the hyperventilating Republicans that the ad was a vicious attack on the general and the troops.

c) I had a killer hangover.

Amy has raised the hackles of many Minnesotans in the blogoshpere and for good reason. Her vote is now part of a Norm Coleman ad bashing Al Franken for supporting MoveOn.org. The ad, of course, uses Amy’s vote as evidence that all right-thinking Minnesotan’s support the hysterical Republican blather about that anti-American group of lefties.

So what is Amy Klobuchar? An unwitting tool of conservatives? A Republican in Democrat’s clothing? A soulless, calculating political machine? A not very smart person? Nothing good on this list from which to choose. One thing we do know is that she’s turning out to be a Democrat in name only.

“Please, Mr. President. Not in public.”

Minnesota’s lovably loony congressperson Michele Bachmann is at it again. This time she claims that President Bush tried a little grope-a-dope at the site of the 35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, and she rejected his gesture. According to the site Think Progress, Bachmann made these remarks during a local radio show:

The President and I enjoy a great relationship. When he and I were back visiting the collapsed bridge, he reached over because he wanted to give me a kiss when we were down at the site, and I had pulled back and he said, “What? You don’t want to embrace?” And I said, “The people of Minnesota love you Mr. President, but I think one kiss was enough.”

Where, oh where, to begin. First off, Michele’s assertion that Minnesotans love George Bush is itself a delusion. She might love the Shrub, but poll after poll tells us that the majority of Minnesotans (a group of which I am a member) detest George and his policies.

Then there’s the kiss thing. Her use of the word “kiss” is interesting. How exactly did she know he wanted to kiss her and wasn’t simply offering her a comforting hug? Was his tongue hanging out? His reaction, according to Bachmann, “What? You don’t want to embrace?” simply doesn’t sound like anything Bush would actually say. He might mutter, “Huh?” or “What’s wrong?” but “You don’t want to embrace?” rings false.

Michele has a unique world-view that begs you to question virtually anything she says, and she seems to have a difficult time distinguishing between what’s appropriate what’s not. Hiding behind bushes to watch people: Not appropriate. Grabbing and holding on to the President of the United States at his State of the Union Address: Not appropriate. Accepting a comforting embrace from the president at the site of a terrible disaster: Probably appropriate.

A few 9/11-anniversary questions

Why do a number of prominent progressives, some of whom have made careers out of questioning the U.S. government’s motives and methods, continue to vigorously defend the government’s findings around the events of 9/11?

World Trade Center building 7 was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed into it’s own footprint. I’ve read various attempts to explain this, but none of them make sense, not because they are too technical, but because they simply defy logic.

I’m certainly not an engineer, but I can understand the concept of the heat from the plane’s burning fuel weakening the metal supports in the Towers enough to cause a collapse. What I don’t understand is how hot liquid pouring through a building would weaken the metal beams at the same points around the circumference of the building in order to cause the buildings to fall straight down. Logic tells me that the intensity of the heat from the fuel would affect the metal beams at different areas up and down the building, which would cause the upper section of a tower to fall to one side or another, not straight down.

Why did Bush sit on his ass in a Florida classroom for seven minutes after being informed that America was under attack?

Bat Boy Retires to Florida

The print version of the Weekly World News has been abducted by aliens and will no longer be found in the checkout lane of your favorite grocery store. In reality, the sensationalist tabloid succumbed to overwhelming financial problems, but who cares about reality? Certainly not the writers and editors of WWN, who entertained millions of bored shoppers in check-out lines with stories of secret meetings between presidents and aliens, Elvis sightings, and, of course, the most widely recognized icon of trash tabloid news, Bat Boy, a pre-Photoshop masterpiece of image manipulation.

What can we learn (or unlearn) from the demise of WWN, which dubbed itself, “The World’s Only Reliable Newspaper”? Of course, like others, I’ve always wondered how many readers of WWN took it seriously. Nothing in its placement in the tabloid rack next to the National Enquirer, Cosmopolitan, and Better Homes and Gardens gave perusers a clue to the rags subversive nature. Sure, the headlines and photos were always over the top, but, like a Venus Fly Trap in a garden, it blended in with its environment extremely well.

You never saw MAD magazine or National Lampoon in the impulse aisle, but the tacky, design-challenged WWN was our checkout buddy for nearly thirty years, screaming apocalyptic warnings in the midst of Hollywood break ups and home improvement tips.

