The Lunatic Fringe - Examples & Comments

[10thFO]

WiseOne, when I speak about the ineffectiveness of the U.N. I speak mostly from my heart, and from first hand experience, and second hand experience of seeing them screw the pooch in other countries. You can dismiss what I said all you want, but you cannot dismiss what I saw first hand. And quite frankly at that time, I thought the U.N. had been doing a good job, was raised as a kid to see them as some do great things organization. Only when you get close you start to see them for more of what they really are.

Uji, and Coondog, obviously you haven't been on here for very long, neither have I, but you don't know my position on the Iraq invasion and war. I have been against the war itself for awhile, again, it helps when you have people in theatre that you communicate with, and know I'm not talking about some production company out in California. I heard the replys of my brethern who are actually fighting and not being keyboard jockeys pontificating on it. I don't agree with why we went in, still not convinced of all the crap i'm hearing from the left right now on forged letters and the such, but the bottom line is I have usually found the truth to be somewhere in the middle, not on this side or that side.

Do I support keeping troops there? Hell yes, you might think those lives were sacrificed for nothing, but you don't have to look yourself in the mirror everyday. Soldiers know what the real deal is, and that is their leadership back in Washington is screwed up. Doesn't really matter whether it's this president or the last one that was in office, neither one has not crap about how to handle conflicts overseas.

Oh and Coondog, actually I troops had a choice, convenient of you to use the broad brush yourself, I seem to recall it's still and all volunteer Service group that we have. Seems people are picking apart my personal theory for the U.N. being a show of nothingism, while conviently buying the BS you are spouting about it being ok for Hussein to kill all those Kurds, glad you aren't old enough to be around when Hitler was killing all the Jews..... jeez, what a thought.

[coondog]

You're right, 10th! We do have an all volunteer service.

With the exception of a few who were convinced by their recruiters they'd be stationed in Tahiti, and a bunch of the National Guard the overwhelming majority took on the responsibility with the knowledge that, well, anything might happen.

But, doesn't the fact that those volunteers have made this significant and necessary commitment require that their utilization be, not frivolous, but done so with the utmost regard and integrity? An honest and well defined objective would also seem to be a reasonable requirement. Not to mention at least a vague notion, at the onset, of what constitutes success.

Anything less, in my book, is grossly irresponsible and reprehensible.

Armed conflict is not something to be taken lightly, or with neferious intent. Certainly not by exploiting the emotional trepidations of the populace. And, certainly not by by false premise. (The effect of holding up a vial of anthrax in front of the UN played to sensibilities frought not due to the fact that Iraq had military grade anthrax, but as has ultimately been discovered, because we did.)

One last thought on WMDs and the speculation that they may still be hidden away under the sand. If they existed, wouldn't someone have used them by now? With so many Americans close at hand, what die hard radical extremists wouldn't avail themselves of the opportunity to, say, turn the Green Zone into a smoldering wasteland? They haven't used them because they ain't got 'em!

Look! When Bush sent the Troops to Afghanistan, I was all for it. I'm not a complete hopeless pacifist. I recognise that sometimes the only way to deal with a situation is a boot to the head. A clearly defined mission - go get bin Laden and make him pay! So, how did that one turn out? Mission not accomplished! Who is to blame? I'll vote for Bush on that one!

And yeah, I get steamed when I hear nonsense about surrendering to terrorists and losing the war in Iraq. What jibberish! We won that war already! Whereas, we could have cleared the riff raff out of Afghanistan....and Pakistan for that matter and no longer be a "Nation at War" but a nation at peace with the righteous gratification of having exacted just recompense for crimes committed. And saved ourselves a bunch of money in the bargain.

Coondog

I'm deeply offended by that 'screw the pooch' remark

[10thFO]

Coondog, as for why don't they use the WMD's? I think it is safe to say, that not too many people think they exist, I certainly don't.

As for not taking the life and limb of servicemembers lightly? Well that's all good in theory, but our gov't would rather lose soldiers than they would a $1 million piece of equipment. If soldiers don't realize that they are kidding themselves. I've got enough experience with the armed services to know all to well, that combat should be our last resort. I'm not someone that sits at home espousing the virtues of war, without ever having seen the wrong end of an RPG coming at me. If you can show me any conflict or mission that our troops have been on since Panama that had a well defined objective and a plan for getting out, I'd love to see it. This isn't just a Bush administration problem. This specific one, is certainly theres, but soldier's have been dying for no good reason in many of the conflicts we have been in. It's the absurdity of war.

