http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:36:39 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/10/31/033639.php Punditz First thing I saw when I signed into Journalspace tonight was the updated list of entries. What caught my attention on the list was an updated journal entry by bushatrocity I didn't know there was a journal at JS called bushatrocity, but now that I am aware of it, by all means, let's find out what that means. I will go back and read more of the entries at that journal because, after all, everyone needs a good laugh now and then, but the entry that was most recently posted was on an article I read also. The New Yorker Magazine, that bastion of chicken soup for the Liberal soul, is one of my favorite places to go slumming. As a matter of fact, I subscribe. I like to see how the other half lives. In traditional Liberal fashion, bushatrocity stretches the truth a bit in claiming that The New Yorker endorses John Kerry thereby breaking an 80 year tradition of endorsing no political candidate in any election. Actually, what The New Yorker's editors claim at the end of their spiel is "For now, as citizens, we hope for [John Kerry's] victory." In an effort to keep the illusion of non-partisanship, their editorial is a review of the Bush Presidency as compared to what they consider to be the illustrious promise of a Kerry Administration. Since they have been kissing Kerry's butt for months now and bashing the hell out of the Bush Administration whenever possible, this hardly comes a surprise.Seymour Hirsch claimed credit for breaking the story of Abu Ghraib, and he published his account of what occured there in Chain Of Command as well as a series of articles for The New Yorker. I read those accounts. Seymour Hirsch represented this story as further reason for Muslim hatred of Americans, but he at no time mentioned that Abu Ghraib could also be an isolated example. His story was all about the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners with very little mention of the courage of American soldiers who turned in those who participated in the abuse. It was clear neither Hirsch nor The New Yorker had any interest in preserving even a shred of integrity for the American soldier. They were all animal preditors and Iraqis were their prey.The New Yorker also published an interview with John Kerry. The interview made light of Kerry's "heroic" behavior in battle mentioning that his conduct alternatively could have earned him a court martial according to Kerry's own CO and remarks in Kerry's own Vietnam journals. This account was further verified by the Swift Boat Veterans. The same group The New Yorker now claims was thoroughly discredited. Odd how they managed to print their own admission that Kerry disobeyed orders months ago while at the same time currently spinning it into a Swift Boat Veteran lie.The New Yorker's current editorial is called "The Choice". It is a long discourse about the evils of George Bush, and to the uninformed, it represents an impressive list of blunders and failures. The problem is, you have to be seriously misinformed to accept what The New Yorker has to say. You have to be brain dead to accept the premise that President Bush lives up to the moniker "bushatrocities". I don't say that lightly. I understand that others have differing viewpoints on politics than I do. My problem is when those who have differing viewpoints outright lie to make their points. For instance, when Liberals cry outrage because they say President Bush wants to pollute our drinking water and poison our children, and they use his increase of allowable arsenic in water as the example, that's a lie. One of the many Presidential Directives Bill Clinton signed as he was running like hell out the front door of the White House before he was relieved of his job was to substantially decrease the amount of arnsenic in the water supply. This standard had been set for years, and it was determined acceptable by the US Government. In lowering this standard, Clinton was putting an enormous burden on water plants. An unnecessary burden. Bill Clinton would need to answer who benefited from his actions. It sure isn't the taxpayers who will ultimately fund a change that simply doesn't matter. So whose pockets will this change deepen? Clinton never was held to account to answer that question. What George Bush did was revert the arsenic standard to the pre-existing percentage. No more. No less. He made it what it always was. So the fibbies used this to say Bush wants to poison your children. That's a lie, and Liberals know it.The New Yorker has used this same technique to paint every action of the Bush Administration since they first took office as a directive from the devil. Bush is depicted as a religious fanatic, a destroyer of the environment, a sycophant to the rich, an arrogant, secretive, iconoclastic egomaniac with a God complex, and oh so much more. There is the odd mention of a success or two, but there's always a BUT and an explanation for why the success is in reality a failure. Reading this tripe, one gets the impression that the similarities to Hitler are exaggerated -- Hitler had an inferior resumé. I could indulge in the same kind of spin the bleeding hearts use and say that Liberals must be getting awfully desperate to resort to this kind of continued character assassination of the guy they fear so they can get their guy elected. Truth of the matter is, I don't know who is scared and who is feeling secure in this election race. What I do know is that MSM has done everything it possibly can to undermine our faith in our own system of government