...or is command of our forces in Afghanistan in the capable hands of sexual sophmores?

"and when the radical priest come and get me released we were all on the cover of Newsweek"
Paul Simon "Me and Julio Down by the Schoolyard"

So what's the over/under on how many months it will take for Paula Broadwell to be on Celebrity Apprentice? She has already begun her walk of shame through the media gauntlet. She was lampooned by Bill Maher, mercilessly mocked by Saturday Night Live (seriously, even I felt bad for her) and been shredded by every late night comic with a microphone. I believe the correct phrase is "being Lewinskyed". Titling her book about General David Patraeus "All In" is just the cherry on the sundae.

Still, it's not as if Ms. Broadwell is blameless. Not only was she setting up light housekeeping with America's most popular war hero in a tent in Kabul, she wanted the world to know it.  No one over the age of seven who is trying to keep a secret puts anything incriminating in email. Any Afghan goat herder will tell you that. Ms. Broadwell is many things but dumb is not among them. Being done in by a rogue FBI agent in Florida who was trying to score a date with Tampa gadfly Jill Kelly was bad luck but inevitable.  (Ms. Kelly is described as a "Tampa socialite" which means that she always scores the best table at the International House of Pancakes.) Nevertheless Paula's coupling with Patraeus would have come out soon enough.  Ms. Kelly meanwhile, was also interested in outing her own flirtation with her four-star fan boy General John Allen. If you're trying to keep a relationship secret, you don't invite the FBI to snoop through your unmentionable internet correspondence. (See also "goat herder" above.)

General Allen, who thus far appears to have confined his amorous affectations to the written word, was nonetheless able to author some 20,000 pages of flirtatious fluff over the last year or so.  (If Gen Allen's career in the Marines should fizzle, he has a promising future as a ghost writer for E L James, author of "50 Shades of Grey".) Apparently, commanding the coalition forces in Afghanistan is not as time consuming as one would suppose. Additionally, what is it about the job of commanding the International Security Assistance force in Afghanistan that causes dedicated military commanders to wander off the marital reservation? Something in the water? Certainly not the burlap covered natives. Why would a commander with such a sterling reputation as General Allen suddenly feel the need to wear out a keyboard sending bon mots to a middle-aged married tootsie in Florida? Did he not have Beyonce's email address?

Some things are clear: in a post 9-11 world, the FBI must be reminded that the Patriot Act does not grant them unlimited access to personal correspondence, especially in furtherance of one's amorous ambitions.  Hoover is dead. Also, America is reminded once again that great men are capable of horrid judgement where women are concerned.  Had General Patraeus held any other job but head of the CIA, his indiscretions might have been overlooked. We're not France yet.  As it is we have lost a capable leader to an unfortunate sexual liaison that was unworthy of him. Patraeus can recover (he's only 60) but for the moment he is consigned to warming the wasteland bench next to Anthony Weiner.

And so, what have we learned from this farce? 1) Every general who receives a fourth star should be required to read every news report of L'affaire Patraeus and then sign a pledge to keep his pants zipped. 2) For as long as it lasts, the conduct of the War in Afghanistan must be commanded from a mess hall in Fort Lennard Wood, Missouri. Afghanistan is clearly too sexy for senior officers. 3) The city of Tampa must be declared off-limits to field grade officers and above. 4) All correspondence from general officers must be cleared by their wives, mothers and the Legion of Decency. 5) If your life story needs a ghostwriter, call Casper.

...or are Californians less concerned with the quality of their food than the quality of their drugs?

For those of you out there with actual lives, you may not have noticed a ballot proposition that was voted down in California  last election day. Titled Prop 37, (catchy, eh?) the proposal would have required companies that sell packaged foods in California to label any product that contained genetically modified ingredients. On the face of it, that doesn't sound like such a bad idea. With some exceptions (hot dogs, brats, Hormel corn beef hash come to mind) it might be nice to know what Kellogg's is putting in my Frosted Flakes and what John Tyson is stuffing in his chickens. Allowing consumers to make informed choices should not require complex legislation.

Ah but you're not in agri-business. Turns out that Monsanto, Conagra, Kellogg's  and several other corporate giants have an enormous stake in how information on ingredients is disseminated. Quite simply they don't think it's any of your business and they don't want you to know. More to the point, these companies spent many millions of dollars to defeat Prop 37. Their attitude is simple, shut up and buy that peanut butter, and jelly and bread. The stuff is perfectly safe....take our word for it. Actually, you'll have to because we're not telling you jack. Note: California, a state known for its progressive attitudes and hippie ideals has twice been flipped by advertising campaigns. Remember they also voted against gay marriage thanks to the kill-joy Mormons and their deep pockets. Californians are either very impressionable or the pot is rendering them very pliable.

As anyone who has ever been stuck in a doctor's office reading a magazine can tell you, virtually all of the corn and soy in America is genetically modified. The crops have been altered to make them more resistant to bugs and disease. So far as anyone knows, modifications have not damaged either the nutritional content of the grains nor rendered them unfit for consumption. The operative phrase being "so far as anyone knows". So called frankenfood is banned in much of Europe simply because no one knows if screwing with the DNA of a wheat plant can, over time, cause shriveled testicles in humans or cause one's teeth to rot. Except for the Brits who apparently aren't concerned about the teeth thing, Europeans pay attention to such matters.  In America we are a more trusting lot.

As part of the so-called "food movement" some Californians got together and decided that whether or not you feed GMO to your toddlers should be a choice. Unlike the paternal regulations imposed by Father Bloomberg in New York, no one in California was trying to ban anything. Prop 37 only asked (OK, ordered) big agri-biz to share information about what they were loading into our Pillsbury Cornbread Mix. From the reaction engendered from the agri-folks you would have thought that they were going to be required to make asparagus ice cream and brussel sprout cola. Quotes like " Prop 37 will use the coercive power of the state to strong-arm Americans into eating fashionably" appeared in ads and op-edits throughout the state. Who says consultants don't earn their fees?

In any event, the "none of your GD business" forces were triumphant. Like the rest of us, Californians will continue to stuff their faces with god-knows-what  made god-knows-how. We will continue to "trust" big agri. That would be the same big agri that needed laws before they would pasteurize milk, specify on the label the ingredients and  nutritional content of packaged foods and, allow beef and chickens to be inspected for e coli and salmonella. I'm confident that each one of these draconian restrictions to fair trade were met with the same cries of strong-arming and coercive power.

But we must remember that big agri-business is our friend. They provide the finest quality foods at the lowest possible prices. And because they only have our best interest at heart we will try to forget Tyson Foods dumping insane quantities of waste products into the groundwater in Missouri and Kentucky, or JB Swift Meats record of recalls for e coli or their use of thousands of illegal workers, or The Kellogg's recall of 28 million boxes of breakfast cereal due to contamination by (write this down) 2-methylnaphthalene. Even the EPA isn't sure about this stuff. And so, until the people of California or some other state rise up and demand to know what's in their Wheaties, we will all paraphrase the Dixie Chicks and "shut up and eat".

...or can reading editorials make you wonder who actually won the election?

Gloating is unseemly and undignified. We here at isitjustme would never lower ourselves to revel in the misfortune of others. Raising our hands to our nose and wiggling our fingers at a vanquished opponent is not our style. Mono-digital salutes or (shudder!) mooning a fallen adversary is not the cut of our jib. The extended hand of  good fellowship and the acknowledgement of a contest well played will always be our preferred mode of operation. In any event there is one fact upon which both sides can agree: no one gives a shit how Florida went.

That said, we can hardly be faulted for the slight tingle one feels as you watch your defeated adversary begin to contemplate the miscalculations and blunders that caused him to finish second in a two-person contest. Ah schadenfreude! Schadenfreude is a German word for taking pleasure in the pain of others. Is anyone surprised that the Germans have a word for this? So it was with a happy heart that I flipped to the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal that I might bask in that dish best served cold.  I was however, doomed to disappointment. Not only was there no recrimination, no  soul-searching and no hand wringing but, based upon what I read, I was not even sure who had won.

I began with Fred Barnes, a smart savvy Conservative journalist and political pundit whose primary claim to fame is that he predicted the election of John McCain for president in 2008. Polls and prognosticators be damned, Fred just had a feeling. Anyway, Mr. Barnes' take on the events of Nov 6 were echoed in most of what I read from Paul Gigot, guru of the Journal's edit page, Dan Henninger, political columnist and even-handed observer and Karl Rove, former GWB Rasputin and current sycophant on Fox News. (I'm surprised Rove had time to write the column. I imagined he was still in the Fox newsroom explaining to Chris Wallace why it was still too early to call Ohio for Obama.)

Barnes and Co. mostly began by congratulating President Obama for running one of the slickest, nastiest, unprincipled and ruthless campaigns this side of Vladimir Putin. This from the gang that maligned John Kerry for his military service, intimating he bought his purple hearts at Target. The Democrats were praised for painting Mitt Romney as an out-of-touch elitist with too much wealth and too little charm or empathy. Gee, I don't know why the Democrats bothered. Romney was doing a marvelous job of painting that picture all on his own. (When your wife has to go on television and tell the world you're funny, you're probably not.)  

