Hope all is well with all of you blog readers out there. OK, hope BOTH of you are well.

I get tired of the obligatory whining so I don't bash LA. Most of the time I like living here. Every place has its good and bad attributes including SoCal, but overall this is a wonderful place to live:  With that in mind - Reasons LA is a Great Place to Live:

1. Sunshine - lots of it. Sunshine and warm weather are better than rain and snow and cold, period.
2. Oranges, avocados, grapefruit, lemons, and plums all growing right in your yard.
3. Sitting on your back porch in February in shorts and a t-shirt.
4. Year-'round outdoor sports like, oh, I don't know, tennis and softball, for example.
5. Good, well-maintained, well marked freeways stuffed, admittedly, with
6. Decent (on the whole) drivers. Not necessarily polite, but relatively skilled.
7. A huge smorgasbord of great restaurants.
8. Any kind of music you want to hear, any day of the week.
9. Snow in the morning, surf in the afternoon.
10. Your very own gardner for $40 a week. No questions asked, of course.

Leave your own reasons in the comments. I'll have more later.

Christopher Hitchens hits the nail on the head concerning Obama-worship. Now Bill Clinton's a racist, too, since he had the temerity to criticize him.

I like to listen to Dennis Prager on talk radio. One of his tenets is that happiness eminates from gratitude. Since I consider myself a happy person, maybe these are some of the reasons.

I'm thankful for:

- My wonderful family, my wife and my two kids, all of whom I love immeasurably, and, by extension, the family I grew up with; my mom, my brother and my sister. I love them a lot too.
-To have had the great good fortune to have been born in the best place in the world to live.
- My God-given ability to play music and being able to make a living at what I love.
- Being able to still (at 54) get up in the morning free of chronic pain.

On a different level:
-The Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade
-Seinfeld reruns
-poker on the back porch (if you're thinking it, don't say it)
-surprise e-mails from old friends
-Komodo Dragon coffee blend in the morning
-skilled airline pilots
-old songs that still sound great
-old friends that still like to hang out
-running around in shorts outside in February

Thank you all for just being a part of the pastiche. Later...

A thoughtful article on Bush hatred by Peter Berkowitz, a liberal professor at Stanford.

Could it possibly get more ridiculous than this when it comes to taking a chance on offending someone? Telling Santas they can't say "ho, ho, ho" because, well, you know what a "ho" is.

You'd think this might have seemed newsworthy, no matter you're opinion on the war. Nah. Too hopeful. Not pessimistic and cynical enough. Besides, it involves religion, which, according to Christopher Hitchens, poisons everything. Maybe we should all drink a little of that Kool-Aid.

The folks at Lego had a contest. $5000 for the most creative entry. Here's what won. Morons.

Al Quaeda has been routed from Baghdad. This seems like it could be fairly important, too. Page one? Not likely at the New York Times.

My response to Montana Fats:

