You're Joking...Right?

A friend forwards the following:

The madam opened the brothel door to see a rather dignified, well-dressed good-looking man in his 50s or maybe early 60s. "May I help you?" she asked. "I want to see Valerie," the man replied. "Sir, Valerie is one of our most expensive ladies. Perhaps you would prefer someone else." said the madam. "No. I must see Valerie." was the man's reply. Just then, Valerie appeared and announced to the man that she charged $1,000 a visit. Without hesitation, the man pulled out ten one hundred dollar bills, gave them to Valerie, and they went upstairs. After an hour, the man calmly left.

The next night, the same man appeared again, demanding to see Valerie. Valerie explained that none had ever come back two nights in a row—too expensive—and there were no discounts. The price was still $1,000. Again the man pulled out the money, gave it to Valerie and they went upstairs. After an hour, he left.

The following night the man was there again. Everyone was astounded that he had come for the third consecutive night but he paid Valerie and they went upstairs. After their session, Valerie questioned the man. "No one has ever been with me three nights in a row. Where are you from?" she asked. The man replied "Arkansas." "Really?" she said. "I have family in Arkansas." "I know," the man said. "Your father died and I am your sister's attorney. She asked me to give you your $3,000 inheritance."

The moral of the story is that THREE things in life are certain:

1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Getting screwed by a lawyer.

S’true, innit?

And while we’re on about jokes…one of the more blog-worthy things I passed up this past week was Barack Obama’s admission that he got high as a teen-ager, while speaking to a group of teens at some (ahem) high school in New Hampshire. Which, to begin with, isn’t really news at all since he wrote about his teen drug use in one of his books. And, when you think about it, his admitted drug use makes Senator Obama pretty much an average sort of kid, given that (a) he was 18 in 1979 and (b) 51% of high school seniors in that particular year supposedly smoked pot (the percent-of-use stats have declined markedly since then). But Senator Obama’s admission isn’t the joke, it’s the reactions to his admission that provoke MY laughter. I’m not alone in this regard, either:

Mitt Romney waded in on BO’s former teen weed burning divulgence and condemned it, saying that Obama’s confession sent a bad message to young people, namely that you can “get high and become president.”

First of all Mitt, you gotta relax, man… Obama, like you, is not going to become president, so chill, okay? In addition, as a good religious man you should applaud his honesty in owning his previously bad record, right? I mean c’mon, Mr. Romney . . . at least he’s up front about it. He didn’t flip flop on what he did in the past or try to explain away why he did what he did to ingratiate himself to a gullible voting block in a sad and desperate attempt to become president.

Another conservative said this week that Barack coming forward with the admission that he toked the ganja was not only unwise but was also a bad example for children. Telling the truth has now become a bad example? I believe that was Larry Craig who said that. I could be wrong.

The absolute cake taker freaking out over Barack’s breasting of his dirty deeds was a 350lb chubby Christian who was all up in arms regarding Obama’s former relationship with the cannabis. He too said that such an admission left a poor pattern for young people. I was thinking, yeah? Well, so does being morbidly obese, chunky butt. Hey, Jabba… being a bloated, self righteous crank with a totemic view of vice is also a bad example for the children, so dial down and take care of your own house, Jenny Craig.

That’s from a column by Doug Giles at TownHall.com. Mr. Giles goes on to say that he, as a conservative, wouldn’t vote for Senator Obama in the first place…but Obama’s admission about pot-smoking is both refreshing (as opposed to the infamous “I didn’t inhale.” Yeah, right.) and long overdue from our candidates.

It’s good to see I’m not alone in this regard. More support for my particular point of view can be found in this Houston Chronicle editorial, published yesterday. I’ll stop here…except to wonder, yet again, is Obama still smoking? (the comments to this thread are hilarious…)

This is kinda-sorta related to the rhetorical question I posed yesterday (“Are we really that stupid?”):

November 25, 2007 -- IT'S hard for Hollywood pacifists like Brian De Palma to capture the hearts and minds of America if Americans won't see their movies. While the public is staying away in droves from “Rendition," “Lions for Lambs" and “In the Valley of Elah," audiences are really avoiding “Redacted," De Palma's picture about US soldiers who rape a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then kill her and her family.

[…]

“Redacted" - which “could be the worst movie I've ever seen," said critic Michael Medved - took in just $25,628 in its opening weekend in 15 theaters, which means roughly 3,000 people saw it in the entire country. “This, despite an A-list director, a huge wave of publicity, high praise in the Times, The New Yorker, left-leaning sites like Salon, etc.

This lil blurb appeared in the right-leaning NY Post, so its veracity is questionable if you're a member of the tin-foil hat brigade. But for the non-paranoid among us: good news. We’re apparently not that stupid. Better news would be Brian De Palma deciding he’s had enough of Amerikkka and announcing he’s going to emigrate to the south of France where his world-view would be much more acceptable (or not. I keep forgetting: Sarkozy.) Chances of that? Hah.