Is there a segment of the population out there who believes a 500-foot tall Jesus visited the U.N.? I wish it weren’t so (especially with an election year approaching), but the irony is, with more channels of communications and information than ever before in history, the lines between fact, fiction, news and opinion have been growing less and less distinguishable. Perhaps it’s not ironic but inevitable that we cling to an uncomplicated reality (or non-reality) in a sea of conflicting messages.

Don’t get me wrong. I love (and also write) satire and I think we need more publications like WWN, not fewer. I’m sorry to see the world’s only reliable newspaper fold. The one thing I wonder about is whether we were laughing at it or it was laughing at us. I’m sure it was probably a little of both.

The Zombie Fisherman

Welcome to the inaugural column of The Zombie Fisherman, a weekly reflection on the elegant sport of fishing. Why a fishing column for zombies? Let’s start by being honest. Feeding on human flesh—every zombie’s meal of choice—often has unpleasant repercussions. The enraged living routinely attack us, hack us up, set us on fire, and shoot at us. Who hasn’t lost a limb from a close-range shotgun blast?

So if not human flesh, whither comest our sustenance? Being the slow, plodding creatures we are, catching animals such as deer or rabbits is virtually impossible. Farm animals are an occasional treat, but are too often enclosed in pens or by fences, which, alas, we cannot climb. There is an alternative, however: The multitude of water creatures in the world’s lakes, rivers and oceans.

Fishing is an ideal activity for zombies. The pace is glacial; it is an activity that does not require a partner (let’s face it, we are not team players); it is not necessary to be around the living; and, if the fishing isn’t good, you can eat the bait.

Tip #1: If you run out of bait on a good day, a small bit of your rotting flesh is an excellent substitute.

So in future columns of Zombie Fisherman we will discuss all things fishing related: Lures, bait, tackle, local hot spots, and for the truly motivated, fly fishing techniques.

Sure, you’re dead, but you still need to feed. A raw carp may not be as tasty as a fat woman, but it’s a whole lot easier, and safer, to catch. Remember, when the fish are biting, so are you. See you next week.

The Zombie Fisherman.

An open letter to all Democratic senators and representatives

We asked you for results. We get words in return.

We asked you for courage. We get timidity.

We asked you for leadership. We get capitulation.

We asked you to fight for us. We get cowards who hide behind procedure and protocol.

We asked you to save the Constitution. We get a President who continues to savage it.

We asked you to do the bidding of the majority of Americans. We get excuses.

We asked you to represent us. We get nothing.

Who are these people?

We exist on the same planet, but we live in different worlds. Even though Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al, grew up in the same country as I did, watched the same TV shows, learned basically the same things in school, our world views turned out to be as different as night and day. How did that happen?

Like an anthropologist struggling to fathom the culture of a “lost tribe,” my mind is continuously trying to find points of connection between the world I know and the behavior of those individuals who make up the Bush administration.

What is it like to live in a culture where lying to yourself and others is as normal as breathing? How does one’s head not explode when facts constantly refute your belief system? How much willpower must it take to deny the reality that stands directly in front of you?

Like a tribe cut off from the rest of society for centuries, Bushites missed some evolutionary steps along the path to humanness. They definitely played hooky the day empathy was discussed. Governor Bush mocked a woman soon to be executed. Rove surrogates attacked a paraplegic war veteran during an election. The whole gang supports economic policies that reward the wealthy at the expense of the poor.

And Bush and his boys must have been lurking in some alley pulling the wings off of flies or mugging kids for lunch money during the lessons of the Enlightenment, the New Deal, the Civil Rights movement, the 1960’s, and every other progressive event in modern history, because they missed them all. The “good old days” for these guys is the Inquisition.

Their God is punitive and angry, their rules are for everyone except themselves, and their convictions are for sale to the highest bidder. Some will say they represent the values of the wealthy elite, which is true to an extent, but there are too many rabid believers who came from humble backgrounds to blame it all on the caste system.

All I can say is that I feel like this country has been taken over by ugly, inbred distant relatives who come for a visit, trash your house, and complain about what a lousy host you are.

A day at the water park

I took my eleven year-old son and a friend of his to an indoor water park this past weekend. The outside temperature was in the mid-nineties and I was initially enthusiastic about lying in a tube and meandering around the lazy river. That lasted about ten minutes.