>Good God Almighty, bro, are you still taking those drugs I warned
> you about? Yack, yack, yack, and not a lot worth reading.
>
> >>But evidently you did anyway. Thanks.
>
> Here's an example: "are often the result of beginning the coverage
> of an event or starting a story with a pre-conceived notion of the
> narrative." Last summer I listened to about two hours worth of uncut
> Ed Murrow broadcasts from London during WWII. Funny thing about
> Murrow, he always started his coverage with a pre-conceived notion
> that the Nazis were bad guys. You going to lump him in with your
> "so-called professional journalists?????"
>
> >>Well, here's an example of "hearing" what you wanted
to hear in
> what I wrote. Do you really think I'm talking about an obviously
> reasoned opinion, like Murrow's on the Nazis? Tell me I'm mistaken.
> And his opinion of the Nazis does not constitute the narrative of a
> story, it's background. And he, and everyone, knew what the Nazis
> were about by the time he was in Europe reporting on the war. What
> I'm talking about is going in to report on a situation and, mindless
> of the facts, fitting it into a preconception of what's going on. If
> you're ointerested, I'm thinking specifically about the Jena, LA
> thing but it happens frequently, for instance also in the Duke
> lacrosse players rape case last year. In both instances the media
> went in primed to find racism in a community in the south and fit it
> into their preconceived models when the facts have subsequently
> shown it to be otherwise. Are you familiar with these two
> particularly egregious cases of unprofessionalism by the media? If
> you were, you might have been less likely to misunderstand and
> mischaracterize my comment.
>
> I find it ironic that you would take to task those who misuse the
> English language while at the same time misusing it yourself!
>
> >>That would have been ironic, if I had actually misused the
> language, which, as I just explained, I did not.
>
> You call yourself an openminded individual, but look at everything
> through the colored glasses of a conservative, right-wing
> Republican. What a laugh!
> Here's a news flash for you: The human brain was created and/or
> evolved to deal with the life encountered by humans of 100,000-2
> million years ago. How in the heck is it supposed to keep pace with
> the advancement thrust upon it today???? Can you imagine a human of
> even 2000 years ago successfully integrating into and dealing with
> out society today? The amazing thing is that ANY of us cope, ANY of
> us survive. That may be the greatest argument in favor of
> creationism there is. How else do you explain our ability to adapt
> as fast as the technology around us?
>
> >>I'm a little surprised at the level of condescension in this
> paragraph. I think I'm open-minded enough to listen to points of
> view like yours and not get quite this angry. Yes, I'm
> open-minded(although I can't recall ever making a point of it
> verbally, as you seem to imply), but not to the extent that I don't
> allow myself to form strong opinions about some things. And I doubt
> that any of us are free of looking at things through some sort of
> glasses. What's your pair look like? Or are you singularly able to
> address any issue without preconceptions? If so, congrats. And
> here's a news flash for you: the human brain hasn't gotten any
> bigger recently. People have just adapted to their surroundings,
> whether it's been flora, fauna, steel buildings, metal things
> rolling down the street or aluminum tubes in outer space. And I'm
> sorry, but I DON'T think we have as much to be stressed about as our
> parents or their parents or THEIR parents.
>
> Bush is an idiot.
>
> >>Ah, now we come to the crux of the diatribe.
>
> He's not intentionally stupid, it just comes naturally.
>
> >>Yep, they passed out those Harvard MBAs with Cracker Jack in the
> 70's.
>
> He's lost the trust of the people
>
> >>Well, let's be clear - you and some others.
>
> and I just wish the election was this November instead of next. Who
> knows how much more damage he can do to this country between now and
> then? And people thought Nixon was bad. At least Nixon was smart.
> Paranoid, sure, but smart. Bush is just clueless.
>
> >>In my opinion, nothing I wrote was this vitriolic. Where did this
> come from?
> Sounds like your just letting off steam.
>
> Does anyone but me find it humorous that the author of a blog would
> scold us about not listening?
>
> >>What the hell is this supposed to mean? Just because I blog I'm
> incapable of being a good listener? Why would you say this? Maybe
> it's supposed to be funny. But then, you could have used "ironic"
> again. It actually might be a little ironic. And why would anyone
> take this "listening" item to be an attack on everyone in general
> and themselves in particular? Have you really never experienced
> this? Are you secretly concerned that you're not a good listener?
> What makes you think I was talking about you? Sheesh.
>
> (I was going to use the word harrange, but I don't know how to spell
> it and Blogman would have pointed that out as an indication that my
> argument was spurious. Is that how you spell spurious?)
>
> >>Another "spurious" accusation against blogman. If I have
corrected
> your spelling before, was it accompanied by a discounting of your
> argument? Show me where. And I've never said your arguments were
> spurious, only mistaken. And YOU can look up harangue
>
>  
> October baseball is the best. The national pasttime is in fact. This
> year, all the games in the regular season ended up on Direct TV and
> I couldn't watch my beloved Astros go down the tube one more time.
> Oh, well. I wanted to see Cleveland do to the series, but once
> again, oh, well.
>
> >>October baseball is great. Any crappy baseball game, anytime, is
> better than any football or basketball game, even the
> championships.
>
> All of this is, of course, in good fun.
>
> >>Sure glad it was all in good fun. I'd hate to see what you'd
write
> to me if you were pissed.
>
>
> I don't get out here very often anymore and was feeling a bit
> truculent tonight.
>
> >>I guess that's a mild understatement. You'll also be pleased
to
> know I had to look up truculent. I guess you didn't think anything I
> had to say was worthwhile? Oh well, thanks for responding.