particularly our election process. The New Yorker is merely another example of this. I particularly loved this special touch: "Bush's immediate reaction to the events of September 11, 2001, was an almost palpable bewilderment and axiety. Within a few days, to the palpable relief of his fellow-citizens, he seemed to find his focus." So tell me. What would YOU do if your're the President, and while you were participating in reading a story with a group of young children, you just found out the country was under attack? A stranger to the children has just whispered something in your ear. You don't want to alarm a bunch of little kids by jumping out of your chair and rushing from the room. The kids might notice that this is not usual adult behavior. You want to get out of there ASAP but without causing panic. You also need to mentally set your priorities for this catastrophy. In the Oval Office with aides all over the place, decorum wouldn't matter. But this isn't in the oval office. This is happening in an elementary school classroom. Is 7 minutes too long to figure a way out? More to the point: did 7 minutes make a shred of difference in the status of the attack? The answer to the latter is no, it did not. It may have had President Bush been the only line of defense available for direction at that moment. What Liberals don't mention is that their chosen spokesman, Richard Clarke, was already in motion and our government's reactions were already underway because there is a plan for such an event as that. And one of the basics of that plan is to keep the President safe. Guess what. The plan was operational and it succeeded. Conversely, John Kerry sat mentally frozen at a meeting in Washington, DC, sharing a brain numbing 2,700 seconds with his colleagues. He says he and the people with him were stunned by the unfolding events and could not budge from their seats. And he had no need to assume any kind of posture because he wasn't on display for school children AND running cameras. 7 minutes of obvious mental calculation as opposed to 45 minutes of stunned. Yeah, I can see how Kerry comes up a winner on that one.One last detail. The New Yorker, along with other Liberal publicans. likes to invoke the name of Richard Clarke when they discuss the "failures" of the Bush orchestrated war on terror. I read Richard Clarke's book, Against All Enemies, and I watched his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. If we're going to believe Richard Clarke as the ultimate word on terrorism, then shouldn't we listen to EVERYTHING Richard Clarke said? Richard Clarke has pointed out more than once that had someone told the Clinton Administration to create a Homeland Security Department, send troops to invade any country in the Middle East, beef up airport security -- in fact all the items on President Bush's checklist of terrorism fighting agenda -- neither Congress nor the American people would have agreed to fund it. Richard Clarke said that no one will sink a cent into what might happen. He also said we needed a body count to make the point and make everyone see the reality of the dangers. Richard Clarke was correct about that.President Bush has been fighting tooth and nail to get Liberals to look outside the box and understand that terrorism is not restricted to one isolated incident after another. That the mindset of the Clinton Administration to chase after one attack then another and then another is not the way to resolve the problem. And Liberals are doing just exactly what Richard Clarke predicted both Congress and the American people would do when presented with the best and most obvious option to solving terrorism once and for all. They're ridiculing it.It takes commitment and it takes money to solve a problem we didn't ask for and don't want. All this gibberish about what we leave our children and our grandchildren? I'd like to leave them a safe world. So they may have to help pay for what it took to get them that security. Well my oh my oh my. Poor them. If their world doesn't include innocent people getting blown up because they went to work that day, I'd say they can afford to share some of the financial burden it cost to get them that peace of mind. We haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. That is NOT thanks to the UN or John Kerry or the mindless rantings of fools like the editorial staff at The New Yorker. That's thanks to the Bush Administration. And because President Bush has not given into pressure from the Liberals; because he has remained comitted to the safety of this country, he's labeled intractable. Since when was it a bad thing NOT to be wishy-washy? Since when is it a character defect NOT to flip-flop until no one knows what the hell anything means any more? But if I listen to Kerry, that's what I can expect from him. No resolve. A change of mind more capricious than a teenage girl with 5 invitations to the prom. Contrary to The New Yorker, I fervently hope John Kerry is resoundingly defeated. . We need to re-elect George W. Bush. And This Guy needs a name change, because if I remember correctly, it was Kerry who outright admitted to comitting atrocities. But I guess to Liberals, that just doesn't matter. Politics21662@blogcritics.org Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:36:39 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/08/115349.php PunditzI recently joined a conservative book club, and because of the generous new membership package, I received a number of books that I wouldn't have otherwise bought or read. One of these books is The Real Jimmy Carter by Steven F. Hayward. The reason I wouldn't have run