Barnes went on to say that this election proved nothing and left us exactly where we were before. That's not entirely true. We learned that the American people are a tad smarter that we thought. They grasped the distinction between job-creator and corporate shark. They showed an astute understanding of candidates who put people over profit. They rejected a candidate who, in an attempt to stand for everything, stood for nothing. Mitt Romney's religion never became an issue but his beliefs were there for all to see.

George Will in the Washington Post said that the Republicans were victims of demography. I couldn't agree more but regardless of what Jan Brewer of Arizona says all those Latinos didn't just arrive on Nov 6th. The issue isn't whether minorities are coddled by Democrats. It's that they are constantly denigrated by Republicans. "Hey gringo, you don't have to kiss my ass, just stop kicking it."

Naturally, most of the writers I read were eager to cast aspersions on everyone but their candidate.  It was the New York Times' fault. It was Hurricane Sandy. It was that hotel employee in S. Florida who deceitfully taped Gov. Romney reminding his rich backers about the difference between "us" and "them". It was Romney's dog for complaining to The Huffington Post about his travel accommodations on a vacation. Ungrateful cur. It was Ann Romney's horse for finishing poorly at the Olympics.

Why is no one on the Right saying the obvious: it's impossible to present yourself as a moderate in Massachusetts, a neocon nut-job in a primary and a moderate in a general election. Don't take my word for it. Ask the small army of  too-liberal Democrats who ran against Nixon, Reagan, and      Bush 41. It wasn't until Bill Clinton that the Democrats got the message. The tea party doesn't need to be abolished (good luck with that) they need to be restrained.

OK enough of this. The election is over and we can now go back to gridlock in Congress. As for me, I'm on my way out to buy a copy of The Weekly Standard. Maybe I'll moon the RNC on the way home.

...or are Presidential elections like passing a kidney stone?

Forget the Presidential election outcome. Anyone paying the slightest attention to Nate Silver and the 528 Blog knew how this would play out. Chris Christie punctured Mitt Romney's last victory balloon when he complimented Barack Obama for being Presidential. Show over. Check please.

Whether you approve of the results of "Campaign 2012, The Race For the White House" or not, you cannot help but be impressed/disheartened by the choices made in the Congressional races. At a time when the entire country is complaining about the Keystone Cops that make up the House and Senate (15% approval rating the last time I looked) well over 300 House members will be reelected. In the Senate it's about 60%. So why does the entire country want every Senator and Congressman replaced..except theirs? How is it that no one gets the fact that if you continue to send the same ideologues back to the Congress, you will continue to get the same gridlock? (see also "Definition of Madness")

The echos of Mitt Romney's concession speech were still rattling around that Boston convention hall when John Boehner stated that the return of a Republican majority to the House of Representatives was a clear signal that the American people do not want any tax increase. Really? That's your takeaway? Jim DeMint of South Carolina has already come out in opposition to any compromise with Democrats. An attitude like that should get you a time-out not a Senate seat. Gentlemen, the American people want compromise. They want governance. They want something, anything but what we have had for the last two years. No one is suggesting that Republicans abandon their principles but how is it that so many Congresspeople missed the class in first grade when we were told that to get something you have to give something. When did give and take become all or nothing?

Yes, it's true that isitjustme leans a bit to the left but, if you're honest about it you must admit that all the obstructionism is coming from the Right. That enormous ass-hat Richard Mourdock stated flatly in his acceptance speech as GOP candidate for Senator from Indiana that his idea of compromise was my way or no way. Thankfully Indiana was unimpressed. More about him later. Paul Ryan retained his House seat even after admitting to: 1) requesting TARP money, 2) voting for Stimulus, 3) voting for Medicare part D and, he voted for the auto industry bailout. These are not Teabagger positions and in another year might earn you a primary challenge from the far right of your party. Nevertheless, Ryan voted to serve his conscience and his party. We call that governing.

Being an elected official means representing the best interests of both your constituents and your country. Hell, the Tea Party only exists because a substantial group of Americans felt that the government no longer represented them. The problem arose when the neocons hijacked the movement and molded the argument into one about bigotry, small-mindedness and Christian fanaticism.

But I digress.

There were a few bright spots in the numbers from Tuesday. The two most disreputable Senate candidates: Todd Akin of Missouri and the aforementioned Richard Mourdock of Indiana were defeated in races that should never have been close.

Akin, a Congressman from suburban St. Louis, was running against Democratic incumbent Claire McCaskill. McCaskill was elected in the big Democratic sweep of 2006 but, she's a Democrat in Missouri. Just to help the GOP along, she even had a minor scandal involving a private plane and who was paying for the gas. Akin is a tea bagger neocon in a conservative state. The Republican Senate Caucus was warming a chair for Mr. Akin's expected arrival in 2013. He was a lock...until he was interviewed in August on KTVI-TV St. Louis and gave his now-famous "legitimate rape" soliloquy. McCaskill immediately stopped packing up her office and the GOP ran from Akin as if he had fallen into a septic tank. He still managed almost 40% of the vote, presumably none of those votes were from rape victims or doctors.

Richard Mourdock took a slightly different road to the nomination but managed the same moronic gaff as Mr. Akin. Mourdock had beaten the hugely popular and long serving incumbent from Indiana, Richard Lugar in a nasty primary.   Mourdock was the teabagger darling who eschewed compromise and mocked Sen. Lugar as the sell-out appeaser he was. (To be fair, Lugar is 80 years old and hasn't maintained a residence in Indiana since 1977.) Indiana went for Obama in 2008 but, by and large is a fairly conservative red state. His opponent was Joe Donnelly, a Democrat in name only. Donnelly is anti-abortion, pro gun nut, anti immigrant, etc. The teabaggers must have been delirious. Anyway, Mr. Mourdock, following in the footsteps of Smilin' Todd Akin allowed that rape, if it resulted in a pregnancy, was somehow God's will. Joe Donnelly immediately ran to the nearest Catholic Church and made a novena of thanks. God's will also included the defeat of Richard Mourdock at the polls on Tuesday.

So my friends, what have we learned from this exercise in civic responsibility?  Following the election of 2008 when bizarro candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell were sent packing by the electorate, the GOP learned exactly nothing. Candidates like Akin and Mourdock will continue to win GOP primaries and, if they can learn to govern their mouths, get elected. Nevertheless we should be grateful to the good people of Missouri and Indiana for coming to their senses and realizing that teabagger candidates are toxic. They produce only two things: fodder for the nightly news and Democratic victories. Good riddance.

...or is it possible to leave your manhood at the luggage counter at Nordstrom's?

As many of you know, last Sunday was my birthday. (Sixty-five; Thanks for asking). Anyway, at this point in my life I am a pain in the shorts to shop for.  Gifts for me fall into two and only two groups: stuff that's too expensive to contemplate seriously ( sports jacket, computers, dentures, etc.) and stuff that is sufficiently cheap that,when needed, I can buy for myself like sweaters, cute golf club head covers, shaving mugs (seriously does anyone actually use these things more than twice?). This issue makes birthdays, Christmas, and anniversaries a torturous exercise for my spouse.

I've tried making lists during the year when I see something I might like but no one can ever locate the list in early October or mid December.  It might be useful to run out and buy a gift on the day after a possible present is discovered but really, no one is that organized. 

This brings us to this year's birthday gift from my lovely spouse.  On the fourteenth of October I was presented with a rich-looking box from Tumi. Inside ...a man bag; a purse by any other name.

We need to get a few issues out of the way:   First, no man ever bought a man-bag for himself. The only male person ever to purchase one of these things bought it for his boyfriend. Not a homophobic slur, just a fact. Most men don't feel the need to carry a bunch of junk around in a clutch. God created pockets that we might carry wallets, keys, combs (what man needs a brush?), money and handkerchief ( a dying affectation). Sure, a beach bag makes sense and in ancient times, a camera bag made hauling lenses and film a virtual necessity. Laptop computers have made varying types of briefcases de rigueur but for everyday use, not so much. I'm sorry but any man over eighteen who walks the streets wearing a backpack has never looked at himself in a mirror.

Imagine dropping your man-bag on the bar at the Killarney Rose or Vito's Bar and Grille. Can you picture the grief you'll get when you toss your bag on to the scorers table at Stillson's Bowling Alley...unless, of course your purse can accommodate a bowling ball. What about meeting your girlfriend's parents for the first time or applying for a new job at the steel mill? Good luck explaining your choice of accessories to Spike, the guy next to you on the assembly line. Truthfully, anything you wear that requires an explanation is a bad idea. No one needs to explain an umbrella.

Besides, the dirty little secret about man-bags is that before you know it, you will start hauling tons of junk that you don't need just because you have someplace to put it.  Don't take my word for it. Ask your wife. That pack of Altoids that's been in your desk since you got hired, sure, let's bring it. You never know. The train schedule that you have had memorized for fifteen years, why not? That tire pressure gauge that you can never find when you need it, absolutely. Tissues, change, stamps, fifteen or twenty extra photos of your grandchild. Holy crap I need a bigger bag.