As Plato said though "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

[coondog]

THESE ARE STRANGE TIMES.

There are a lot of crazies out there spouting all sorts of mad jibberish. Most of them can be found on talk radio, Fox News, in the U.S. House of Representatives and in Dick Cheney's Family Album. Rush Limbaugh. Michelle Bachman, Glen Beck, The Rev. Wright, Birthers, Alaskan Hockey Moms, Domestic Terrorists to cite a few others.

But, my candidate for Looniest of them all comes from the July 22, 2009 News-Gazette:

From Where I Stand
Hugh Bouchelle

A Letter To Liberals

Dear Liberals,

I know what you're doing.

You think that by creating an overwhelmingly crazy political climate, with daily cap and trade debates, more stimulus bills, foreign affairs fiascos, rampant political corruption and a host of bills so long and complicated even the lawmakers don't bother to read them, that you can pass your socialist agenda and no one will be the wiser.

I also know that you know, the political opportunity here. With our personal economies drawing much of our attention, a president who is master of the Saul Alinsky method and in control of both houses, you have a door to consolidate power that could close at any moment. So, you figure to grab all you can now and worry about the costs later.
But you've underestimated Americans. We see what you're doing and know all this political rush and chaos is by design. We've read Saul Alinsky, recognize the pattern, and now the word is out.

Certainly no true liberal worth his commune has trouble recognizing Alinsky. But for the not so enlightened, let me explain. Alinsky is the guy who literally wrote the book on community organizing for radical social change and served as the godfather for radical movements during the 60s. This current chaotic maelstrom of politics is textbook Alinsky.

Alinsky (1909-1972) was a favorite mentor for young leftist radicals like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama in their college days. But it was Obama who became master of the Alinsky technique while community organizing on the streets of Southside Chicago. While Hillary met and interviewed Alinsky for her college thesis, it seems Obama's time in the trenches, actually working the Alinsky method, gave him the experience to out maneuver Hillary during the primaries.

I know you liberals hoped to hide the Alinsky fingerprints that are all over the current liberal push to socialism, since, according to Alinsky, "True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within."

But Rule No. 5 was too easy to spot:

"Whenever possible the organizer must deride his enemy and dismiss him as someone unworthy of being taken seriously because he is either intellectually deficient or morally bankrupt. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack."

Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber learned first hand how this rule works. Alinsky explained in Rule 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

And the chaos? Alinsky taught it was vital for radicals to maintain multiple crusades and approaches. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time … Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."
Keeping more than one "fight in the bank," Alinsky taught, keeps organizational momentum going, and doesn't allow its major crusade to get "stale" from excessive public examination.

It was never about ideology. Alinsky wasn't a committed communist as some claim, but instead, his goal was power - the power to shake tradition and tear down the pillars of society. Today's liberals are not ideologues either. While their agenda seems socialist, they would abandon it at the drop of a hat if a better resource to power appeared.
Alinsky was most effective among the young, encouraging them to ignore the traditions and morals of their fathers, all in the name of radical change - sort of a pied piper, leading the uninformed to … who knows what.

But liberals, understand this, we mainstream Americans also have dead radicals we admire. These, however, operated without guile or deception and with a worthy cause in mind. They explained their rebellion this way:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government."

The vast majority of Americans still believe these things. You may overwhelm us for a while with your political foolishness, but even as you read this, we Americans are waking up to the threatened destruction of our traditions concealed in your lengthy proposals for change.

Communists believed their way was inevitable - that the nature of society eventually required government domination. Human nature proved them wrong. That same human nature, that innate desire for freedom and self-determination, even if it's only the right to fail, is not given by man to man but endowed by our creator, and will prove us right again.
You liberals may not know this since it was stricken from later editions of Alinsky's book, but in the original dedication of his "Rules for Radicals," Alinsky wrote, "... to the very first radical … who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom - Lucifer."

If knowing that your president considers this man a mentor doesn't give you the willies, then … go put your head back in the sand.

Sincerely,
Hugh

Hugh needs to take a look at exactly what he's standing IN!