right out to buy this book is because I always thought Jimmy Carter was a fool, so essentially I believed Steven F. Hayward would just be re-enforcing what I already knew to be true. I was wrong. Jimmy Carter isn't just a fool; he's a dangerous fool.I'm old enough to remember the long lines at gas pumps and the raging inflation of the Carter presidency. I also remember wondering during the time Jimmy Carter served as President of the US how one such dysfunctional family could produce just one smart sibling. Thanks to Steven F. Hayward, I now have my answer to that question. Jimmy Carter never was nor is he now smarter than the rest of his family. He was merely seriously overestimated in the political savvy department.The Real Jimmy Carter covers the time from when Jimmy Carter was a young man up to the present. We find out why he gave up what may have been a career in the Navy to go home and take over the peanut farm. We learn how he came to be Governor of Georgia and then later went on to become President Of The United States. But this book is more than simply a chronological order of events in Jimmy Carter's life. It's a tracking of his thought processes and his strategies. It chronicles his ups and downs, and showcases the fact that there were far more downs than there were ups. We learn who the people are who Jimmy Carter depended upon for advice and direction. And we find out just how little people who had to work with him during his governorship and his presidency really thought of him because of his tactics.One of the incidents I remember clearly from the Carter presidency was the time Billy Carter, Jimmy's brother, secured a loan from and went to Libya to meet with Mohammar Qaddafi. Not only was it outrageous that the president's brother would receive a loan from a country considered to be an enemy of the United States, but Billy received global attention when he relieved himself against a wall in Libya. At the time I thought this was aberrant behavior, and how embarrassing it was for the President of the US to have to put up with this from his own family. I was wrong. It wasn't aberrant behavior -- not for the Carter family, anyway. Jimmy Carter possesses exactly the same kind of arrogant misdirection his brother and sister suffered from. He just displays it in different forums -- like North Korea, Palestine, Syria, and wherever else he pleases. And what Jimmy Carter does reflects upon the country he says he represents. Except that Jimmy Carter's view of US national security interests are often at odds with whoever happens to be sitting in the Oval Office at the time. Even Bill Clinton had enough of Carter's antics. Case in point: after Carter came back from his visit to North Korea, the Clinton Administration wouldn't even meet with him. Still, Carter went to the White House anyway, where no senior member of the Clinton Administration would see him. He had to settle for a tense meeting with one of his own former aides.Shortly after Jimmy Carter's "miracle" mission to North Korea, Kim Il Sung died. The joke around the State Department and the White House was that Il Sung died from laughing so hard at negotiating with Jimmy Carter.I did not, however, see The Real Jimmy Carter as simply one author's ability to take potshots at someone who stirs up controversy for his thoughtless political behavior. Steven F. Hayward draws upon information from many different sources including a biography here and there that's either friendly toward or at least uncritical of the Carter Administration. I don't think it would be a spoiler to reveal the one very positive thing Jimmy Carter can do. The guy can swing a hammer. His work with Habitat For Humanities has been admirable, and because of his affiliation, this worthy cause has received more attention and funding that it otherwise may have enjoyed. That's a good thing. It's just sad that the best thing to be said for a former president is that he really knows how to pound those nails.I have merely scratched the surface of the story Steven F. Hayward tells in The Real Jimmy Carter. For anyone interested in knowing more about the Carter presidency and the post-presidency, this book is certainly a good place to start. Books19601@blogcritics.org Wed, 8 Sep 2004 11:53:49 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/09/01/103410.php PunditzI saw the movie Monster a month or two ago and meant to write something about it, but it slipped my mind. While reading Sheila Buttz who referred me to an entry of Bidinotto's about how Hollywood donates its political cash, I was reminded of the movie Monster for which Charlize Theron won an Academy Award. Monster is the movie based on the life of Aileen Wuornos, the serial killer from Florida who was executed in 1992 for killing seven men. Before I saw the movie I read nothing but glowing reviews of Theron's performance in portraying a woman who the media dubbed as "America's first woman serial killer". The movie is an Independent Film which got it further attention because it was so well done but wasn't backed by any major movie studio from the outset.There is a great deal about Monster that deserves to be praised: from the actors to the direction to the writing to the cinematography and more. The movie does draw you in because all of those dynamics work together to put you close to Aileen Wuonos and tell you her story. It is not family entertainment; it is not a happy movie. As a matter of fact, it's emotionally draining - or at least it was for me - because of its intensity in its portrayal of Aileen Wuornos. And by the end of it, in spite of what I saw the character of Wuornos do in the