OK I admit it, the bag works pretty well if you're traveling and if you have an ipad... and a map...and a Frommer's guide...and a brochure from the tourist attraction you just visited. Really, no one with an once of self-respect would be caught dead wearing a fanny pack. Carried like a messenger bag I'm less likely to leave my $700 Apple tablet in a church pew in Prague or a Rathskeller in Wurtzburg. Ohmygod! I've had the thing for less than a week and I'm already thinking about a matching scarf. (OK maybe that was a bit homophobic.) The point is, I'm not taking it back. I'll make an effort to use it for vacations and for local outings. Who knows? If it's big enough maybe I can bring my shaving mug to Europe.

...or are sequels the ultimate guilty pleasure?

This is not a political rant. I said no politics for a while and I meant it. However it can't be denied that there is a striking correlation between Barack Obama and "Taken 2". So, exactly how can you compare the President of the United States to a ham-handed stinker of a sequel? Easy, America loves a second act.

In 2008 Liam Neeson appeared in a throw-away action thriller called Taken. For those of you who spend all of your time reading  Proust, the story involves a family-loving, former CIA tough guy who rescues his daughter from white slavers. As action flicks go, it's pretty good. The hero never doubts for a minute that he will succeed and there is the appropriate amount of guy stuff i.e. torture, mayhem and the discharging of more rounds than at Gettysburg. The movie was well worth the price of the popcorn.

Do we need another one? Absolutely not. Is there the slightest chance that "Taken 2" will live up to our modest expectations? No. Will we go see it? Without a doubt. Why?

With films like "The Master", "The Intouchables" and of course "Frankenweenie" available, why would anyone fork over $12.50 to see a movie that's sure to disappoint? Because we want to relive the thrill of the first encounter. We're hoping for a second helping of adrenalin as Liam Neeson rages across Europe in the single-minded pursuit of the fiends who took his daughter. This is the same sort of "hope over experience" that lead us to sit through "Rocky 2 thru 5" (Plus "Rocky Balboa", a sad attempt to resuscitate both Balboa and Stallone. Both resulted in TKO's. )  We've witnessed Rambo 1-4, Terminator 1-4 (with a fifth supposedly on the way). Hell, even the parody got a sequel (see, Hot Shots, Part Deux) It's not that we are looking for a continuation of the story like The Godfather or even Raiders of the Lost Ark. We just liked the experience of the first film and want more of the same.

Which brings us to Barack Hussein Obama.

By any measure, Barack Obama should be scouring the real estate section of the Chicago Tribune for a new home in Hyde Park and calling the University of Chicago about teaching vacancies. Unemployment is still high, Iran is still a threat and he just finished second in a debate to a guy with the warmth of a bag of finishing nails. In a rational universe, the Obamas should be having the White House towels re-monogrammed with an "R". That, however, is not the current situation. Why? Because we want the sequel. We want to recapture that magic night in Chicago in Nov 2008 when a new face, a black face, told us that anything was possible.

The President has a winning personality and, has lived the Horatio Alger, rags to riches story. We root for guys like this and want to watch them overcome obstacles on the road to success. Obama is the guy who, having never flown a plane, is forced to take the controls and land the aircraft safely. He's the guy who grabs the machine gun when the fighting is the heaviest and leads his squad up the hill. We love this guy because he is one of us.

Romney is the pretty-boy rich kid who mocks our hero. He has never had to work at the mall or give out rented bowling shoes at the local lanes. From the moment he appears in the story we root for his failure. We can't wait for the skinny poor kid to learn karate or win the track meet and kick his ass. Nobody pulls for the rich guy and nobody is pulling for Romney. People may vote for him but no one will applaud his success.

So while the 20plex is filling up with people cheering for Liam Neeson to decimate the entire Muslim population of Istanbul, let's try to remember why we can't get enough of this junk. Rooting for the Good Guy is in our DNA.

...or do people watch Presidential debates for the same reason they watch NASCAR...hoping for an horrific wreck?

No more politics for a while.
Seriously, anything I could add to the torrent of opinions flowing through America, no one would want to hear anyway. I'm out.

OK, on to other things:

Arnold Schwarzenegger wrote a book about his life. Anyone who felt that life as we know it was incomplete without knowing every detail of The Governator's life please raise your dumbbell. No the other dumbbell.

Apparently Arnold felt that just lifting this tome would improve your girlie muscles. Weighing in at 700 pages this opus is the creakiest vehicle to come out of Austria since the Von Trapps yodeled their way across the Alps in a rusty rickshaw. Schwarzenegger's rise to Governor of California is proof  that it's possible for the circus to elect a clown as ringmaster, or in this case, the strong man. Arnold's rise to fame is interesting in a "magazine article in a doctor's office" sort of way but this book presumes more gravitas than the new testament, in that both principal players think they're God.

OK, so Schwarzenegger is a curiosity... like Lincoln's visage in a potato chip. His rise to fame is nothing if not unconventional. True, we've had other politicians who came from seemingly incongruous careers. We've: a professional wrestler (Jesse "the body" Ventura), the purser on the Love Boat (Fred Grandy) and of course the man whose movie co-star was a primate (Ronald Wilson Reagan). Nevertheless, experience has taught us that with the right amount of ego, a dollop of drive, the right wife (a Kennedy would be nice) and some really good timing, almost anything is possible. (If you don't believe it, check the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.)

The problem with biographies written by megalomaniacs is that they wear out the "I" key on the keyboard. Gov. S. is no exception. "I was right about this...I did the right thing there...I took the right roles" (Insert your own Austrian accent for all quotes.) Even discussing stupid decisions, like accepting the role of Kalidor in Red Sonia (and compounding the felony by shtupping his co-star, Brigitte Nielsen) Arnold has an excuse. "They gave me a Humvee full of Euros." (My quote, not his.) When you control the word processor, it's easy to make yourself sound like Pacino or Redford even with tomato-cans like "Junior"," Red Heat" and "Conan the Destroyer" on your resume. It's OK to cop to the money ($17 mil in some cases) but please don't make it sound like playing opposite Sinbad in "Jingle All the Way" was an artistic achievement.

When the subject of Arnold's casual relationship with casual marital fidelity surfaces, our hero acts as if these transgressions are of no more consequence than littering. Among his transgressions was playing a little Upstairs Downstairs with the hired help. Unfortunately, when your peccadilloes result in unwanted offspring you got some 'splaining to do. (The last famous man to try to grow his own household staff was Thomas Jefferson...but I digress.) True to the code The Governator sticks out his chin as he recounts his "come to Jesus" conversation with his soon-to-be ex-wife, the long-suffering Maria Shriver. Arnold, ever the manly man, admits to fathering a child with the cleaning lady. Naturally, the Gov. glosses over the fact that the boy was practically shaving before he made his "manly" confession. Schwarzenneger treats his other dalliances as boyish indiscretions. The actual recorded incidents of the Governor's groping of women (too numerous to recount) puts one in mind of another Arnold...the Pig.

The book ends before Schwarzenneger is forced to explain why, after 43 years of acting experience (and at 65 years old), he is still turning out dreck like "The Expendibles 2"  and "Triplets". (A movie intended to finally resolve those unanswered questions left hanging at the conclusion of "Twins") Apparently a side of beef, even a slightly moldy one, still has appeal.

Anyway, after the "60 Minutes" interview, a trip to see Jon Stewart and, about thirty reviews of the book, I'm about done with Governor Muscles and his metoeric rise to stardom. If I feel the need to fill up on junk, I'll grab "Pumping Iron". It's sort of a "how to kill a lot of time" story for people who don't have Wi-Fi.  Hey, at least I won't get a hernia bringing it home.

...or are "victims" hiding in all political philosophies?

While the world was basking in the afterglow of "the speech" delivered by former President Bill Clinton, I happened across a book review on the Opinion page of The Wall Street Journal. (Don't ask.) Anyway, the book is called "The Victim's Revolution, The Rise of Identity Studies and the Closing of the Liberal Mind". (Mostly I hate secondary titles. They attempt to encapsulate 400 pages into one sentence.)

The book deals with examining recently fashioned academic disciplines such as Women's Studies, Chicano Studies, Gay and Lesbian Studies and, on the fringe, Fat Studies. (Fat Studies is actually a field of study available at Oregon State University.) It's easy to dismiss these academic pursuits as fad programs or "easy A" courses akin to Film Study and Geology. (No offense to Film and Geology Majors.) However, the greater point is that, from a learning prospective these courses and majors provide a monolithic prism from which to view the world and, in fact, all of the world's knowledge.

The danger of Women's Studies (and I'm not picking on Women's Studies) is not the objective correction of history written mostly by men but acceptence of the idea that all presented facts are suspect because of their origin. At that point the courses become less about knowledge and more about affirmation. Education is not supposed to be 'us vs them'. Learning should never be therapy. It is proper for students to question accepted wisdom but not exclusively because of its origin. The facts of an issue don't change for lesbian students merely because they are taught in a Lesbian Studies discipline. Academic prisms are destructive because they are not selective. If a black student is taught that every issue in his life must be examined through the prism of his race, he has no hope of ever viewing the wider world with any sort of objectivity. There are no black bakers. Cakes are created the same way for all races.