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives!!" (Hedley Lamarr)

Since I wrote about the fires in the canyons and on hillsides the other day they spread to neighborhoods that are not thusly situated. These people obviously had no reasonable expectation of losing their homes to fire when they built here and I wasn't talking about these folks. Also several of these fires were evidently the result of arson.

As bad as the mindset is by which most media march, the general level of incompetence by so-called professional journalists is truly remarkable. Laziness in verifying sources, bad grammar and syntax, misuse in the meaning of words; all these are often the result of beginning the coverage of an event or starting a story with a pre-conceived notion of the narrative. It certainly makes it easier when stories fit into a nice mold and you can just fill it up and put it in the oven, but it makes for sloppy and misleading reporting.

Speaking of misusing words, here's a very common one: Irony and coincidence do not mean the same thing. If your wife buys you a new pair of gloves the day you have an accident and cut off one of your hands, that's irony. It is NOT ironic if you get a phone call from a friend as you are talking about him. That's a coincidence. Listen and take note of how often you hear them mentioned by the media's braintrust.

I'm tired of hearing how tough our lives are and how difficult it is to be a teenager these days. How "stressed out" we all are due to the pressures of modern life. Harumph.  How'd you like to wonder where your next meal's coming from? Or where you're sleeping tonight? Like I always said to my kids: Do you have a warm, dry place to sleep? Enough to eat? Then you've pretty much got it made. Everything else is gravy.

When you meet someone the very first thing you'll notice about them is their physical appearance, including their skin color. I thinks that's inevitable. But that ought to be one of the last things you think about them after that.

So President Bush was scolded for not visiting New Orleans sooner after Katrina and now California's Democrat Lt. Gov., John Garamendi,  takes the opportunity to criticize him for actually coming to California after the fires. The president obviously can't win, no matter what he decides to do, can he? It's great to be able to have it both ways, huh Dems? What a buffoon.

Most people could use to go back to school and get a degree in LISTENING to what is actually said, as opposed to HEARING what they would like to hear.

"People's Radio" station KPFK-FM, here in LA, has been doing their fund-raising drive on-air for, it seems, the last 20 weeks. One of the premiums is a DVD extolling the virtues of the Hugo Chavez presidency in Venezuela. No, seriously. It's truly better than Comedy Central although more maddening. They need to rename the station the "Useful Idiots" station.

Here's another reason baseball's the greatest game: the Red Sox 2nd baseman, Dustin Pedroia. Why is that, you ask. Because he's only about 5'7" and yet he's tearing it up in the postseason. The lesson is, you don't have to be a physical freak to play the national pastime.

Random observations:

A lot of people vote to be powdered and diapered by government in ways they'd never pamper their own kids. Or allow anyone else to. Babies are helpless. That's the reason they need baby-ing. Don't try to diaper me, please, mister G-man.

Next thing you know everybody here in California who lives in a wind tunnel (also known as a canyon) or in a tinder box (aka a brushy hillside) will be whining to get federal aid to rebuild their recently burned down house. JUst wait. "Course they're gonna want to rebuild it in a canyon. Or a brushy hillside.

Why do some people think that yelling at others is an efficient way of achieving a desired result?  Even kids don't like to be yelled at. I don't think anyone responds well to it. Makes people nervous. I don't do my best when I'm nervous and getting yelled at, do you?

Do you know grown-ups who use the word "awesome" frequently? Please tell them they need to stop. Immediately.

Seems to me like I'm seeing fewer bare midriffs with the accompanying low-cut jeans on women. Now we men can go back to enjoying the occasional glimpse of navel or small of the back. It's BORING if you show it to us all the time! You've got to retain some mystery, ladies, to maintain interest.