Coondog

[Uji]

This kind of stuff -- Bouchelle and his ilk -- is the scariest stuff our there. Guilt by association is hall-mark of the witch hunt. We can't simply discuss the issues, we must demonize, make inhuman the opposition. At present we are submerged in issues and suggested solutions; there is no excuse for not discussing the concrete. Except, of course, a paucity of ideas: if you have nothing to offer in the way of alternatives, then you offer instead dreck like Mr. Bouchelle's.

I was in the doctor's office yesterday and picked up a copy of "American Hunter" sitting on the chair next to me. (What do I know? I'm a hunter of sorts, so I figure it might be interesting.) It consisted of one skreed after another about Obama taking away your guns, liberals setting up concentration camps (through FEMA, no less), how essential it is to carry a concealed handgun when shopping in Walmart, etc.

What's up with these guys? I don't get it.

[coondog]

Mr Bouchelle's paranoid assertions are wrong on a number delusional of levels.

First, while this asserts itself to be directed toward liberals, it is clear that the desired audience consists of like minded morons likely to miss the fact that the machinations he attributes to Alinsky are exactly those employed in Bouchelles tirade.

Furthermore, Hugh considers himself to be representative of Mainstream America, likening those to the left of his view (most Americans) to communists, socialists and, somewhat loosely, to Lucifer.....veiled in some C Street type of confederacy conspiring to consolidate power (ala Cheney & Bush), citing paragons of intellectualism; Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber as exemplary martyrs to this diabolical scheme.

This self proclaimed Mainstream American appears, also, to threaten some sort of insurrection by quoting, not the Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.

It is a common misconception of right wing idealogues that liberals desire the same thing they do (power), but their ways of achieving it destroys the very fiber of traditional society. Herein lies the basic flaw. It is the philosophy of liberals that the function of government is to operate to the benefit of as many of it's citizens as is practical. It is evident from at least three of the last four republican administrations that the conservative view of government is that it exists solely for the benefit of the individuals (and their vested interests) who head it.

As a middle of the road liberal, it saddens me that I have not been let in on the socialist agenda. I guess I'm not radical enough for those duely elected representatives of out-of-the-mainstream Americans. Even so, from where I stand, it is not the liberals who view political opponents as enemies to be derided and defamed as morally bankrupt and unamerican. And.... it doesn't seem to be the liberals who have been responsible for foreign affairs fiascos and rampant political corruption.

But that's the sort of warped thinking Hugh might lead one to expect from radical, satanist agents of chaos.

Coondog

Gates Crowley

[fangz1956]

They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within."

Oh my stars in Heaven!! When did the KKK become liberal socialists?

[Uji]

As a middle of the road liberal, it saddens me that I have not been let in on the socialist agenda.

Well writ, Dog. The audience for Bouchelle's skreed, as you remarked, was not the "liberals" but fellow paranoids. This sounds so much like the John-Birch-Kennedy-is-a-Commie noise of the early '60s. It's not the sort of thing that comes from Jefferson, but the sort of thing that leads to Veigh.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate groups in the US, just published a disturbing list of right-wing violence since O's election: not just the Holocaust Museum or murdered abortion doctors either. Bouchelle's sort of rhetoric has consequences. If Bouchelle really means what he says, he intends that it should. I'd hate to think that the wing-nut polarization of the early '60s is starting all over again.

There are so many options out there, so many possibilities in the air -- why not discuss the concrete? But I guess it is this very sense of "change-in-the-air" that scares so many folks.

[fangz1956]

[youtube]Y3q7FSrGai4[/youtube]

[youtube]DzSWymW0uik[/youtube]



[youtube]X3vjusw6cdM[/youtube]



Oh brother......too much of this everywhere and it's getting really, really old. It concerns me greatly that detractors such as this will keep us from accomplishing the significant changes that must be made in order for this country to survive, thrive, and prosper. It boggles my mind that so much racism, fear, and intolerance permeate and eat away at this society in the 21st century. Have we learned anything? Apparently, some people have learned nothing.



Minds are like parachutes.....they only finction when they are open.

[Wise One]

This kind of stuff -- Bouchelle and his ilk -- is the scariest stuff our there. Guilt by association is hall-mark of the witch hunt. We can't simply discuss the issues, we must demonize, make inhuman the opposition. ... if you have nothing to offer in the way of alternatives, then you offer instead dreck like Mr. Bouchelle's. ... What's up with these guys? I don't get it.