After securing a second mortgage on my condo, we had the financial resources to enter the men’s changing room where we nudged and jostled our way to one of two available lockers. The boys were in no mood for orderly processes so we jammed our shoes and clothes into the mailbox-sized hole and sloshed out into the slimy, tattooed, chlorine-soaked nightmare of the indoor water park.

It is a cavernous enclosed facility where the humidity is at a constant 150 percent and nothing ever dries. Ever. The warm puddle of water you’re standing in as you search in vain for your children has been there a growing bacterium since 1998 when the building first opened its doors. The screams of hundreds of children and over-stimulated teen-age girls are amplified ten-fold in the mostly metal structure, and I felt like I had tiny policemen in my auditory canals unmercifully tasering my eardrums.

We find a plastic chair and table that aren’t draped with layers of wet towels and set down our own towels, which seem to absorb moisture from the air and instantly become wet. Before I can utter a single warning or plea, the boys disappear into the madness. With a shrug, I make sure the locker key is securely fastened to my suit and move out.

You don’t rent tubes at this particular water park, I quickly learned. Instead you prowl around the kiddie pool or the lazy river for abandoned tubes that you then quickly snap up like the first crow to discover a juicy road kill. Tube hunting is a free-for-all. Parents mill around the departure point of the lazy river carefully reading body language and scanning eye motion in their efforts to be the first to spot a tuber who might be ready to give up the prize.

I eventually get a tube without making a child cry and head off down the lazy river. It’s only then that I realize the place is packed. My tube is bumped and spun in collisions with kids wanting to pass or older people in front of me whose tubes have stalled. Instead of the relaxing ride I had hoped for, I feel more like I’m commuting to work, except my tube doesn’t have a horn.

Amid the screams and splashing, I have a second realization. The place is teaming with monstrous, obese humans. They are everywhere. Men with guts that hang like garbage sacks filled with Jell-O. Women with roll upon roll of cellulite escaping out of every crack in their suits (and where do they get suits that big?). Hippo families lumber in herds from one attraction to the next. There are white hippos covered in blue varicose veins and hairy hippos who need their backs shaved and baby hippos who look like they are wearing kid-sized blubber suits.

I started making certain connections in my head that took me to a bad place. I knew that I would never want to take a bath with any of these people, even in a really, really big bathtub. Even though I had no idea where the boys were, I made tracks for the locker room. I desperately wanted a shower and dry clothes.

My son and his friend had a great time, of course. And that’s what’s important. Right?

But I’m still having nightmares.

Baby on board

They’ve been around for years, but I still shake my head in bewilderment when I see one of those yellow “Baby on board” signs in a car window. What does that mean to me as we pass down the road together in close proximity? I’m already distracted reading the sign, which is not a good thing. Maybe in the name of caution I should slow down suddenly, surprising the driver behind me who’s been sitting on my bumper for the past few miles. I could allow for more space as I pass them, thus taking the chance that my tires will get hooked on the shoulder and my car will be thrown into a deadly spin that will endanger the lives of others. Possibly they just want me to turn down my radio.

At any rate, accidents by their very nature are…well, accidental. No one plans to have an accident (unless you’re committing suicide), conversely no one can plan not to have an accident with a “Baby on board” car. It might help if the signs were more specific. “Baby on board. Slow down, asshole.” Or “Baby on board. If you can read this, you’re too close.”

Of course, I could be totally wrong and the signs may actually promote more cautious driving. If so, I would recommend a few other window signs be created, such as: “Relatives from New Jersey on board.” “IKEA purchases on board.” “Born-again on board.” In other words, let me know why I shouldn’t have an accident with you…or should.

Lieberman says bomb Vatican City

Senator Joseph Lieberman has called on the Bush administration to begin a military assault on Vatican City immediately. Lieberman told reporters he was apoplectic with anger over Pope Benedict’s discussion of the “worrying situation in Iraq” with the president during Bush’s recent visit to Italy.

“There is no ‘worrying situation in Iraq.’ That’s a bunch of Papal bull. These kinds of statements can create doubt and consternation in the susceptible mind of the president, and that’s the last thing we need.”

Lieberman is calling for an immediate apology from the Pontiff. If that is not forthcoming, said the senator, the United States should use the full force of its military might to destroy Vatican City. “It would be a much better use of the land to turn it into a sports complex,” noted the senator.