If you're not watching the World Series you're missing some of the best TV there is. TV excels when you don't know what's going to happen and sports are the best example of extemporaneous stuff around. Not watching baseball anymore 'cause the players "make too much money"? How much is too much? Somebody holding a loaded bat to the owners' heads? How about we put a cap on how much you can make? What skin is it off your nose if they're making a ton o' dough? Shut up and get over it. And don't start with me about the '94 strike. What" Are you entitled to watch baseball? Would that keep you from buying any other product from an industry where the workers have ever gone out on strike?
And if you're not watching 'cause you think baseball's boring, well, you just don't understand the most interesting team game ever invented. Very sad, really.

If people are expected to treat animals better than they treat each other doesn't that imply that we're a higher lifeform with these accompanying higher standards of behavior? Don't these higher expectations make us a superior species, PETA members? Food for thought, but it's OK, 'cause it's not meat-type food.



 

This is NOT a joke. Anything for diversity.

This is a recent discussion, between a friend and me, on whether the new Bourne movie is anti-American or not. His comments have the ">" in fron tof them. My replies follow.

>As I see it, Americanism is made up of principles like individualism,
>economic and political freedom (like property rights, economic opportunity,
>the right of free speech), self-responsibility, democracy, etc.  I don't
see
>Americanism as equivalent to the policies and actions of the U.S.
government
>or its agencies, or any particular administration.  If it were, then yes,
>the Bourne Ultimatum is anti-American, since it is gives a negative
>portrayal of the CIA.  But that's an incredibly superficial understanding
of
>what Americanism is.  So, I don't agree that it's anti-American.

Red herring. I don't think he's equating Americanism with the government's
policies and actions. I think he's making a comment about the very existence
IN the government of the kind that would do the things he represents the CIA
of taking part in. Not just that they do them, but that they're
(apparently)sanctioned and encouraged to do them.
 
>
>Present-day Conservatives need to take a deeper look at what really matters
>about this country, and whether this president or the U.S. government is
>acting in ways consistent with that.  I actually believe that
conservativism
>is as great a threat to the well-being of this country and its citizens
than
>are the liberals.  I know you'll find that preposterous. 

A bit presumptuous, perhaps, at the very least to suggest that conservatives
have somehow lost sight of what it means to be an American on a basic level.
That's what the movement's about, in my opinion. Individualism,
self-responsibilty, the rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and
seeing to it that these are all conserved, if you see my tie-in. You really
think Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter were of equal detriment to the idea of
democracy and individual freedom? George W. and Hillary? I find that
preposterous.
>
>Anyway, I think the essence of Americanism is more consistent with a
>distrust (and a negative portrayal) of governments and their secretive use
>of powers than an advocacy of them.

Don't you think the negative portrayals of "secret U.S government agencies"
and the secret things they do have come to be a caricature? I'm sure these
things DO happen, as there is an actual need for covert action on occasion.
And if there's no agenda of anti-Americanism how come we never see anyone
with any power in an official position stand up and put a stop to that sort
of crap, as happens all the time in real life? It's always up to Bourne, or
some other maverick like him, to see to justice.


>The only thing that makes this country
>any good is the remnants it still has of respect for the rights of the
>individual.  That is what underlies its wealth, freedoms, and beauty. 

I don't disagree one bit and the farther we get away from those things the
worse off we are.

>And the greatest threat to individual rights that has ever existed has been
>the unrestrained power governments over its own citizens. 

Couldn't agree more.

>To paraphrase Reagan...

or Carter; same thing, really, conservative, liberal...

>...the Government is the problem.  That is as true in this country as in
any
>other.
>
>If the last Bourne movie had given a negative portrayal of the social
virute
>of property rights, or the profit motive, or individualism, or the personal
>pursuit of happiness, or some broad principle underlying the institutions
>and culture of this country (and no, I'm not including chritianity in
that),
>then I would agree that it was anti-American.