There are a lot of crazies out there spouting all sorts of mad jibberish. But, my candidate for Looniest of them all .. [is Hugh Bouchelle]

Thanks for alerting us to yet another in a seemingly infinite supply of whack jobs inhabiting these parts.

I read Bouchelle's ghastly screed, a remarkable spew of hysterical platitudes that ape extreme righties inhabiting FoxTV and AM radio. If some resources are scarce in Rockbridge County, we seem to be liberally supplied with one: nut cases.

I looked this one up and learned he's some sort of hybrid campus security cop, martial arts practitioner, and adjunct English instructor ... a kind of bizzarro Grasshopper, for those old enough to remember the David Carradine character.

These jerks will forever be among us, so find something to hide under.

[Uji]

These jerks will forever be among us, so find something to hide under.

I'm afraid we aren't the ones that are the target.

What scares me about this demonization is the resemblance to what I heard in the early 60s -- right before the assassinations started. Whether those were lone gunmen -- who killed King and the Kennedy brothers -- or conspiracies of the mafia or the CIA, this demonizing rhetoric either incites the lone-loonies or gives cover to the conspirators. It serves no purpose except to incite to violence -- even if just violence-of-opinion. It's a rhetoric that refuses to participate in Jefferson's "marketplace of ideas": it's not presented as opinion, much less as ideas, but as some sort of old testament prophecy -- a call to the faithful for a cleansing fire. (I half expect to see a burning bush in place of Bouchelle's photo next time around.)

I've never been a fan of hate-speech legislation, but I'm starting to understand it's motivation, more and more. This troubles me these days much more than the economy or the mess in Congress.

[Wise One]

It's interesting that you mention hate speech legislation.

As a younger person, I was ready to say, "Yeah, hate speech and hate crimes deserve special punishment." Either simple age or genuine maturity have changed my mind on both propositions.

As for speech, I believe it must really be free and that people are entitled to nearly any utterance no matter how stupid, hateful or inflammatory. There is, of course, the "falsely shouting 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" line that must not be crossed, but hardly anything rises to that level. Those who wish to suppress liberty will disagree, but government should not be allowed to judge and punish speech or thought, however vile. On the other hand, we can enforce reasonable rules of decorum at public meetings which fairly guarantee that opposing views can be heard ... up to the point when they degenerate to FoxTV-like shout-sessions aimed only at silencing foes. Think of the antics of the crazy birthers and insurance company stooges last week ... their behavior is clearly not aimed at free speech, but at the exact opposite, suppression of speech by intimidation and harassment.

Current fashion is to declare some crimes to be "hate crimes" that deserve additional punishment. I think this is wrong.

One who willfully assaults, or maims, or kills another person deserves to be punished for committing the physical crime, not for the deranged thoughts that may ricochet about inside his cranium. To me, a crime deserves punishment irrespective of what screwball attitudes the criminal may hold about his victim. Willful murder deserves punishment irrespective of whether the victim is hated because he is strong, weak, white, black, old, young, straight, gay, religious or atheist. Yes, willfulness does count but it's flavor ought not to.

If my rented car's parking brakes should fail three hours after I park it on a rooftop parking lot, rolling off and killing mother and child walking on the street below, I'm probably not guilty of willful murder.

But if I drive that same car deliberately and carefully to weave past staggered protective Jersey wall barriers surrounding an assembled crowd, to mow down and kill 37 people, then I probably am guilty of the crime of willful murder that deserves severe punishment. Whether the I hate the crowd because of its race, whether it is celebrating independence day, or gay pride, or abortion, or Nazism, or the birth of Christ, should not matter.

Too many times we simply do not, or cannot, know what is going on inside a perpetrator's head. To me, it is too late to matter what the jerk was thinking. It's time to punish.

[coondog]

Well............

Hate crimes are awfully subjective. It requires that the enforcement element and judiciary must make subjective decisions concerning intent. That's the sort of thing Republicans can't abide. On that, I'm willing to side with the right wingers.

Unfortunately, it is also my opinion that those same right wingers are engaged in a deliberate, systematic crusade to rip the fabric of civil discourse, the effectiveness of governance and the sanity of rational beings into microscopic shreds.