The Vatican reacted swiftly, calling Lieberman “…a cocaine-addicted lunatic Satin lover who compensates for his tiny penis by trying to start a global war.”

In the past week, Lieberman has called on the United States to bomb Iran, Venezuela, and Hillary Clinton.

Publicity stunts gone bad

Who looks more ridiculous? You be the judge.

Democrats cave

The Democrats have deleted any timetable for withdrawal from the current Iraq supplemental spending bill. Bush has won again.

My question is this: How can a large group of educated, experienced Democratic politicians in Congress be consistently outsmarted and outfoxed by a mental midget like George Bush? Is there no Democrat in Congress who’s smarter than George? He continues to make the Dems look foolish and ineffective.

This isn’t what we voted for last November.

Bush names new Blame Czar

President Bush announced today that he has appointed former Congressman Newt Gingrich to be the nation’s first Blame Czar. According to the White House, the primary function of the new position will be to assess blame for the administrations failures over the past six years.

“For the good of our country,” said Bush in his brief remarks, “blame cannot be concentrated on the executive. By it’s very nature, the presidency is beyond blame, hence blame must be doled out to others. Mr. Gingrich is no stranger to vociferous accusations of wrongdoing, and he is not afraid to heap blame on everyone and anyone who disagrees with him. These are the qualities we were looking for in a Blame Czar.”

In accepting the position, Gingrich said he would work tirelessly to implicate others in the mistakes of this administration. “The Democrats have blood on their hands, as do Americans who voted for George Bush,” said Gingrich. “They should have known better. And they did it twice. Now, whose fault is that?”

Gingrich went on to wag an accusatory finger at everyone from the ACLU to Colin Powell for allowing this administration to make misstep after misstep in foreign and domestic policy. Gingrich argued, “George Bush is obviously an emotionally and mentally imbalanced individual, yet time and time again, advisors allowed him to make the final decision on matters of life and death. This is gross negligence of the highest order.”

Gingrich said his first act will be to hurl blame at U.S. military forces for not having the will to win the Iraq war, despite the president’s insistence on victory. “I know I won’t be a popular figure in my new role,” said Gingrich, “but I never have been popular, or even liked, so whoopdeedoo. I don’t care. Rewriting history is never well received, but it must be done in order to salvage the Bush legacy. And be honest. What could be more important than that?”

Republican candidates spar in first debate

The recent MSNBC Republican debate among presidential hopefuls lacked any fireworks between the leading contenders, but it allowed those farther back in the pack an opportunity to set themselves apart.

Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo sparred vigorously in an attempt to emphasize their conservative credentials. It began when the moderator asked the group, “Who here does not believe in evolution.” Brownback, Huckabee and Tancredo raised their hands. Each of the three candidates was then allowed to explain their position.

“Evolution is a hoax,” began Brownback. “It is hubris of the highest degree for scientists to think they know more than God.”

“You’re right,” continued Huckabee, “But let me add that I believe gravity and electricity are also demonic ideas intended to blind humans to the glory of the Almighty.”

Tancredo added his voice. “So true, gentlemen. We have lost our way, and I for one, yearn for that bygone era when religion was respected and permeated every aspect of society. I’m not talking about the 1950s. I’m talking about the 1050s. The Middle Ages, when the natural order of society was in balance.”

“Let me say for the record, that I was for a feudal society before I was against it,” said Brownback.

“I wrote about “The New Feudalism” in an editorial recently,” remarked Huckabee, “Where I outlined my four point plan that will herald in an era of religious obedience, barbaric behavior and unsanitary conditions…minus the Catholics. It’s what America needs.”

Tancredo rose to his feet, and in a fit of passion declared, “These are half measures, my friends. What America truly needs is an Inquisition, a cleansing effort to reclaim our lost society for God. My platform calls for the arrest and imprisonment of Jews, Catholics, atheists, homosexuals, liberals, feminists and every other anti-American element we can weed out. We must smite them all!”

A chorus of amens throughout the studio followed the comments of Trancedo.

Bush reassures troops: You’ll be in Iraq until hell freezes over

Washington, D.C. - Concerned about the morale of troops fighting in Iraq after Congresses’ failed attempt to set a timetable for withdrawal, President Bush sent a message to American servicemen and women assuring them that the fight against terrorism would continue.