Some people are really pissed about De Palma’s hit piece, though. Including Congressman Duncan Hunter, who sent a “scathing letter” to the MPAA:

The ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee sent a letter to the chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America yesterday calling the new Iraq war film "Redacted" shameful in its view of U.S. soldiers.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, California Republican, sent a scathing letter regarding Brian De Palma's new film to MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman asking that he not forget that there are heroes who have sacrificed their lives for the United States and Iraqi people.

"Unfortunately, Brian De Palma's new movie 'Redacted,' which opened in several theaters this week, portrays American service personnel in Iraq as uncontrollable misfits and criminals," Mr. Hunter stated in his letter to Mr. Glickman. "While incidents of criminal behavior by members of our military should never be ignored, the isolated incident on which this film is based negatively portrays American service personnel and misrepresents their collective efforts in Iraq."

Mr. Glickman, a former Democratic congressman and agriculture secretary, could not be reached for comment.

Of course not. And even if Mr. Glickman were available, we’d likely get some pap about the First Amendment, “isn’t this a great country where dissent is tolerated,” and all that happy horseshit. It’s a good thing I’m not king…because there’d be a whole bunch of deportations…or “exiles,” if you prefer… after a fair trial for treason, of course. Coz if De Palma’s merde isn’t “aid and comfort” to our enemies I don’t know what IS.

(h/t to Flopping Aces for the WaTimes link)

Today’s Pic: Keeping with yesterday’s theme…today’s pic isn’t a pic at all, but a link to another “It Could Be Worse” pic I put up not quite a year ago. I simply get all thankful when I go back into the archives and look at these photos. I saw enough of this frozen white stuff to last me a lifetime…and then some… whilst living in Upstate NY.

Never again.

Harsh and Harsher

Dang, Ralph…that’s harsh!

FP: What are your thoughts on Obama wanting to attack Pakistan? That is after all where the terrorists are lurking.

Peters: It's a classic example of the fateful mix of hubris and naivety on Capitol Hill. Mr. Obama has yet to supply any details, so let me help him out: Sure, we can invade Pakistan. Of course, we'll need a draft to round up enough troops. And we'll have to kill, as a minimum, a few hundred thousand Pathan tribesmen and their families, and we'll have to remain as an occupier for many years. Oh, and Pakistan's got nuclear weapons and it's already torn by civil strife. But no worries there for good, old Barak--who was too important to serve in the military himself (military service is just for chumps like me or for those who are, as John Kerry pointed out, so stupid they're stuck in Iraq).

Now, I'm all for targeted air strikes and special ops raids in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan where al Qaeda has been re-grouping. But, hey, I've actually been there. It's some of the toughest terrain in the world, and the mountain ranges are vast. A classic military invasion isn't the answer. So, if Obama wants to invade, I'd just like to hear the details of his plan. Of course, he hasn't got one. He's just blowing smoke. He knows less about military matters than I do about neurosurgery. The difference between us is that he's convinced he's qualified to operate.

In the Queen's English, the guy's a wanker.

For those of you unfamiliar with Brit slang, here’s the definition of “wanker.” I think Col. Peters got it right, even though it’s kinda hard for me to visualize Her Highness calling anyone a wanker.

Hat tip: Lex.

Harsh, Part II. Or...About Today’s Pics… Two views of a radar site that overlooks Layton, Utah, taken while I was visiting SN1 last month. This particular site is most likely owned and operated by the FAA, but it could very well have been part of the extensive network of USAF radar sites that were built in the ‘50s and decommissioned in the ‘70s. There was once a time when every single square inch of the Lower 48 was swept by a USAF radar beam every 20 seconds, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. Continuously. Not so any longer.

I spent two-thirds of my USAF career on sites just like the one in the pictures…the only thing that really varied from site to site was the elevation. In the flat parts of the US of A, the sites were situated on the highest ground to be found in the vicinity, which was often only a slight rise of 20 to 25 feet above the rest of the countryside. In other places the sites were perched on mountain tops that were literally thousands of feet above sea level, specifically in the coastal mountain ranges of the west coast and up in Alaska, where some truly spectacularly scenic locations existed. “Spectacularly scenic,” of course if you only just looked at a picture of two little dots perched on a mountain overlooking, say, the Bering Sea…not if you had to live and work in that sort of isolation for a year, which was the “standard” tour. And if one was in the radar business back in the day, one could look forward to doing a “remote” tour every four years or so, just like clockwork. I never did go to Alaska, but I did have orders to Cape Newenham that were canceled at the very last minute. I was sent to Fortuna AFS, ND, instead. And was probably the only guy to ever report in to that God-forsaken location with a smile on my face. At least Fortuna was in the US of A, albeit just barely.