The douchebags who caused all the problems we have today are vehemently opposed to any and all efforts to fix it and through the most lowbrow of fabricated scare tactics have mobilized throngs of the mentally unstable into unruly mobs of thugs spouting scripted nonsense and inciting, not only violence, but outright insurrection.

Uji is right. People are likely to get hurt. People already have!

It is a fact that most people are not particularly widely or well informed. There are a great many people who don't know that Fox News is a joke and every day on that channel is opposite day when it comes to truth and integrity. Lying, lowlife right wing cronies flock there continuously to get face time repeating the most obscene, twisted lies and perversions imaginable. If there is a rational conservative voice out there, it has been subdued by the force and power of the malignant cancer that festers in places like C-Street and in Rush Limbaugh's warped imagination.

The fact that ordinarily decent people are stirred into some evil form of St. Vitus Dance by ridiculous tenets like O'bama's Birth Certificate, supposedly Activist Judges and Government take over of health care, banks, auto sales, and Saturday night bingo is a frightening testimony to the impending disintegration of civilized behavior and social responsibility.

Apparently, if the republicans can't own it, it needs to be destroyed so no one can have it. I blame the media! But, I also blame the educational system for producing so many people who are entirely incapable of projecting logic and reason to the avalanche of evil rhetoric they so avidly embrace.

This appears to be basically a Carl Rove pandemic!

Coondog

Fear Everything

[Uji]

All I meant by bringing up hate-speech laws, is that Bouchelle makes me understand the motivation for such laws better. I don't think such laws can work. I also think it's better to have this venom spouted publicly anyway: forewarned is forearmed, as they say. It's best to know these folks are out there -- and to be continually reminded of it.

But the danger in this sort of sustained venom is immense. The folks who spout it don't believe it: it's just a meal-ticket to them. But, the folks who listen to Rush all day at work, and then to Fox at night for the "facts" -- are already beginning to talk like it's a crusade. The evil-doers versus the righteous. Onward Christian soldiers... right vs. wrong (aka, "liberals").

What can be done? There were several well-considered responses to Bouchelle in the paper this week. But does that have any effect on the crusaders? Probably not, but then I guess it's the middle we need help see through these guys -- the folks who are looking to be led (who might even have voted for Democrat once or twice) but feel a member of that other tribe, the one crying, "They're out to get us!"

Maybe those replies in the Gazette have some impact there. But I'm afraid Dog is right about the media: the problem is systemic. It doesn't matter whether the POV of the media is leftist or rightish, the whole format of "news" these days turns everything into simple black/white alternatives, always false. Guess we all ought to start reading McLuahn again; he predicted all of this.

Anyway, it makes me feel better simply to be able to discuss it with reasonable people. Thanks for being out there, folks!

Maybe a meet-up would be fun. (God, what if that's the front of WiseOne's face!?!)

[fangz1956]

Revolutionary Reverend?




And a blast from the past:

[youtube]KMVlg5lBuTE[/youtube]

[coondog]

Yeah! We're all mad as hell about something!

The question is, are we mad about something real......or something imagined......or something deliberately fabricated to manipulate reaction to our fears and emotional insecurities?

The hysteria over health care is reminiscent of the rhetoric over the economic stimilus. The merits of the stimilus may still be in question by those whose expectation was instatant gratification. But, as I recall, opposition to the stimilus basically focused on items purported to be in it, which were not....certainty over contents which were allegedly never read before the vote.

The health care reform bill appears to be a similar dialogue. As of now, there is no bill, but a lot of options, possibilities, notions and differing opinions within the various committees within the government making what appears to me to be a honest attempt to address a serious issue. All of this is taking place in an environment of extreme pressure from powerful corporate lobbys and political power mongers.

Somewhere, behind closed doors, there is hopefully a rational debate going on. Certainly, it is not taking place in public. I do not fault the Obama Administration, at this point, for not dealing in specifics. The specifics are not yet determined. I fault the political opportunists and journalistic hacks who profess to know the specifics and proffer opinion and speculation as to how the results will so damage the country that the inevitable outcome is armed insurrection.

A look at local newspapers once again provides prime examples:

The Rockbridge Weekly

Dave Reynolds A second look "A Killer Plan" Health care reform will kill off old people! NUTS!

Bob Goodlatt "We Need Commonsense Health Care Reforms" Republicans have offered commonsense reforms that will make health care more affordable, reduce the number of uninsured and increase quality.