The reason for addressing this topic here is that I have continually taken the Right to task for creating the Victim Society among groups who had, heretofore, never considered themselves victims. "There's a War on Christmas" Christians are told even as they marvel at how fast the Santa Claus's appear after Halloween. "White People are getting screwed" screams right-wing radio although few white people would trade places with even the richest black man. "All media has a liberal bias" says those TV stations and radio who pander to the Right. "Latins are taking over American culture" scream people with names like O'Reilly (Irish), Hannity (also Irish) Charles Kruthhammer (German) and Van Susteren (Irish, Dutch, Icelandic, French and German). Not a Native-American in the bunch. If you see yourself as a victim, facts notwithstanding, then it's easier to condone true victimization of others. If the diversity practices of a university causes harm to a white applicant, whites are the victims. Forget that the policy only exists because of the centuries' old practice of excluding minorities of all stripes.

So what have we learned? That fairness is 1) an illusion? 2) a goal? or 3) a saleable commodity like church indulgences? Perhaps we discover that for as warm and comforting as victimhood feels, aside from fact-based situations (the Jews in Europe, the Armenians in 1915) we are only really victims if we choose to be. So, university students, by all means take courses that glorify your culture and social circumstance. Just beware of the sirens of excuses who want to convert you to the culture of victimhood. Besides, if you get a D in Chicano studies, you can't complain that you were cheated because you were born in Venezuela.

..or is there a price to pay for peeing in the shallow end of the gene pool?

Granted, it's a bit classless to chuckle at the death of another human being but...

Randy Lee Tenley of Kalispell, Montana decided that a bigfoot sighting in his town would be just the thing to liven up a dull summer. Randy Lee proceeded to acquire a ghillie suit from the local army surplus store. (Ghillie suits are camouflage costumes worn by snipers. The wearer appears to be a pile of leaves and moss.) He then donned the suit and ventured out to scare and confound the citizenry of Kalispell. Sadly, Randy Lee's plan went sideways when he lumbered onto a road at night and was hit by a 15 year-old driver. Randy was hit again by another car who clearly took him for a pile of dead leaves and moss. (Kudos to the suit maker.) Whether either driver reported an encounter with a Sasquatch was not made clear.

Kalispell, MT is hardly the Area 51 of bigfoot activity. At certain times of the year you're lucky to see any form of homo erectus. Why Mr. Tenley thought that a Sasquatch invasion would improve the quality of life in his town is a secret that died with him.

___________________________________________________________________

On a completely unrelated topic:

Did anyone notice that Mark Sanford, former Governor of South Carolina, is engaged to be married to Maria Belan Chapur. Who? Mayhaps you have forgotten Mr. Sanford and his contribution to the lexicon of American euphemism. While Markie was governor, he mysteriously disappeared for six days and told his staff he was "hiking the Appalachian Trail". Turns out the Appalachian Trail has a little-known detour that leads directly to the Buenos Aires apartment of Ms. Chapur.

As was subsequently revealed, this was not Governor Sanford's first hike and mostly at the expense of the good people of South Carolina. Being a good Republican ( see also "Wide Stance" Larry Craig) the Governor declined to resign. His own party tried to have him impeached but the Democrats of SC, delighted to leave him twisting in the wind, blocked most attempts. Sanford denied that he used State funds to further his Argentinean agenda. Having said that, he wrote the State a check to cover the misappropriated funds. His wife resigned from their marriage.

Well, that was 2009 and former Governor Sanford has maintained a moderately low profile. The definition of low profile among South Carolina Republicans is that you take a gig at Fox News, never to be taken seriously again. (As opposed to a gig at MSNBC where, chances are, you were never taken seriously to begin with.) However, true love will out. It was reported that in August Mr. Sanford proposed to the lovely Ms. Chapur. Apparently, Sanford hid in the men's room while a waiter told Ms. Chapur that she had won a prize and presented the ring. Thankfully, Gov. Sanford didn't encounter Larry Craig in the toilet or the story might have taken a ghastly turn.

__________________________________________________________________

and if you can spell non sequitur...

Seriously, does anyone actually read Prince Valiant in the comics any more? Are there folks out there that feel their Sunday is incomplete without a visit to Val? I love the comics but I'm a geezer. I check Doonesbury and Dilbert every day. I even look at Beetle Baily though that hasn't been relevant since the Korean War. I would read B.C. and the Wizard of Id also but they're not in the Wash. Post.

Comics are the ultimate anachronism. It was probably the first part of a newspaper that you read as a kid. The Funny Papers were the only part of the printed newspaper that parents could share with the kids. Strips like Mary Worth, Blondie and the Katzenjammer Kids were followed the way Justin Bieber is followed on Twitter. People cared about Lil Orphan Annie and Dick Tracy. Gasoline Alley, and Lil Abner were homilies and miniature morality tales. The strips evoked smiles rather than laughs. Stuff like two-way wrist radios (Dick Tracy) and secret decoder rings (Lil Orphan Annie) were part of the lexicon in America for generations. Ah! where are the Andy Capp's of yesteryear?

...or has GOP come to mean God's Own Party?

Never has the hand of God been seen more clearly than in the Almighty's attempts to disrupt the Republican National Convention scheduled to begin today in Tampa, FL.

This is not the first time that the Supreme Being has used weather to send a message to the GOP. No one remembers the 2008 Republican Convention for anything except the birth of Sarah Palin (she was born fully formed from the brain of John McCain). What everyone forgets is that there was an attempt at Divine Intervention there as well. The convention was held in St. Paul, MN which as we all know, is not exactly hurricane central. Nevertheless the expected, or unexpected arrival of Hurricane Gustav caused several departures from the original schedule of events.Although the message the Almighty was attempting to convey, "send that moron in the red suit and glasses back to Alaska" went unheeded, he was at least able to keep George W. Bush from speaking live at the convention. (The sigh of relief was audible in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.) Absolutely no one in the GOP wanted the words "George W. Bush" and "hurricane" uttered in the same sentence. Instead "W" addressed the convention via satellite from an undisclosed, secure location. God was apparently satisfied that the Republicans got part of the message and the storm passed several hundred miles to the east.

Now we arrive at the 2012 edition of the Republican National Confab. Having learned exactly nothing from their brush with disaster in '08, the GOP decided to hold this year's party in Tampa, Florida...on the coast...in August. Jeez! Why not the Bermuda Triangle? Well, God knows a gauntlet when one is thrown down and He was ready. This time, in case anyone missed the subtlety, the storm is named Isaac, as in son of Abraham (presumably calling it Yahweh was a bit showy). The Almighty's efforts are having a much more profound impact this time around. The storm has already forced the cancellation of the worst speaker to address a convention since Pat Buchanan told Republicans it was OK to be racist in 1992. Donald Trump is out. (For the love of God, who thought this chowderhead would add anything but derision to the GOP message?)

Rumor has it that Trump attempted to bribe God into sending the hurricane to North Carolina next week but the Almighty wasn't having any (the Dems are convening in Charlotte on Sept 4th).

Everybody's favorite religious asshat, Michele Bachmann, was, as usual, ready to interpret the meteorological message from On-High. Ms. Bachmann has been the GOP's go-to medium for divining God"s messages in storms and various teapot tempests. It was Rep. Bachmann who, in 2011, famously proffered that the east coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene were messages from The Almighty to Washington. "I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of politicians." The possibility that God was telling Republicans to leave National Healthcare alone never crossed her mind. (If a butterfly flapping its wings in Mongolia can cause the Santa Ana winds in Mexico, how much damage must Michele Bachmann's flapping mouth be causing in Asia?)

The prophet from Minnesota's Sixth has delved deep into her crystal and has seen God's metaphorical hand in the weather plaguing Florida this week. Speaking to the Florida Family Policy Council, Michele suggested that "...we are looking at a political hurricane in our land." WOW! Move over Nostradamus. Fortunately for the attendees at the Convention, Rep. Bachmann will get no closer to the speakers rostrum than she is today, which is a parking lot at the Olive Garden. Still, delegates crazy enough to sit in the convention hall throughout Tuesday and Wednesday will suffer speeches from Scot Walker of Wisconsin, Bob McDonald of Virginia, Rick Santorum from Bethlehem, Bobby Jindal from The Big Bang Theory, and Newt Gingrich from The Dating Game. In an attempt at whimsy the GOP plans to schedule Rob Portman, Tim Paulenty and Connie Mack but not announce who will speak when. Delegates will then be quizzed as to which is which. Prizes will be awarded.

The featured speakers will include Chris Christie who will reinforce his credentials to be President at the same time the engineers at the convention reinforce the stage. Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina, will speak about life in the craziest state in the Union and Marco Rubio will discuss how his family escaped Castro's Cuba three years before Castro's Cuba actually was Castro's Cuba. (Maybe Michele Bachmann saw Castro's eventual rise in a storm cloud and warned the Rubios.)