So why am I on about this today? Simply because I chased up another Lex-link, this time it was photography of abandoned military bases. Buried within that link was a mention of Boron AFS—another radar site I called “home,” once upon a time. And then the synapses began to fire off, just like clockwork. The mind is a funny thing.

Update: If you follow the Cape Newenham link, don't miss the "Information Brochure," circa 1976. Since I received my orders to Cape Newenham in 1977, the chances are quite good I would have received this very same brochure, had I not been diverted to Fortuna. Just reading the thing sent shivers up my spine...

For Starters...

Hoo Boy…Is He EVER Gonna GET IT!!! Gerard writes an essay that’s just bound to draw withering fire from The PC Police…about The PC Police. Excerpt:

Short form of the correct political position: "Obama's race doesn't matter except when it does."

A strange position to take when you reflect that Obama's race and standing as an African American of no little poise and intellect is the single most powerful thing he has going for him. Indeed, to be clear, Obama's race is the only reason he's doing as well as he is at all. If we had a junior Senator from Illinois with a shade more than 2 years of experience in the Senate and with the name Ole Swenson running for President, he'd be running neck and neck with Dennis Kucinich and Kucinich would be kicking his ass.

Of course, you're not supposed to notice Obama's race except when noticing it causes you to adulate wildly and attempt dancing in the streets while writing big checks from your bottomless account at The National Bank of White Guilt. If this gets you off and tickles your fancies, get down. And while you're at it, write one for me. My account is overdrawn.

The subject of Gerard’s missive is the outrage! The Usual Suspects are affecting vis-à-vis Rush Limbaugh’s insensitive parody of Senator Obama. I use the term “insensitive” only because that’s how the Usual Suspects have categorized labeled Limbaugh in their current attack mode, when not shouting “Racist!” at the top of their metaphorical lungs. Mr. Van der Leun has the big brass ones required to even broach the subject of perceived racism, let alone discuss it at some length, and I recommend his essay to you. Highly recommend it, even.

Oh…and by the way…I stole the vid just below from Gerard. He uses it to introduce his screed on the housing bubble, also highly recommended. Ya get the feeling I like Gerard, do ya? You’re right…

On hockey today: My Sentiments, Exactly…

The Red Wings might just do something they haven't done in 10 years: Pull off a playoff upset.

Yes, upset. I know: The Wings are the No. 1 seed in the Western Conference. They came into this series with home-ice advantage. And they are the Red Wings. How can the Red Wings be the underdog? Was it an upset when King Kong beat Godzilla?

But through two games, San Jose looks like the better team. It would be really hard to argue otherwise. We still need to see another game or two before we can reach a definitive conclusion, but at the least, the Sharks are the Wings' equal.

You might have a tough time seeing the Sharks as the bully, but think of it this way: the NHL has changed so much that San Jose's teal sweaters almost seem like classics.

The Wings fell behind 2-0, which seems to be company policy these days, and the way they played, it felt like 4-0. But they came back and gutted out a 3-2 win. It was far from a dominant performance, but the Wings probably won't dominate a single game in this series. They aren't that kind of team any more, and the Sharks are too good.

Read the whole thing, if you’re into hockey. If you’re not, well… you don’t know what you’re missing tough luck. I almost turned Saturday’s game off when the Sharks scored their second goal to go up 2-0. Detroit looked demoralized, The Joe was silent, and my heart was beginning to break. But, I stayed with it and I’m glad I did. SN2 rang me up about 20 seconds after Cleary (my new best-est hero) scored his second short-handed goal of the play-offs. After Sam and I compared notes and exchanged superlatives (re: Cleary) I told him about being depressed about the Wings and their chances… up until that point in time…and he replied something to the effect of “I figured as much, which is why I didn’t call until now.”

A lot will be revealed tonight in the Shark Tank. If the Wings are blown out it’s as good as over. If they lose and it’s close, it’s still a series. If they win convincingly in their first game of this playoff season in San Jose’s house…where the Sharks play exceedingly well…then it’s an upset in the making, as Mr. Rosenberg notes. I’d be tickled pink if the last possibility comes to pass.

Today’s Pic: A Blast From The Past…SN3’s first haircut, nine years ago this month. This is but one of the eleven pics I took, being the Proud Papa I was. Here he is perched upon Mom’s lap, on the wise recommendation of my barber, whose name I cannot remember. It has been nine years, after all.

April, 1998. Perinton, NY.

Heroes and Villains

One of my heroes is profiled in today’s NYT:

Chris Chelios is having another fine season as a top-four defenseman for Detroit, averaging 19 minutes of ice time a game. There is nothing unusual in that — except that Chelios is 45, making him the second-oldest player to compete in the N.H.L.