They don't have to get that specific. The clear implication is that the
government is corrupt, dishonest, and willing at any time and at any cost to
deprive it's citizens (in this case Jason Bourne) of their most basic right;
their right to live their lives as free individuals, uncoerced into acting
in a fashion inconsistent with their free volition. That's what this movie
says about the U.S. government, in my opinion.
>
>But the movie only portrayed some rouge members of a government agency, and
>not even all of them (Pamela Landy is a good-guy), as misguided and
corrupt.

Come on, they're not rogue members; they're the CIA and Landy is the rogue.

>And it's certainly no stretch to say that some members of the CIA have done
>bad things

Agreed...

>-- things that I believe are actually against the best principles
>on which this country is built, and so that that extent things that are
>actually anti-American. 

This would have to be addressed on a case by case basis. Things that
threaten the freedom we enjoy are justifiably targeted and should be dealt
with with severe measures, aain, depending on the threat.

>And no, I don't have any specifics in mind; it's
>not the main point.

May not be the main point but serious enough to have been raised means it
may be an important one.
 
>What baffles me is this: are the detractors of this film saying that
>professional assinations squads run by rouge US government bureaucrats a
>good thing? 

No, and I don't think you really think that.

>As anything representative of America?

But that's the point: I think it's supposed to BE representative of America.
I find THAT offensive or at least hugely objectionable.

>As an American, both
>legally and ideologically, I find that idea incrediby offensive.  I
actually
>like the anti-government aspects of the whole Bourne series.  I suspect
that
>much of what the CIA has done has probably worked against this country's
>long-term self-interest.
 
Well, that's an interesting thesis but, as you go on to say, totally
hypothetical.

>Again, I'd rather not get into specifics, so I
>phrased that as vaguely as possible (e.g., 'I suspect', 'probably').
>
>An "anti-American" movie is one like Oliver Stone's "Wall
Street" or
Michael
>Moore's "Roger and Me", since they give a thoroughly negative
portrayal of
>the legitimate selfinterested actions of American financiers and
>businessmen. 

So to be truly anti-American it has to give a negative portrayal of big
business and its' motivations? Kind of a narrow definition of anti-American,
in my opinion.
>
>The reviewer also comments on Bond films, though his tie-in to the Bourne
>films isn't clear. 

Action spy movies. Same genre, admittedly different tone.

The attraction of the Bond films is not the wittiness of
>its quips, but the heroic representation of its protaganist. 

I disagree. I think the attraction of the Bond films is multi-faceted. The
physical attraction of Bond himself, as a heroic handsome guy; exotic
locales; cool cars and gadgets; beautiful women; and yes - Bond's coolness
under fire, which includes his glibness.

>The same is
>true of the Bourne films. 

The Bourne films rely on Damon's star power and perception as a strong male
figure together with the romanticism of action-packed globe-hopping and
driving fast cars at high speed.

>Roger Donway wrote a great piece recently called, "The Genealogy of
>Heroism".  http://www.objectivistcenter.org/ct-1968-Hero_roots.aspx.
>O'Connor should read it, since he obviously has no clue why people love
the
>Bourne movies, or I supect, why people want heroic stories generally.
>Donway defines heroism as, "the choice of a highly efficacious man to
>preserve the characteristic habits of virtue that constitute his personal
>identity, in the face of great opposition or temptation."  A little wordy
>for a definition, but it gets to the idea.
>
>Bourne is efficacious.  His basic identity is good.  And he must fight a
>very powerful antagonist to regain it. 

Yes, a powerful and evil antagonist. Sounds anti-American to me.

>The hero struggles against great
>obstacles to reach his virtuous goal, but eventually, he overcomes.  Those
>are the basic ingredients of a heroic tale.  Bourne is a hero.  So is Bond,
>or Mel Gibson's characters in "The Patriot" and the "Lethal
Weapon" movies,
>or Bruce Willis's "Die Hard" character, or Sylvester Stallone's,
or
>Arnold's, etc., etc. 

We all like heros, it's true. Most of these guys are underdogs too.