Sadly, the real fun-lovers like Sharron Angle, Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, Herman Cain and Todd Akin will be missing from the program. No one wants to be reminded about how batshit this crowd really is. Only serious politicians like Callista Gingrich, Newt's current accessory and Luce Vela, first lady of Puerto Rico are allowed to address the throng. Susana Martinez Governor of New Mexico will also speak, assuming she can prove who she is and how she got here.

So have a ball you Republicans. Nominate Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Have a balloon drop and a party and try to ignore the 500 pound elephant in the room...no, not Chris Christie. The fact is that after four years of vilifying Barack Obama and attempting to pander to the worst of the teabaggers bigotry and hate, you are still the party of old, cranky, white rich people. Blacks hate you, Latinos hate you, women should hate you and kids laugh at you. The Republican party is the best thing to ever happen to John Stewart.

Republicans should heed the words of the Commander of the Host who was chasing Moses across the Red Sea in The Ten Commandments. He said "Let us go from this place. Men cannot fight against a God."

...or has Mike Bloomberg graduated from nanny to wet-nurse?

From the recent files of isitjustme, subsection "you can't make this stuff up":

As referenced in a recent posting, the mayor/nanny of New York City has sponsored yet another edict in his never-ending war on personal freedom. Mike Bloomberg is determined to make you healthy and thin even if he has to lock you up to do it.

In any other city in America the draconian pronouncements of Mayor Bloomberg would be denounced as not just unconstitutional but anti civil liberties. In Dallas the citizens would be hunting for a rope. The interesting thing in New York is that everyone likes Mayor Mike. He has done a wonderful job running a city that was considered, under the Democrats, ungovernable. He has taken the torch from Rudy Giuliani (who, one must admit, did an admirable job) and continued to advance a nonpartisan, even-handed agenda. If the laws of the city didn't limit the mayor to two terms (a law Bloomberg set aside in 2009) Mike could be mayor of NY in perpetuity. He's a billionaire who takes the subway to work (sometimes) and rarely puts his foot in his mouth.

However Mike's one blindspot is his proclivity for proposing laws, regulations and edicts which while designed to do good, come off as patronizing and, well, silly. Bloomberg banned smoking in restaurants and bars in 2003 and in public spaces like Times Square in 2011. In 2006 he banned the use of artificial transfats in food sold in New York. He decreed that the calorie count of fast food be posted in all such restaurants and has pushed for a ten year plan to reduce the salt content of packaged foods. His commissioners have mandated a change in the taxi fleet to include hybrid cars instead of the old Ford Crown Vics. His recent effort to limit the size of sugary drinks sold in stores and restaurants has earned Mike more laughs than applause.

However, Mayor Bloomberg is undeterred. His most interesting cause to date is a ban on the sale of baby formula over the counter, thereby forcing new mothers to breastfeed. Formula would be available in hospitals but the staff must document the reason for dispensing it. Formula will also be available in pharmacies with a prescription. Although the Mayor's heart is certainly in the right place, his head is clearly too close to his sphincter. It was bad enough when he banned food donations to the homeless because the city couldn't control the salt content but this is one toke over the line. The Mayor appears determined to leave office with an electorate of thin, healthy, smoke-free, transfat-free, well adjusted constituents. It would surprise no one if he stopped the subways and buses once or twice a week and made New Yorkers walk or bicycle to work.

Mayor Mike is on the right side of abortion, gun control, religious freedom (he welcomed the so-called Ground Zero Mosque) and traffic congestion. However, mandating breastfeeding is big brotherism at it's worst. Personal choice cannot be sacrificed on the altar of "we know best". It would probably be best if Mayor Bloomberg kept his hands off women's breasts. Oh, you know what I mean.

or is prayer in school the first step toward Sharia Law?

While all the world was gasping at the galactic stupidity of Todd Akin, he of the Missouri Gynecological and Plumbing Association, no one noticed the other smell arising from the plains of the mighty mid-west. Having clearly established the Show Me State's regard for women (that would be, not much) the genius voters of MO have passed one of the dumbest, most irrelevant laws since Mike Bloomberg's mandatory breast-feeding edict.

Missouri has decided that Christians in Missouri (and make no mistake, this is only about Christians) don't get to pray enough in public. While Todd Akin was dragging women back to chattel status, the Missouri populace passed the "Missouri Public Prayer Amendment". This charming bit of irrelevancy has guaranteed forevermore the rights of Missourians to practice their religion freely. Apparently, the citizens of Missouri were so busy practicing their religion in secret they never had time to glance at the U.S. Constitution. If they had, they would have tripped over the First Amendment which mentions, in passing, that Americans have been practicing their religion freely since 1789. Maybe they thought that the Missouri Compromise of 1821 somehow shortchanged their religious freedom. (A section of the amendment allows for the public display of the Bill of Rights in Missouri public schools so this oversite might be short-lived.)

Actually it's the second part of this law which will cause huzzahs with the Bible-beating crowd. The amendment states that students in public schools are guaranteed the right to pray and acknowledge their religion voluntarily. Clearly, the information block that promoted the understanding of the First Amendment also shielded Missourians from three landmark Supreme Court decisions. Two decisions in 1962 and 1963, Engel v. Vitale and Abbington School District v. Schempp pretty much put the kibosh on school prayer. In 1971 the court went so far as to establish guidelines for what was acceptable in schools where prayer was concerned. In Lemon v. Kurtzman the Court said that public school activities must 1) have a secular purpose, 2) Must neither enhance nor inhibit religion and 3) Must not result in excessive entanglement between government and religion. If you don't think this is clear, you must be from Missouri.

The author of this tripe is one State Rep. Mike McGhee. Here's a quiz: see if you can guess Mike's 1) religion?, 2) race?, 3) party? Of course he is. Here's a trick question: where did he go to college? Wrong. He never went. He's a farmer from Independence who made his money in land speculation. Prior to his introducing this amendment, the only impression he ever made in Jefferson City was on the cushion of his chair.

There are two things you need to know about this amendment. First, it's as unconstitutional as the day is long. The Supremes have yelled themselves hoarse explaining that school is not church. If you feel the need to contact the Almighty during school hours, ask to be excused. There are zero reasons to organize moments of silence during class time and a thousand reasons not to. If praying is so critical to your kid's education, put them in a religious school where they can pray to their heart's content while studying creationism and celibacy. Leave public schools to study real knowledge not mysticism.

Second, anybody who thinks that these "religious freedoms" will be extended to Muslim kids please pull your head out of your Koran. These "freedoms" are about promoting Christianity and Christianity only. The very reason for excluding prayer from schools, i.e., to keep teacher from converting/brainwashing students, is the very reason the Christian Right want to bring it in. They don't want religious freedom they want a state sponsored shot at preaching Jesus to school kids. The first time that a group of Islamic students organize themselves in the corner of a classroom and begin chanting "Allah akbar" the freedom of religion crowd will scream "terrorists" and run from the building. Remember, it was the "good Christians" of middle America that howled every time a middle easterner tried to erect so much as a falafel stand. This is about Christianity and its true believers.

All of this religious fervor might at least be understandable if the goal was building a more moral country. Who could argue with Christian values like charity, kindness and love? Sadly, those pages are missing from the New Testament being preached by these self-appointed prophets. The same "Christians" who want students praising Jesus all day also want immigrants out, welfare stopped and all non-Real Americans jailed. Please, ask one of these modern-day evangelists what he thinks of Guantanamo or inner-city blacks or education for illegal immigrants. Jesus Christ would hardly recognize the Church he started.

So remember oh you righteous Christians of Missouri, as you demand crosses be placed outside public buildings and stone renderings of the ten commandments be displayed in your courthouses, the only countries currently interested in this sort of church - state unification are the ones facing Mecca six times a day. Sharia Law by any other name still still treats women like goats.

...or has the party that gave us Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell lost its ability to shock or surprise?

Missouri may not be in the deep south but recent events in the "Show Me" State would lead one to believe that they are working hard for membership. Missouri ranks right up with her sister states in obesity (30%), intelligence (#22 - best in the South after Virginia) and now a leader in draconian laws and moronic politicians. In a state where homeschooling is neither monitored nor regulated you can expect political candidates like Todd Akin.

Enter Todd Akin. The Tea Party's newly minted candidate for the Senate, challenging a supposedly vulnerable Claire McCaskill, couldn't wait to trot out his somewhat novel understanding of women's reproductive idiosyncrasies. During an interview last Sunday with a St. Louis TV station (presumably K-DOPE-TV) Congressman Akin was asked to defend his position on abortion. He has stated that he's again' it even in instances of rape and incest. Rather that launch into the usual rant about the sacredness of life, Akin opined that pregnancy, as a result of legitimate rape (as opposed to the non-legitimate kind), is "really rare. If it's a legitimate rape the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down." Ladies and Gentlemen behold the newest embodiment of the ASSHAT.