movie, I felt sympathy for her. What made me think of the movie Monster now was Bidinotto's mention of the CBS produced, Showtime aired movie The Reagans that caused such an uproar. So much of an uproar, in fact, that CBS pulled it from their schedule and moved it to Showtime. They wouldn't can it altogether; they just made it a little more difficult to see. But see it I did, and it was repugnant. I knew enough about the Reagans before I saw the movie so that I could tell the difference between fact, fiction, and outright blatant lies. No one who helped to create that movie went into it for a second with the idea of telling The Reagans story honestly, whether it be from the White House angle or the well touted romance angle. It was a smear from the outset. That was obvious to anyone who cared to notice.I didn't know nearly as much about Aileen Wuonos before I saw Monster. I naively believed from what I'd read and heard about the movie that it was about her life; the essence of what she did that caused all the ruckus. After all, she was America's first female serial killer. Except that she wasn't. The very first premise upon which this movie is based is also a lie.One of the most interesting parts of the movie to me was when I discovered what the reference "Monster" really means. I thought I knew -- it was Arlene Wuonos. Not exactly. As stupid and silly and overly dramatic as I know this sounds, I understood a whole lot better what this movie was about when I saw the "Monster" of the movie. I'd experienced that "Monster" for myself, and I thought, quite seriously, that I was going to die. Usually I can laugh at the ridiculous positions into which I've put myself and shrug it off as a lesson not to do that again. But this was different. I remember exactly how that felt all these years later, and I still can't laugh it off. So, by the time the movie ended, in spite of all Aileen Wuornos had done, there was this sense of sympathy for her. And a heavy sadness that a human being should fall through the cracks to such an extent as to end up with a life like that woman led. After seeing the movie, I had questions about Aileen Wuonos and others depicted in the movie. I knew what happened to her, but what happened to the others, particularly her companion? So I did some reading up on Aileen Wuonos. And as silly as I know THIS sounds, I felt used. While the movie Monster does admit to being "based on" the life of Aileen Wuornos, does anyone really watch one of those types movies not believing what they're seeing while they're seeing it? I mean, if you're not familiar with the subject, you tend to just go with the flow not really being able to separate fact from fiction and not taking the time to try to sort it all out. As a result, you're sucked into the mood and the story being presented to you. It didn't work for me during the airing of The Reagans because I knew about the Reagans before CBS took hold of their story and trashed them, but I knew far less about Aileen Wuornos, so I was believing Monster as it was being revealed to me.Here's the part where I have a huge problem with the Hollywood Lefties. When I read up on Aileen Wuornos, I discovered that the movie has altered a great many details of her life merely to suit the story line. This isn't the story of Aileen Wuonos nearly so much as it is the pathetic portrayal of a life gone to hell. And not to say that Aileen Wuornos' life wasn't a life in hell, because in many ways it was. It just wasn't the way movie makers made it out it be. Aileen Wuonos killed 7 men. She was a highway prostitute who put herself into every single solitary one of the positions that ended up in the murder of someone she was with. In other words, no matter what happened to her in her life, when it came to those murders, she was no one's victim. So why portray her that way? Why change so many of the details of her life to make her far worse off than she was? Why lie in the first place by telling me this is the story of her life when, in fact, it is so loosely based on her life as to be nothing more than her name attached to the character Charlize Theron portrayed?The Hollywood Lefties don't represent movies like Monster as documentaries, so they are easily let off the hook when their work is challenged as bogus. These absurd "docudramas" are supposed to give whatever creative license the Lefties want to an agenda that goes beyond a simple story line. What they do, in fact, is pad as much creative lying into the product as it will stand and then force feed it to audiences as "based on" story telling.My understanding of the movie Monster was that I would find out something I didn't know about Aileen Wuornos, a rather notorious character in the annals of crime. Instead, the movie was a venue to show me what a talented actress Charlize Theron is. That could have been accomplished without dragging Aileen Wuonos into it at all. And further, it should have been accomplished without making her a sympathetic character at the expense of the 7 men she murdered. So, if you want to see a well done movie, by all means watch Monster. If you want to know about Aileen Wuornos, look at anything BUT this movie because it's garbage. Video19325@blogcritics.org Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:34:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/07/155154.php PunditzThe Long Blue Moan by L. M. Ross is about 4 African-American men who meet at Performing Arts High. They are thrown together as part of a class assignment. They form a musical group and the result of that group is a hit song. The group, successful as it is, does not stay together, but the 