“I never thought I’d be in that situation 10 years ago,” Chelios said Thursday by telephone from Phoenix. “To be right behind Gordie Howe is kind of neat.” Howe played in the N.H.L. when he was 52.

“I’ve just been fortunate,” said Chelios, who has 182 goals, 936 points and 2,823 penalty minutes in 1,528 regular-season games over 23 seasons. “I think genetics, Lady Luck, my trainers. I’ve had some pretty significant knee injuries that I never thought I’d be able to overcome. It sounds crazy, but basically I feel as good as I did 10 years ago.”

With ALL due respect to Chelios, I can’t see him doing what Howe did: i.e., playing a complete season with an NHL team (the Hartford Whalers, aka the Carolina Hurricanes) at age 51. What Gordie did was amazing, given he played in every game, racked up 41 points (15 goals, 26 assists), served 42 penalty minutes, and was even selected for the All-Star game that year. At age 51. Still and even, it wouldn’t surprise me if Chelios did manage to pull that off. It’s only six years from now…

Also in today’s NYT: “The L Word… Leftward, Ho?”

“A potentially liberal moment,” Mr. Frank says, “assuming that liberal politicians can seize the moment and get beyond their usual plague of incompetence.”

Oh, snap. Liberal optimism, thy name is caution and caveat.

But it is optimism nonetheless, and well-founded, too, say Mr. Frank and a broad spectrum of political thinkers and leaders. And, they say, the evidence goes beyond the obvious indicators — the ascendance of Democrats in the House and Senate, President Bush’s second-term belly-flop and poll numbers showing the Democratic Party trending left and the nation’s political center trending Democratic.

[…]

Even in the sweetest of times, liberals tend to be congenitally averse to walking tall, as if they’re always half-expecting to be one step away from getting decked by a falling piano.

Years of ridicule, battering and electoral defeat will do that. The liberal imprint has been trashed by generations of conservative candidates and commentators drilled in every unbecoming association (“tax and spend liberal,” “big government liberal,” “ivory tower liberal,” “limousine liberal,” “commie, hippie, purple haired, weak kneed, bleeding heart, limp-wristed, weepy eyed, take your choice liberal”).

Ah, yes. Their “…usual plague of incompetence” and being “congenitally averse to walking tall.” Big problems, those. These past week’s events, capped with the ignominious vote of no-confidence in the President’s Iraq policy (among other things), would seem to reinforce the perception of the Left’s incompetence and an inability to walk the walk, wouldn’t they? There are valid reasons the Right have assigned all those pejorative labels to Lefties, or, in other words…they got them the old fashioned way: they earned ‘em.

Conan O’Brien makes teh funny: “According to a new survey, 26 percent of people say they have a crush on someone they work with. Unfortunately, the survey was taken at NASA.”

Today’s obligatory Barack bashing…

Take a look at Obama's arguments for a speedy US withdrawal. Speaking on the Senate floor on January 30, he asserted that "redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve ... political settlement between its warring factions".

The key is "to give Iraqis their country back", since "no amount of American soldiers can solve the political differences at the heart of somebody else's civil war". He repeated these words when he announced that he was running for the presidency last weekend.

But Obama's claim that an American withdrawal would somehow "pressure the Sunni and Shia to come to the table and find peace" is a fraud.

On the contrary, an American withdrawal is much more likely to lead to an escalation of the conflict that is tearing Iraq apart. In a devastating paper for the Brookings Institution, Daniel L Byman and Kenneth M Pollack have pointed out that, given the vast potential for violence that exists in the Middle East, we ain't seen nothin' yet.

And then there’s this, from Rich Lowry:

Obama is smart enough to be able to talk intelligently about nearly anything, but it usually feels like he's a glib amateur. He has a troubled relationship to policy plans, which risks making his campaign of hope against cynicism seem merely hackneyed verbiage. It's hardly a new idea to attack the political process as too small-minded, money-grubbing and negative. In fact, it's commonplace.
Obama insists that he doesn't need more policy because he's written two books. But only if Obama were running on "finding himself" would his (beautiful) memoir of his early life, Dreams From My Father, be a detailed manifesto. His new book, The Audacity of Hope, has policy in it, but it's scattershot thoughts about addressing all of the nation's problems, not detailed plans.

More to follow in the coming days/weeks/months/year. Dang, it’s just too early! (PS: he’ still not smoking, though, from all indications. Me too.)

Today’s Pic(s): My father’s automotive lust object—the incomparable Mercedes-Benz 300SL. This particular example is in the National Auto Museum (otherwise known as The Harrah Collection) in Reno, NV. I’ll have to admit: The Ol’ Man had excellent taste in automobiles. Kinda runs in the family, it does.

May, 2000.