Mr. Akin is a graduate of the Wooster Polytechnic Institute in Wooster, Mass. I checked and they do not offer any courses in vaginal engineering. He also has a Masters of Divinity from the Convent Theological Seminary in St. Louis. In spite of the "Convent" in the title, female reproductive studies are unknown except in the backseat of the occasional Toyota. It would appear that Congressman Akin received the bulk of his gynecological training from the instruction pamphlets inside home pregnancy tests. In any event the upshot of the interview is that Congressman Akin is as qualified to expound on women's reproductive issues as he is to be a US Senator.

Because irony died in the Republican party during the Nixon years, no one thought it strange that Akin sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. One can only assume that Akin specialized in the "space" part; especially the oxygen deprivation testing. He clearly skipped the "science" lectures.

Since Sunday the House has fallen on Todd Akin...and the Senate...and every Republican from John Boehner to Paul Ryan. Most are suggesting that he 1) withdraw from the Senate race, 2) take a long walk off a short pier or, enroll in the Outer Mongolian School of Reproductive Medicine. In any event, he should think about a change in careers.

However, Congressman Akin isn't having any. "I'm not a quitter" he said. That's not entirely true. Akin declined to appear at a planned interview on Piers Morgan's show on CNN. He did appear on Sean Hannity's radio show where he quoted that well-known OB-GYN John Paul Jones who said "I have not yet begun to fight." It was unclear if he was being raped at the time.

...or has the GOP decided to run Jim Crow for national office?

You gotta love Republicans. The Grand Old Party has traditionally been in the minority in America (current figures have the GOP a slight underdog) but has learned how to make the most of opportunities when they arise. Republican lawmakers have used every trick in the Karl Rove, Tom DeLay handbook to: redraw congressional boundaries, hire politically motivated prosecutors and pass any law possible to ensure their continued political dominance. In states like Texas, the Republicans have gerrymandered congressional districts to the point that the congressional Texas map looks like it was painted by Picasso at age five. Note: It's not like the Democrats are new to redrawing districts to maximize political advantage. Perish the thought. The GOP is only singled out for their shamelessness.

This brings us to 2010 and the unfortunate election results that put several state governments in the hands of some very mean-spirited Republicans. These guys grew up in the Bush-Cheney "take no prisoners" school of politics. Having taken over in 2011, they set right to work determining who voted for Barack Obama and how to keep them out of the polls in 2012. First on the list were those smelly poor people and those who live on society's margins. Next were minorities, especially those black citizens who turned out in record numbers to vote Democratic. But how do you disenfranchise entire voting blocks without violating that pesky Voting Rights Act?

Hey wait! How about if all the GOP governors take to Fox News and gin up a crisis about voter fraud? That will give the state legislatures cover to demand that voters show picture ID's before voting. After all, voter fraud is rampant in the land (we're certain because we heard it on Fox). And before you could say Jim Crow, Republican state houses passed laws requiring voters to present official photo ID cards before voting. So far, these laws have passed in Texas (big surprise), Nebraska, Wisconsin (thank you Scott Walker), Tennessee, South Carolina (where all the really evil laws are born), Georgia, Mississippi, Indiana and, most contentiously, Pennsylvania. No one gives a God damn who votes in Nebraska or who they vote for.

A judge in Pennsylvania has just ruled that the voter ID law in that state is legal and he is probably right. The interesting aspect of this case is that prior to argument, the Defendants, in the person of the State AG, had already thrown in the towel. In a "stipulation agreement" filed before the trial began, the State has acknowledged that it has no evidence that the new law would prevent fraud at the polling place. Further, the State cannot point to one case of in-person fraud at any voting facility in the State. So, in short, a law that was supposedly written to stop in-person voter fraud, will not stop voter fraud, but that's OK because there is no voter fraud to stop. But if there were fraud, by God we stopped it. Pennsylvania is about to entertain a law prohibiting hunters from shooting unicorns with a crossbow.

To be clear, these laws would not stop dead people from voting in Chicago. They would not stop ACORN-type registrations (ACORN committed no voter fraud or ever broke any election law. Their offense was coming to the attention of a has-been named Glenn Beck.) There is a famous story regarding the Senate campaign of Lyndon Johnson in Texas in 1948 where, during the Democratic primary, a precinct turned in election results showing that the citizens of the area voted in alphabetical order. True or not, and it's a great story, the new voter laws would not prevent alphabetical voting. Face it, the net effect of these laws is that fewer legitimate voters will get to vote. America has been electing presidents since G. Washington and no one has ever thought it necessary to show a photo (during the 1880's maybe a daguerreotype or a lithograph).

If you really want to investigate voter fraud (which no one in the GOP wants to do), take a look at absentee ballots. Reports of ballots being "mislaid" are rampant.

It's not like anyone believed that these laws were anything but an attempt to keep poor and old people from voting but it's nice to see the State of Pennsylvania admit it. Pennsylvania's House Majority Leader Mike Turzai proclaimed that "this law will allow Mitt Romney to win the State of Pennsylvania". WOW! I might expect that from Rick Perry or Nikki Haley but Pennsylvania is a light blue moderate state.

But just in case you think that voter suppression is a "southern" thing, consider the inventive policies of the Attorney General of Ohio. Under the supervision of AG Mike DeWine, Ohio is attempting to stifle early voting. Some clever dick in the GOP noticed that the lines of early voters outside polling places in 2008 had an inordinate number of, let's say, people of color. The Secretary of State has actually tried to limit voting hours in districts that vote Democratic. The Republicans are especially interested in keeping the polls closed on the weekend before election day when an estimated 93,000 voters hit the polls in 2008. The thinking goes that if lower income workers are unable to get time off to vote on Tuesday Romney has a better shot. Sharpies in the Secretary of State's office have said that only military personnel can vote on the weekend so attempts to change that statute are framed as anti-soldier. This cesspool of an idea has caused even the Governor to hold his nose. Plans are in the works to make this transparent tactic look less like stacking the deck. Good luck with that. I understand that Oklahoma is thinking of having black and Latino voters cast ballots on a moving bus.

...or is Romney's choice for VP another case of the bland leading the bland?

OK so lets take a look at this guy Paul Ryan. I keep reading how Ryan is the energizing force that will catapult the GOP to new heights of conservative glory. Paul Ryan is the cinnamon on the oatmeal that is Mitt Romney. He is the game-changer (where have I heard that before)? Ryan is the voice of fiscal responsibility. He has a plan.

Really? Well if Congressman Ryan is such a reign-in-the-budget, stop-the-spending, screw-the- poor and darling of the teabagger crowd, let's take a fast look at his voting record. Since his election in 1998, Congressman Ryan has voted with his party 93% of the time. He's a follower, hardly a leader. He voted for the Bush tax cuts and the extension of those tax cuts which, without a concomitant change in government spending, added 3 trillion to the National Debt. He voted for the bailout of General Motors and Chrylser as well as the hated TARP program. Ryan voted for the Medicare Part D drug program, a very costly increase in the social safety net. He voted to authorize the President to use military force in Afghanistan and Iraq, wars that were fought on credit. Ryan may be a nice guy with a solid moral core but there is nothing in his voting record in 15 years in the House of Representatives that would give rise to any notion that he is a fiscal conservative.

Ryan's reputation as a deficit hawk is, so far as I can tell, exclusively a product of spin. The dreaded main-stream media, reviled by all true Foxies, has created the myth of "Paul Ryan, Enemy of All Government Spending". This media creation is based almost exclusively on the "Ryan Plan" which is a budget proposal that: 1) increases defense spending, 2) lowers taxes for the very wealthy, and 3) decimates every social program from food stamps to Medicare. The cuts are so dractic even the Council of Catholic Bishops is opposed. Ryan is famous for having proposed this program chiefly because no other Republican has proposed anything more substantial than a coffee break in 3 1/2 years. With 240 GOP Congressmen sitting around picking lint from their navels, Ryan looks like the reincarnation of Adam Smith.

Still you have to give the Romney people credit for choosing in the VP candidate, a person with the perfect blend of bland but not too bland...like a Honda but with a racing stripe and extra cup holders. Romney isn't in the same boat as John McCain was in 2008. Old John was so desperate to add life to his funereal campaign, he chose someone who made everyone think "boob" but not always for the same reason. Sarah Palin's sell-by date could be measured in weeks. Romney is in a different situation.

He's a wooden Indian. If he has a plan for growing the economy or curbing illegal immigration or reducing spending or, well anything, he's kept it a pretty good secret up to now. His campaign to win the GOP nomination was, at times, eclipsed by Donald Trump, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich: the Groucho, Chico and Harpo of American politics. Like the Russians against Napoleon, he didn't so much win as outlast his enemies. In a field of candidates that resembled a casting call for a perverse reality show, Mitt was rarely able to garner more than 35% of the vote. His own party approached his selection the way a customer buys expensive cheese; Romney smelled the least bad.

Having managed to prevail against the lost battalion of potential candidates, Mitt needed to chose a running mate who wouldn't cast him in the shadows. No easy task that. In almost five years of campaigning, Governor Mitt has displayed all the charm and charisma of a white bread sandwich. He looked at Cris Christie but his shadow speaks for itself. Tim Paulenty and Rob Portman were possibilities but it helps if the the candidates are distinguishable by something more substantial than the color of their ties. Marco Rubio of Florida was in the mix but Marco has been tripping over his own back-story (His family fled Castro's Cuba five years before Fidel took power. oops!) Tragically, Rubio is what passed for "color" in the GOP, John Boehner notwithstanding. Mitt might have tried for a woman but Condoleezza Rice told him no and Jan Brewer was too busy ruining the State of Arizona to help out.