4 men within the group continue a relationship with each other that spans more than 20 years. The time period during which these men go from teenagers just starting to explore what they'll do with their lives on through their adulthood is the late 1970's through the 1990's. It covers the time period when talented young men got sick and died from what at first was some nameless insidious disease. It addresses the devastation and the senseless loss of so much promise that resulted from what is essentially a basic need. It is also an intensely close and personal look at what it's like from a Black urban perspective to pursue dreams, expectations, and careers, squander them, or simply watch them die. There is Ty who has a gift for writing and a strong sense of doing the right thing, but at what cost do we all do the right thing? David is a dancer with a flair and style all his own. His friends understand that's what makes him special. Others don't always see David in that light. Browny has an amazing ability to sing and wants to perform opera. While his voice soars to great heights, his life plummets to disturbing lows. And then there's Pascal, who wants to be an actor. He's got the looks for it, but is that facade just a Dorian Gray illusion behind which is a more sinister face?There are gay relationships in The Long Blue Moan, and there are explicit descriptions of the sex involved in those relationships. But to say that this book is about gay sex or just sex at all is like saying Romeo and Juliet is about teenagers on a balcony, and it is to miss the whole point of the book. L. M. Ross doesn't create characters; he creates people that you feel from the inside out. These people are not merely words on a page; they are living, breathing human beings, and their stories are about love, loss, deep loneliness, anger and hard edged rage. It's about the choices people make in this life and the result or consequences of those choices. It's about loyalty and the lack of it. It's about decency, and it's also about twisted people and those who do their best to love those souls anyway. And binding all of this together, there is some of the finest writing I have ever read. It is lyrical, it has a flow and rhythm that's almost mesmerizing, and it is compelling reading. It touched me in places nothing I've read before has reached, because it portrays a life style that's outside my experience during a time period I thought I understood. Reading this book was like being offered the opportunity to understand a perspective on lives and what motivates the people who have to live and sometimes simply endure them that it's highly unlikely I would have grasped through any other means. I highly recommend The Long Blue Moan to anyone who wants to read an adult story about people you will remember long after you finish that last page and have some idea just what a Long Blue Moan is. Books17212@blogcritics.org Wed, 7 Jul 2004 15:51:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/15/151305.php PunditzWell, it was bound to happen, but I just want to say that I don't think I should be punished for it in the same way as everyone else who faithfully watched tv coverage of President Reagan's demise last week. I didn't turn on my tv set once the entire week to see or hear any of the media coverage, so I should be exempt from the blast we're about to get from The Cratz. Besides, according to Tony Soprano, "revenge is served with cold cuts," and there simply has not been enough time for the cuts to get cold. Although I'm sure the sausage will definitely be inundating us all shortly. If you catch my drift.It seems that CBS has ordered, ordered mind you, all their affiliates to air a Clinton book talkradio special. It will be an hour long program in which callers will be able to phone in questions to Bubba. No one mentioned whether Willie will actually answer those questions, though. And it seems to me this is a legitimate question because there was recently a press release about the rules governing Clinton's book signing appearances. All he will do is sign his name in the book. Nothing else. No special wishes or For Whoeveryouare's. Just his name. Which leads me to wonder about the answers to those caller questions and whether there will be any. I also want to say that this may disprove Christopher Hitchen's postulate that Clinton has No One Left To Lie To. Since Clinton's book is reported to be nearly 1000 pages long, and he's being given an hour on talkradio to discuss it, it's hard to believe he won't try to squeak just one little fib by us.And this won't be the end of it either. Ohhhh nooooo. We are going to pay dearly for all that free publicity Ronald Reagan received because he died. The Cratz will have their pound of flesh, and they'll do it through a rather circuitous route, which makes me wonder whose brain child this really was. It's payback time, and Bill Clinton is going to reap the rewards and get what the Cratz have due them by hawking his book. In other words, if one is a respected ex-president who died, and one gets prolonged national press attention out of respect for the position one has held, payback consists of book commercials for the Cratz impeached ex-president. Not only that, but as opposed to the one week Reagan got, The Cratz are claiming the entire rest of the summer. Call me crazy, but I smell the handiwork of Terry McAuliffe or Chris Lehane at work here.There's only one thing left to say to this... Thank God for cable and a functioning off switch on my radio. Politics16546@blogcritics.org Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:13:05 