>And, as an aside, one of the most pro-American movies I've seen in a long
>time was "The Pursuit of Happyness", since it positively portrayed
this
>country's economic freedom and opportunity and stressed one's individual
>responsibility for achieving one's goals, despite whatever disadvantages
one
>might have.  Chris Gardner is a real-life American hero. 

Very fine film. What an incredible man he must be.

>I saw and liked "The Kingdom", and agree that it was a good movie,
and that
>its politically motivated critics are knee-jerk PC liberal types who need
to
>get a clue.

Yeah, it was fun

An amazing performance at Albert Hall in London of Leonard Bernstein's "Mambo" from West Side Story by a group of high school age kids from Venezuela. One of the most exhilarating and exciting things I've seen and listened to in a long time. Is it just me or is this great?

Reminds of John Candy as "Mr. Mambo" on SCTV. Phooey. Just looked and unfortunately no Mr. Mambo on YouTube. But there is this. I think this post has ended up being a non-sequitur. Oh well. Still great stuff in both links.

Every month or so I have to post because something is ridiculous. Below is what got to me today. And if you don't think YOUR OWN little pleasure-vice is next to be monitored and regulated for the good of society you're just not thinking hard enough.

Here's the logical and inevitable outcome of allowing the government to pay for your medical care. They will then,  since they're the ones paying, make all of your medical decisions for you! Wake up about socialized medicine, for crying out loud.

Hey, I'm back! You know you missed me. Seriously.

I'm tired of hearing about "witchhunts" like this reference in Britain by professors to a request from their administration  to report suspicious behavior. The trouble with labeling something a "witchhunt" these days is that most of us acknowledge that witches don't actually exist, so hunting for them is obviously a stupid thing to do. The same can't be said for the suspicious behavior Bradford University asked its professors to be on the lookout for. You know, the sort of behavior that leads to plots by recently-arrested university students to blow things up. So if you're gonna scream "witchhunt" please confine it to cases involving make-believe spell-casters from the 17th century, okey-dokey?


It just gets tougher and tougher to rationalize sending your kids to college on the premise that it'll make them smarter. On top of that, Canada seems intent on emasculating itself even faster than the U.S., witness this article from the Toronto Globe and Mail.

What do you call one Ethnic Studies chairman/professor at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. And yes, that's only a joke. Duh.

Take a minute and think about the sacrifices of all those who have given their lives fighting that we might have sack races and eat hot dogs today.
Two quotes, the first from from George Washington: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
And the second from John Stewart Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
They are the ones we honor today.

The biggest wild pig (1051 lbs.!) you've ever seen. Hunted down and killed by this 11-year-old with a .50 caliber handgun. Unbelievable!

Here's a Memorial Day report from Michael Yon, a reporter who's embedded with the troops in Anbar province, Iraq  and has consistently reported the good and bad of the war.

Cindy Sheehan's good buddy Hugo Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela, has personally denied the renewal of the country's  oldest public television network. The problem? Not toeing the Chavez party line, of course. But they're not giving up. RCTV's general manager makes a statement that has a familiar sound to it: "The fight continues, freedom is something you have to fight for permanently." Perhaps he's read George Washington. See above.
Update: Apparently he's sent in troops and tanks to quell violence that erupted between pro-Chavez and pro-RCTV demonstrators. More here.

This is pretty cool. A 2.5 inch flexible screen for computers from Sony.

n inspiring and timely Memorial Day story about the heroism of our Medal of Honor winners from Peter Collier at the WSJ.

Charles Nelson Reilly died last weekend. He was a staple on game shows like The Match Game.

Some (tongue-in-cheek)  ideas from Jim Treacher and Iowahawk on improving The View. One of them:  "would a hypothetical chained drowning episode make The View watchable?"

Just an observation. Two of the most common, not to mention, unattractive human tendencies: second-guessing other people's decisions from the advantage of hindsight and; predicting disaster at the absolue first sign of a problem. Let's try to encourage at least our public officials, who, after all, are supposed to more some of the more prudent and intelligent people in the society (ha, in know), to avoid these tendencies at all costs.