Ryan might actually help Romney win Wisconsin which went for Obama in '08. They're an independent bunch up there. They gave America Joe McCarthy and Bill Proxmire. Wisconsin voters defy pigeonholing. They also sometimes defy logic. They elected Scott Walker as Governor, tried to recall him then changed their minds. As long as Wiscinsin's seniors don't read too deeply about what Paul Ryan intends to do to their Medicare, Romney's VP choice should work out fine. At least Mitt won't have to worry about whether Ryan can see Russia from his back porch. He lives in Janesville.

...or is the Olympics held in the summer to give NBC something in prime time someone might actually watch?

By now it should be obvious that the Olympics is held only once every four years because no one wants to watch Greco-Roman wrestling any more often than that. It seems apparent that, if the Greeks had envisioned the inclusion of synchronized diving, handball and dressage as part of their beloved games, they might have chucked the entire idea and invented beach volleyball instead. Seriously, if your sport is broadcast on Telemundo at five in the morning (men's field hockey) or Bravo at midnight (tennis) don't plan to challenge the Superbowl for viewers any time soon.

Actually the Olympics are great. The opening ceremony was breathtaking...if a little long. Memo to the planners for Rio - 2016: If the contingent of athletes from a given country would fit comfortably in a booth at Sizzler, they don't get to march in by themselves. Put them in groups by continent. Everyone wants to root for their country, even if they haven't the first clue what sport they're watching. We chant USA! USA! during water polo while fourteen tall guys tread water and bounce a ball off each others heads. We watch with wonder at fencing where the trick seems to be to figure out which guy/gal in white is from your country before they get "touched". That takes about three nanoseconds. (When I was young, touching for three nanoseconds was called sex.)

NBC is broadcasting as much of the Games as anyone is likely to want. The geeks may complain about streaming and tape delays but most of us want prime time on the big screen. From archery to trampoline it's all there. Naturally NBC has maintained the personality of the various cable stations by scheduling the events on the venues that represent the closest fit. The primary network, regular broadcast NBC, has the MOR stuff: swimming, gymnastics, track and field. MSNBC, the liberal station, has fencing, sailing, badminton. You know, elitist stuff. Telemundo is featuring soccer, weightlifting and cycling; all that foreign stuff. Bravo has judo, wrestling, and synchronized swimming. How very butch!

All of these events spread out over two weeks begs the age-old question: How many of these contests are actually sports? The discussion should properly begin with the Greeks. They got together every four years beginning in 776 B.C. and had a race. ("B.C." That's "Before Costas") The winner's name was inscribed on a tablet which is still visible today. (See also, the Birth of Cybermetrics.) Like the Olympics of today, the Greeks added events to the competition as the Olympic idea gained traction. (Mass Suicide was added briefly by the Spartans but was discontinued due to the difficulty in obtaining veteran coaches.) However, the "sports" that were included tended to be along the lines of war stuff (shooting arrows, throwing spears) and contests that involved running. They also had wrestling but all that groping was mostly for the "light in the sandals" crowd. Any self respecting Greek who suggested table tennis or beach volleyball would have been laughed all the way to Helios. These games endured until about 393 AD when the Roman emperor stopped all pagan rituals...at least ones without name sponsors. (The French tried to reinvigorate the Games during the Revolution in 1796 but competitive head-tossing never caught on.)

The Greeks got the games going again in 1820 but it wasn't until 1896 that the so-called modern games were organized in Athens by Baron Pierre de Coubertin, a Frenchman with a lot of time on his hands. Since then the Games have grown from 571 athletes and 14 countries to 10,500 athletes from 204 nations. The number of events has also grown because the host country is allowed to introduce a new contest as part of the hosting honor. Some, like basketball, have endured. Others, like tug of war and softball, not so much. A few countries have included events that were clearly proposed as a joke. There's no other way to explain rhythmic gymnastics and wishu.

Anyway back to the original question to wit, what constitutes a "sport"? We can all agree that running, jumping (with or without a pole), throwing stuff and fighting are sports. Toss in swimming (running in water) and rowing (running in a canoe), cycling (running on a bike) and even some gymnastics. Rings are just flat-out cool. We can also probably agree that stuff like gymnastic floor exercises, table tennis and dressage are not sports. They might require years of practice and incredible physical conditioning but so does Donkey Kong and tango-dancing. Dedication to perfection is laudable but not always sport. Beyond that, intelligent people can differ.

I'm not sure shooting qualifies as sport unless the contestants were shooting at each other however, if guns were around in 776 BC you can bet the Greeks would have been competing. Also any event where the women's competition is more interesting to watch than the men's should be out. Field hockey, volleyball (beach and otherwise), badminton... gone. You might as well leave sailing in. Absolutely no one pays attention anyway. Any event that awards style points should be shown the door. I'm pretty sure that the Greeks weren't holding up little tablets that said "8.25" over the mangled body of a wrestler who finished second.

It seems clear that the Olympics has, in keeping with Parkinson's Law, expanded to fill the number of cable stations allotted for its coverage. Whether anyone is watching horses dance or pre-pubescent girls endanger their reproductive parts on the uneven bars is very much beside the point. If there's a Team USA competing, NBC is covering. So let's all watch the equestrian events in hopes of seeing Ann Romney's horse's rump. No, not that one. The four-legged one in the Olympics.

...or is the only time to talk about gun control when it's not the right time?

About the only thing upon which the NRA and the rest of us can agree is that serious, enforced gun laws probably wouldn't have prevented James Eagan Holmes from shooting 70 people in an Aurora, CO theater. We can also agree that the shootings at Virginia Tech, Columbine, and everywhere else associated with senseless slaughter would most likely have occurred regardless of any weapons restrictions. Beyond that there is no agreement.

I realize that the Supreme Court rulings in McDonald and Heller pretty much ended the conversation on the Second Amendment. Your right to own, carry, conceal, stockpile, and defend yourself with a firearm is, for the foreseeable future, settled law...much good may it ever do you. However, the notion that it's too soon to debate our easy access to weapons, including assault weapons, and its effect on our society is not just wrong it's heinous. For a loudmouth like Chris Christie to suggest that we should not "politicize" the tragedy in Aurora is to imply that constructive dialogue about guns in America is somehow a political issue like taxes or foreign policy. That's bullshit. We can and should talk about this while the smell of cordite is still fresh in the noses of the survivors.

Hell, theater owners are working toward a ban on costumes in theaters. That's like banning all underwear on airplanes. Does anyone think that preventing geeks from dressing up as Batman or Frodo will prevent the next senseless act of violence? Nevertheless theater owners haven't called a press conference to moan that "it's too soon" to talk about precautions to improve the safety of moviegoers. At least they are trying to think of something. The gun lobby and all who serve them are only interested in covering their own asses. The gun gang doesn't even wait for someone in power to mention gun ownership. They send their mouthpieces straight to Fox News to decry any and all who would "use this tragedy to further their anti-Second Amendment agenda".

Talking about gun laws won't result in any change in America's love affair with firearms. No amount of carnage will cause one Congressman or one Senator to change his/her stance on guns. But make no mistake this is not a political issue...it's a money issue. The NRA funds all of the Republicans and most of the Western states' Democrats. Besides, there's no public outcry to curtail gun ownership. There is no serious counterbalancing force to compete with the gun lobby.

Jeez, one moron Congressman suggested that if the theatergoers in Aurora were all packing, there would have been fewer patrons killed. All those who think that a shootout in a packed theater would have been a good idea please kill yourselves now.

It is baffling to think that, after 9/11, our response was to shred our Constitutional rights to privacy in a panicked effort to protect ourselves from another attack. We began to hate all things Muslim. We rounded up and imprisoned suspected terrorists all over the world. Some are still in jail. Does anyone doubt that if the Aurora, CO shooter had been an Iranian or Pakistani our rage would have been uncontrollable? Why is it then that we can't muster the slightest scintilla of indignation toward gun sellers or the politicians who pander to them? Where is the outrage?

Reasonable people can agree that, if we can monitor the purchase of fertilizer or dynamite, we can certainly keep track of people who stockpile ammunition. There are clearly no legitimate reasons to own thousands of rounds for an assault rifle. The "slippery slope " argument is crap. There are fifty restrictions we could logically apply to gun ownership without ever curtailing the sacred right to own a gun...or several guns. Suppose we ask the President to sign an oath that he will never sign an anti-gun bill? Would that encourage the NRA to green light mandatory trigger-guards or chemical tagging of gunpowder? Sure it will. Just not in your lifetime.

...or is modern Conservatism suffering from oxygen deprivation?

Liberals are smarter than Conservatives and I can prove it.