“I know that many of you are rightly concerned that you will be sent home to families and loved ones before we have conquered the enemy. Well, let me tell you, that will not happen on my watch. In fact, it will never happen.

“We will not surrender. If you have to stay in Iraq for the next 50 years, by God, that’s what you’ll do. You are right to wonder what the defeatists are thinking when they cry, ‘Bring home the troops. Bring home the troops.’ Do they want us to fail? Do they care more about your safety and will to live then they do about the never-ending pursuit of terrorists?

“You can count on me, as your Commander and Chief, to keep you in harms way for as long as it takes. Remember, you’re fighting so my daughters don’t have to.

God Bless America

George W. Bush

A little braggin' time

Last winter I entered my script "The Devil's in the Details" in the “screenplay” category in two film festivals. Much to my surprise and delight I received recognition in both festivals. It was selected for “Honorable Mention” (2nd place) in the Buffalo Niagara Film Festival, and I just returned from the California Independent Film Festival where it was chosen best screenplay for 2007.

The Devil's in the Details

Logline: A modern twist on the Faust legend. Advertising executive Danny Laws is on the verge of losing his agency's biggest client and his reputation as New York's hottest ad man. When things look bleakest, he's offered success for his eternal soul, but Danny turns the tables when he convinces Satan hell needs his help more than it need his soul--with an ad campaign.

Francis, Martin, Cameron, Quentin...listen, I know you guys are regular readers of my blog, so let's not get into a pissing match about this. It'll be first come first serve. Love ya.

Bush Administration to revise the Constitution

In a bold move that has incensed Democrats, the Bush Administration announced today that it was going to “edit” the United States Constitution to bring it up-to-date.

“The Constitution is 231 years old,” the White House memo argued. “The language is arcane and the sentiments, while worthy in the abstract, do not represent this country’s role in a dangerous world.”

According to the memo, President Bush will be the first to edit or revise the Constitution. He’ll be given a black magic marker and a copy of the document to make his changes. It will then be routed to others in the White House and the Justice Department for their input. “The President is eager to put his “brand” on the historic document,” continues the announcement, “and he has been pouring over historical documents and Tom Clancy novels in preparation.”

A high-level White House advisor, who asked not to be identified, said the effort is merely a logical evolutionary process. “No one drives a car that’s 231 years old. The Constitution is a living document that requires a new lease on life every couple of centuries. It’s not like we’re tossing it in the garbage and starting from scratch.”

On receiving the White House memo, Congressional Democrats were observed tearing at their clothes and shrieking uncontrollably throughout the halls of the Capital Building. Harry Reid, his face a brilliant shade of purple, stammered, “Impeachment…horse crap…lightning bolt…rain fire from heaven….” Comments from other Democrats could not be deciphered or repeated in a family newspaper.

Late in the day, the White House issued a follow-up memo amid the uproar, clarifying that the President would make his changes with a red magic marker, and not a black one.

It lives! Phyllis Schlafly haunts Bates College

Phyllis Schlafly has reared her ugly head again. The octogenarian antifeminist spoke to an overflow audience (why?) at Bates College recently, fanning the flames of sexual bigotry and demonizing women who refuse to prostrate themselves before their husbands.

An old school version of Ann Coulter, Schlafly’s stock and trade is attacking modern women with zingers drawn from seventeenth century advice columns.

Dear Phyllis,
My husband attempteth to ravage me against my will. I protested heartily, but he would not stop. Is this not rape?
Meg

Dear Meg,
By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don't think you can call it rape.
Phyllis

This cruel and uncaring response wasn’t from 1607 but 2007. Apparently, Schlafly believes that marriage nullifies a woman’s humanity. In other words, her husband owns her.

Schlafly also said that women are “inherently physically inferior” to men and shouldn’t hold jobs like firefighter, construction worker or, of course, soldier. This, despite the fact there are tens of thousands of women working successfully in all three categories.

Like Coulter, Schlafly relies on over-heated, over the top rhetoric to maintain her celebrity status in conservative circles. Her sentiments are shocking to the reality-based world, but apparently that’s what keeps her packing ‘em in on the speaking circuit. Hers was a name I hoped I’d heard the last of decades ago, but she continues to rise from the grave and haunt the rational world.

Hopefully, when the stake is finally driven into the heart of the Reagan-Bush political era and the darkness lifts, Schlafly and her brain-dead peers will scramble back into their holes and stay there.