Take a look and listen to Joy Behar from ABC's execrable, insulting-to-women, daytime-cackle-fest The View. The linked clip features her reading (after she's established the "fact" that Bush is the worst president ever because Al Gore and Jimmy Carter say so) a list she came up with of President Bush's supposedly impeachment-worthy transgressions. And, believe me, she thinks these are serious reasons. Watch the clip.
Let's examine each one of these closely, shall we? Can't go into a lot of detail on each one and I'm not going to link articles and stuff. If anyone really cares we can get into them deeper later.
This is going to take awhile, but hang in there with me.

1. "...stole the election in 2000"
2. "...killed the surplus with tax cuts"
3. "...wanted to privatize Social Security"
4. "...withdrew us from the Kyoto...treaty"
5. "...John Ashcroft"
6. "...sat in the classroom...and read My Pet Goat for seven minutes after we were attacked on 9/11
7. "...he lied to get us into the war"
8. "...he awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton"
9. ..."Abu Ghraib"
10. "...he promoted his friend, Michael Brown, to take care of Katrina"
11. "...he doesn't listen to the Iraq Study Group"
12. "...he choked on a pretzel"
13. "...he waited a week to visit New Orleans, then only to watch some jazz"
14. "...he stood by Alberto Gonzales"
15. "...he stood by Rumsfeld, who some people think is a war criminal"
16. "...he can't pronounce the word nuclear"