Just a few simple questions will establish what we have assumed for years: namely that too much Fox News can have a detrimental effect on your brain. Repeated exposure to Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly Neil Cavuto, Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy and the rest can permanently corrupt parts of the frontal lobe (higher brain function), the temporal lobe (controls memory) and the cerebellum (balance). There can be little doubt that this is not a nature/nurture issue. No one is born conservative. It happens over time, like hemorrhoids. And left untreated the symptoms can go from mildly Foxified to the more serious Foxanoma; and as we all know...you can't fix Foxanoma.

It's true that there still exists a small breed of conservatives called Classic Conservatives. They roamed freely throughout most of the 20th century. These are the small government, low taxes brand of the species who understood the need for compromise. They accepted the possibility that the other side might have an idea worth considering. They actually worked with people with whom they disagreed. What a quaint notion! Their leaders included the likes of Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. Even John McCain might have been included in their ranks. Tragically the few ClassicCons that exist today are being hunted to extinction. Richard Lugar of Indiana is only the most recent casualty.

I know, you think I'm being harsh. After all some of your best friends... If that's true then it's not too late. You can still save some of them. But you must stage an intervention. Otherwise you're an enabler. Make them answer the following question to show your friends the error of their ways.

I suggest using a crayon.

The answer to each question is

A- liberal

or

B- conservative

Which group contains the greatest number of people who:

1) don't believe in evolution?

2) believe that homosexuality is a conscious choice?

3) believe that the current President is not a natural-born citizen of the U.S.?

4) believe that the current president is a Muslim?

4a) believe that the current President is under the spell of an anti-American radical Christian preacher from Chicago? (hint it's apparently possible to believe both 4 and 4a.)

5) believe that the current President is a socialist, communist or fascist?

6) believe that the Affordable Care Act is a government take-over of healthcare?

7) believe that deficits have only started to rise since 2008?

8) are convinced that the current administration intends to remove all firearms from private hands? (include cold, dead hands in answer.)

9) believe that requiring photo ID for voting is an honest effort to curb voter fraud?

10) believe Trayvon Martin should have been more accommodating to George Zimmerman?

11) believe there is a global conspiracy among "so called climate scientists" to delude the people into believing in climate change?

12) believe all media except for Fox is liberally bias and in the tank for Barack Obama?

13) (and a bonus question for you oldsters) believe Jane Fonda should be arrested as a traitor and collaborator?

By this time your conservative friend has either walked out or fired off a series of tu quoque statements about MSNBC and what a slime Al Sharpton is. No matter, the point has been made.

True, not all conservatives believe all of this crap but damn few are willing to go on the record in opposition. When was the last time Mitt Romney stood in front of the American people and disavowed those among his followers who think that Barack Obama is a Kenyan or that gays are people and deserve the right to marry?

The point is if you believe that Jeremiah Wright is the President's guru, and Obama is coming for your guns, and climate change is junk science, then face it, you just might be a Tea Party wingnut and... none too bright.

...or have college sports become too big to be run by colleges?

There's nothing new here.

If anyone out there thinks that the horrific events unfolding at Penn State are unusual, uncommon or without precedent, you were probably born during the Clinton Administration. True, none of the past scandals involved pedophiles but they were nevertheless symptomatic of the hold that college sports has over the American landscape. Stories like this are never about the actual incident (or in this case, many incidents). Students with exceptional skills will continue to drive drunk, beat up their girlfriends and take money for work not performed. (Hell, I did that for 37 years and never made the papers once!)

No. The real story is how the institution deals with the issue. It's about how the situation gets handled or doesn't get handled. It's about morals vs. money, about reputation vs. doing the right thing. It's about protecting the institution vs. protecting the victims. On every level Penn State and its administration went the wrong way and no penalty from the NCAA, the courts or the public will seem too severe.

This isn't about pro sports. People who get paid to entertain, including politicians, are going to get a pass once in a while. Celebrity has perks. Some of those perks include reporters routing through your trash, following your children around the playground and interviewing your college girlfriend to find out how good you were in the sack. If that sounds like a fair trade for getting a good table at a fine restaurant, go run for someone or for something. Entertainers are also going to get into trouble and their peccadilloes, unlike yours, will make the news. Their rise and fall stories are interesting but not indicative of anything. Lawrence Taylor's predilection for underage hookers or Tiger Woods' adventures with cocktail waitresses are titillating stories but hardly an indictment of pro football or the PGA tour. College sports however is an entirely different can of worms.

Let's start with the "college" part. No college, with the possible exception of Brigham Young, was ever founded to be a sports mecca. Universities were created to: 1) Meet chicks/guys, 2) learn to drink dangerous quantities of cheap alcohol, 3) eat the kinds of foods you will spend the rest of your life warning your children about and, if there's time, 4) learning something. Prior to 1869 there was no college football. The first game, Rutgers - Princeton, was attended by fewer people than you might see in the waiting room of your dentist's office. Colleges were fine without big time athletic programs. With most colleges and universities charging $40, 000 to $50,000 a year, (before you buy the first blue book) it's hard to understand why any school needs the headache of a Quintin Daley or Lawrence Phillips. More about Mr. Daley in a moment.

Schools must learn to live without both the revenue and the scandals. True, many schools have, at least on the surface maintained a "clean program". As a matter of fact, Penn State before Jerry Sandusky and his affectations was just such a program. Show me a clean program in big-time college sports and I'll show you a program that has yet to be caught. Unlike the pros, college reputations matter. Southern Methodist University in Dallas received the so-called death penalty from the NCAA for paying players and 25 years later it is still a black mark on its escutcheon. (SMU was so desperate to be known for something else they agreed to be the home of the George W. Bush Library. Now that's desperation.)

The University of San Francisco, having given the world Bill Russell, was justly proud of its basketball program. However, when a series of recruiting incidents culminated with the criminal assault of a female student by one Quintin Daley, the hottest pro prospect in the country, the Jesuits who run USF didn't hesitate. They offered to honor all basketball scholarships if a team member wished to stay, wished bon chance to the others and padlocked the gym for three years. The squeak of sneakers on a hardwood floor went unheard from 1982 to 1985. As a person who rarely has anything nice to say about the actions of the RCC, the decision by Rev. John LoShiavo took real courage.

Penn State must suspend its football program. Either you are a proud university with an impressive record of academic achievement or you are a punch-line school that is nothing more than a feeder operation for pro football. Yes, thousands of innocent restaurant owners, vendors and athletes will be punished for a crime in which they never took part but there is a bigger issue here. The football program at Penn State was used as an excuse for the most vile crime the human mind can contempalte...violation of a child. Jerry Sandusky was given free reign to molest kids at will exclusively because he was attached to football. He used his football access as bait. Outsized crime requires outsized punishment. Penn State must melt down the Paterno statue and the football program he represented.

...or is there hope for the gang from SCOTUS?

If Jack Kennedy were still alive (yeah I know, he'd be 95) he would be required to pen a second edition of "Profiles in Courage" to include Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief of the Supremes has shown more cajones with one decision than Clarence Thomas has in 22 years of pushing in Antonin Scalia's stool. Seriously, who knew? Prior to this, the biggest contribution from Chief Justice Roberts was to bring the donuts on the first Monday in October. Whether you approve of the Chief's decision or not, attention must be paid to a jurist who can find a way, in law, to do what he thought was right in practice. Scalia must have swallowed his rosary beads. The three witches of Liberalism probably offered to do Robert's laundry for a year.

The decision was such a surprise that CNN and Fox had a "Dewey Defeats Truman" moment and announced for the losing side. Memo to CNN...the adage is "Get it Right then Get it First". Naturally, Fox just assumed the decision would go against the President. In the past year they have done everything short of send hookers into the SCOTUS chambers in order to influence the decision. Roger Ailes is now rereading his "Goebbles Little Red Book of Propaganda" to see where he slipped up. Greta Van Susteren was so flustered, she forget which side of her face to talk out of.

Why was this decision such a shock? Well probably because it was the first decision handed down by the Roberts Court that took into account whether they were acting fairly. Virtually all of the previous 5 to 4 decisions (Second Amendment, Citizens United, etc.) were decided to imprint American Law with the ideology of Antonin Scalia. While Scalia communed with the ghosts of Madison and Jefferson, the law veered dangerously to the right. (It's just amazing how the Founding Fathers always seem to be supporting the Tea Party views of Justice Scalia. A cynic might think that Scalia was bending the words of the FF to conform to his will.) There's little doubt that the Scalia/Roberts Court would never have approved civil rights legislation (Brown v. Board of Ed.) or interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia).

Now however, hope springs eternal. Considering that the Court is scheduled to hear the case against the poisonous Defense of Marriage Act and the constitutionality of voter ID laws, at least there is a chance that someone on the Court will look at fairness and common sense instead of the Federalist Papers and Fox and Friends. Roberts has shown a respect for the bizarre notion that's it's 2012 not 1789. The Founders gave us a constitution on paper as a guide not tablets carved in marble as Mosaic Law. So three cheers for Chief Justice Roberts, for he's a jolly good fellow. So what if Sam Alito and Clarence Thomas won't sit at his table for lunch anymore. All the pretty girls are at the liberal table anyway.