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/14/112552.php PunditzReading James Wolcott is like watching someone who just swallowed a can of drain cleaner and is in the process of vomiting up a lung, the errant kidney, and the entire contents of his lower intestine. Well, maybe that's a little strong. Actually, Wolcott isn't as funny. In his article from the July 2004 issue of Vanity Fair Magazine, it's clear why Wolcott has earned the title "acid-tongued." The thing is, he's long on the acid and short on a point.It's difficult to grasp what exactly Wolcott's point is in his "The Bush Bunch" diatribe against the women who voluntarily spend time near George Bush. It's clear from beginning to end that if one is a woman and if she puts Bush somewhere above pond scum, that is definitely NOT a good thing. But just in case one is dumber than a post, Wolcott makes it clear that women who actually like Bush, like his mother, his wife, or his advirsors, are large-footed, unattractive, stupid, murdering, George Washington look-alikes. The thing is, most of this is not original. The point has been made ad nauseum that some believe Barbara Bush looks like George Washington, and it's even been included -- while he was crossing the Delaware. (Washington must have looked different while he was crossing the Delaware than he did at any other time.)I did not know, however, that Karen Hughes wears size 12 shoes. I also did not know that while she can take out entire ant colonies is a single step, she is also a psychological lunatic who has lost touch with reality but who has retained a shrewd "devious intelligence". Now THAT'S quite an accomplishment! I just wonder what happened to the days when it was supposed to be a good thing to be a strong, intelligent woman. When did that become an object of derision? In one fell swoop Wolcott takes down Barbara Bush for being a feisty outspoken woman, Laura Bush for having no mind of her own AND being a librarian, Condoleeza Rice for being a well focused, respected, intelligent career woman, and Karen Hughes for being a Christian AND for having the audacity to have big feet. Well, that's not 100% true. In addition to playing on the chauvanistic drivel of the macho man threatened by any female no matter what her shoe size, he's really doing his hatchet job because all the women he mentions support George Bush, so that automatically makes them suspect. And evil. And high maintenance fashion accessory drains on the family budget. But there are two exceptions to whom Wolcott cheerfully assigns a far better status. First daughters Jenna and Barbara Bush. It's his view that these two young women are outside the box of Bush influence, so in spite of the "fact" that they're both spoiled brats, they rate better overall scores for intelligence.It should be noted that daughter Barbara Bush gets higher marks than her sister Jenna because Barbara is against capital punishment, and she was particularly against the execution of Karla Faye Tucker. Karla Faye was executed in Texas because she brutally killed two people. It didn't help her case that she admitted to having orgasms as she struck the fatal blows to her victims. But, see, Karla found God AFTER her conviction and sentence, so it doesn't matter how Karla got herself onto Death Row. Karla's sorry now; ergo, ignore the law and the finding of the jury and believe that she isn't making any of this up to save her sorry ass from extinction. Bush did not order a stay of execution for Karla, and she was executed. This makes him a cold hearted bastard because he didn't allow his daughter's difference of opinion to decide legal matters in the state of Texas. I must admit that Wolcott's article did give me some food for thought aside from noticing how acerbic it was. When he mentioned Laura Bush's incident when she was 17 years old in which a man was killed, and no charges were filed against her, I was reminded of the Daddy of all vehicular man-slaughter, Teddy Kennedy, who to this day sits in the Senate of the United States.Laura Bush became a librarian after her experience. Teddy Kennedy became a huge canker on the butt of the US Senate. When Wolcott finds fault with First-Mother, Barbara Bush's comments, I'm reminded of Lillian Carter's famous words which ended up in a popular trivia game, "Sometimes when I look at my children I think I should have remained a virgin." When Wolcott points out the differences in politics that the Bush Twins have with their parents, I'm reminded of Amy Carter who kept getting herself arrested, Patti Davis who chose a very public way to grind her axe with both her mother and father, Ruth Carter Stapleton who aligned herself with Larry Flynt to stomp for Jesus, Billy Carter who relieved himself on a wall in Libya, Al Gore's son who got himself arrested for pot possession, Howard Dean's son who was arrested for burglary, and John Kerry's daughter who gave us a wicked look at some pretty nasty Jahoobies. The point is, lay off the family stuff, Wolcott, because you have no point to make that's worthwhile hearing on that score. In spite of all this, I am glad I read Wolcott's article. He's convinced me that I'm correct about the agenda writers like him adhere to in this election year. It's not important to folks like him to base what they have to say on points of logic or sound conclusions. The important thing is to keep repeating that message... I Hate Bush, I Hate Bush, I Hate Bush... and so should you. Sit down and shut up Wolcott. You're making a fool of yourself, and you don't have big enough feet to stand on. Politics16511@blogcritics.org Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:25:52 EDT