I'd like to see that backed up with specifics. Goodlatt proceeds to make a pretty good argument for the need for health care reform. It will be interesting to see if he votes for it.

David Cox Here I Stand "Comparing Bureaucracies" Illustrates why government backed programs are not necessarily worse than Blue Cross. Finally, a voice of reason!

My take on it is this: Maybe there are some things that are so basic and universal that only some form of provision by the federal government can ensure equity and restraint of corporate abuse. Maybe - Listen up Republicans - maybe it's time to elect people to the government who actually believe that the government can actually function in a proficient manner.

Maybe then they will have more interest in making it so, rather than obstructing it at every turn.

We have just come off 8 years of government which, as it becomes more and more apparent with each new revelation, ran itself with all the moral and ethical propriety of a Columbian drug cartel, with little or no concern for a domestic agenda beyond a false premise of keeping us safe from obscure, speculative circumstances. A collective, with it's own private army (Blackwater) who utilized departments of the government to the advantage of corporate interests, cornies and above all, themselves.

The attempt of the new administration to finally address issues dire to the citizenry should not be met with negativism, distortion and disruption. All their efforts may not be perfect. At least they're trying.....and that's more than those other guys ever did.

Coondog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sa69puS7J0Q

[Uji]

Well barked, Dog.

[Wise One]

Chicken shit little bastards seem to get elevated to positions of responsibility a bit too often in Virginia.

Spineless toady.
What the Nazis didn't finish, you are tending to.
The Nazis killed the children of their world.
You kill history for children, their humanity, their joy in life.
It is shameful to suppress the story of a brave girl from this generation of children, lest they grow up complete in their humanity, eyes wide open to the world rather than blindered by your ilk.
One can only hope that you are soon gone from any position of responsibility.

[coondog]

Yep, when I think of erotica.....I think of Anne Frank!


But, since we're in the Lunatic Fringe category, I'd like to take this opportunity to nominate the NFL for claiming ownership of the term "Who Dat?"

This is just another example of the sort of Corporate totalitarianism we can begin to anticipate in ever increasing quantities. Now that corporate free speech has been ordained by the Supreme Court, they will surely lay claim, via copywrite to all the words and phrases commonly in use.....including these. We'll be lucky if we're allowed a few clicks, grunts or barks without having to pay some opportunistic business entity for the privelege.

With regard to "Who Dat?", according to SeeingBlack.com, "The chant of "Who Dat?" originated in minstrel shows and vaudeville acts of the late 1800s and early 1900s, and was then taken up by jazz and big band performers in the 1920s and 30s."

Additionally, in a critique of filmmaker Spike Lee's film "Bamboozled", Harry Amana points out that............."Charlie Chan in the Secret Service" on TV, starring Sidney Toler in yellowface and Mantan Moreland (in his natural black face) as Birmingham Brown, Chan's sidekick valet. Birmingham, you might remember, is the popeyed black actor who made famous that old coon line: "Who dat say, 'Who dat?' when I say, 'Who dat?'"

So, what is the NFL,s basis for ownerwship? They have more money and lawyers than the Mom & Pop T-shirt operations they're harrassing over use of the term. But, this is only a shameless beginning........and an opportunity to make the NFL the poster child for the coming orgy of corporate expressive piracy.

Of course, the Lunacy of the NFL has been previously well documented in the form of free agency, Sunday Ticket and the roughing the quarterback rule.

I was going to copywrite the term "hot dog" and sue anybody who used it, but apparently Oscar Meyer beat me to it.

Coondog

....maybe "flaming liberal" is still available.........

[Sam]

Hey Folks, not sure who is a lunatic or not, but gotta say I am beginning to think our Pres. and Congress are going whackers with spending. This Pres. is at record spending and record deficit and no one seems worried about it all. In my own small world when you see you have only so much to spend you stop spending. Yikes we are going to become Chinese before we know it. We owe them tons of money and there doesn't seem to be a stop to all this spending in Washington. Maybe I am becoming a lunatic. Or I will be soon due to worrying about our economy. Man, they are talking about a record deficit of over $3 trillion which is the largest in this country's history. Whoozzers.

I won't drink Pinyin that's for sure (for those who don't know Pinyin is the Chinese white liquor. In Japan its called sake. ) got it from that Whiki thing on the internet. That's about as far as my smartness goes.