Here we go:
1. First, read something about exactly how this was decided before you ever listen to anyone again tell you the election was stolen. The US Supreme Court was asked, by the GORE CAMPAIGN, to decide if it could continue counting ballots past Florida's legally-mandated cut-off date for reporting the election results. They DID NOT decide the outcome of the election. Oh, and by the way, EVERY recount done after the decision came out in Bush's favor. Even the one done by the liberal New York Times.
2. Yes, we had a surplus. Do the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ring a bell? That's where the surplus went, whether you agree with them or not. Since the tax cuts were implemented the deficit has been cut by more than half. The tax cuts have, as tax cuts always do, INCREASED revenue. This is a truly ignorant and moronic observation on her part but it gets worse.
3. Yes, he wanted to give people a chance to VOLUNTARILY contribute some of THEIR money - again: THEIR OWN MONEY -  to a private account in lieu of contributing to Social Security. It didn't pass, of course, since the Democrats managed to disingenuously mischaracterize the substance of the bill. They obviously succeeded in scaring Ms. Behar. I don't think suggesting a change might be made to Social Security is an impeachable offense, ma'am.
4. Oh, brother. We have NEVER been a party to the Kyoto Treaty so exactly how could Bush have "with[drawn] us" from it? In fact, the only time it has come up at all in the Senate was in 1997 when a resolution was adopted, 95 - 0,  stating that "the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto." President Clinton never even sent it to the Congress for consideration. More ignorance.
5. It's difficult to answer a "charge" concerning the former attorney general when she doesn't make one. Without stating it (which she does upon mentioning several of the other items) her implication is that we all know what she's talking about and the reasons are so obvious she won't waste time in enumerating his misdeeds. This is not in the realm of any reasonable debate tactic.
6. Well, let's be honest; sitting in a classroom and reading a book to some schoolkids, even if you've just learned that a large skyscraper has been hit with an airplane, is just not an impeachable offense. You may think he should've gotten up, yelled, "WE'RE UNDER ATTACK !! THEY'RE GOING TO KILL US ALL !! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !!" and run from the room, arms and legs flailing. I simply disagree. I'm glad he remained calm in front of those kids. I think it was an amazing display of self-control and consideration for the emotional well-being of the tykes in the room with him. I don't want to see my president give even the smallest appearance of panic.
7. Sigh...Remember, boys and girls, lies are INTENTIONAL. If you believe something to be true and it turns out later to be false it's not a lie; it's a mistake. And it seems, by the way, that every week brings a new story corroborating those contemporaneous intelligence estimates that Saddam Hussein was in possession of WMD's and poised to achieve nuclear capability. Also, because of his history of aggression, the stipulations of the resulting sanctions not to mention the use of poison gas on citizens of his own country, it was up to Saddam to show that he didn't have these things. He defiantly refused to allow inspection teams back in to report on the state of affairs. Even the milquetoast UN was after him for non-compliance. Anyway, enough with this, please. It's such a tired, pitiful and false accusation.
8. First of all, the President doesn't "award contract[s]", you simpleton. There's a process for it and, in the case of Iraq, the contract was awarded under perfectly legal emergency conditions due to the proximity to the invasion of less than a month. I have to agree that the appearance of impropriety is certainly present in this case, as Dick Cheney continues to receive deferred compensation from Halliburton, his former employer. The fact is that few companies do what Halliburton does and they do it best. The administration is a bit vulnerable on this charge but it would have more credibility if it wasn't worded in such a careless fashion; that Bush himself "awarded the contract" to Halliburton. If it's provable that Bush aided in their being awarded the contract so that he or his friends could benefit, it might be impeachable. Let's see the proof. But then, that's the problem, isn't it Joy?
9. Abu Ghraib is a stain on the reputation of the US military and a shameful episode in the war. It's also a complete aberration, was vastly blown out of proportion as to the supposed brutality of what went on and the responsible soldiers have been convicted and are spending time in the stockade. President Bush did not, in fact, personally commit these despicable acts, although his administration has been held accountable.
10. Again, careless wording of the accusation takes away from any substance that might be there. Brown was head of FEMA at the time of Katrina and may have been slow with some of the response, but the blame for Katrina can be shared by several parties, the first of which is the city of New Orleans itself followed closely by the state of Louisiana. Bad planning, misallocation of funds earmarked for levy repair, unwillingnss to call in the National Guard earlier (the governor's responsibility, not the President's) along with Governor Blanco's turning down Bush's offer of federal assistance BEFORE the hurricane lay the bulk of the responsibility at the door of Louisiana politicians. The idea that FEMA's incompetence was part and parcel to the Katrina disaster and, of course, therefore we should impeach the president is preposterous.
11. Who's to say that he didn't listen to the Iraq Study Group. I'm sure he's aware of their recommendations but what you really mean is he didn't do what they (and you) wanted him to in regard to sopping the war and negotiating with countries like Iran and Syria. I hope he ignores all similar recommendations of any war-by-committee outside the government and military.
12. Choking on a pretzel is grounds for impeachment? And listen to the audience laugh when she mentions this one. That's some funny stuff when our president gets something lodged in his throat and can't breathe. Always makes me laugh and want to impeach him. This is only funny to some people because they don't like Bush. Don't think so? Would she think it was funny and made him unfit for office if Barack Obama choked on a pretzel? Would the audience laugh?
13. It doesn't matter how long it took him to visit New Orleans except from a PR standpoint. He can't DO anything personally besides look concerned if he goes down. Admittedly, this is a good thing to look. If he listened to jazz while he was down there it's undoubtedly because he was invited to listen. He probably thought it was polite. And this was the only thing he did? Probably not. This is the logical explanation unless (like Ms. Behar and her cronies) you think Bush is stupid. Which they do.
14. It's not an impeachable offense to stand by someone you think is doing a good job. It's going to be hard to determine this until some time has passed and we're able to see the outcome of the war. And just because "some people" think he's a war criminal is neither here nor there, Joy. "Some people" think you shouldn't have a platform to spew your idiotic and misinformed opinions but that's not what counts, is it?
15. Not worth dignifying with a response. I think she thinks this is another funny one.

Here's a page from the Seattle Public Schools website with a list of organizations for teaching to call who will come in and talk about diversity, discimination and cultural awareness issues. And I'm not talking about American culture. Did you have any idea there were this many problems with racism in the Seattle area? Every school district must have some program like this, but it hadn't occurred to me that it required this many "facillitators." Seriously, take a few minutes and read some of this crap. Is it just me or does it seem like it invites, necessitates and thrives on every kind of Balkanization imaginable? How would you like to make your living based on the premise that you're "Healing White Racism"? Sounds just a tad presumptious to me.