I’ve been looking for an excuse to start blogging again, so I figured I’d move my efforts back to Blogger in order to get things jump started.  Please head over there.  Here’s the address:

Here.

Do any of my readers remember this movie?

In my opinion, The Monster Squad should rank up there with Goonies and The Lost Boys in the pantheon of classic 80s kids movies in which the kids swear way too much. You all know what I’m talking about.

For some reason, most contemporary kid’s movies pander to their audience. There’s no real grit, no real conflict. There was a time in which the kids in kids movies weren’t so well-behaved. Plus, they had big things to worry about, like killing vampires, escaping from murderers, and doing the truffle shuffle. Honestly, given the current hysteria about childhood obesity, I think that, today, the inclusion of a truffle shuffle would earn a movie an automatic R rating. Indeed, by comparison, today’s kid’s movies are pretty tame.

The Monster Squad is another movie that would never be made today. The kids in this movie smoke cigarettes (only one of them does…the tough, cool one…that’s how you know he so tough…the cigarettes), steal their mom’s heirloom silverware to make silver bullets (how else do you kill a werewolf?) and take dirty pictures of the hot high school chick who lives next door. No fewer than two of the movie’s main villains are killed by a twelve-year-old wielding a firearm; and countless vampire minions are either brutally cut down by a bow and arrow or stabbed in the heart with a wooden stake. I can tell you one thing, Harry Potter never blasted the Creature from the Black Lagoon with a shotgun or blew up a werewolf with a stick of dynamite. Not once.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that the tamer kid’s movies is an altogether bad phenomenon. I’m just saying that I grew up in world in which kids movies were more graphic and vulgar…and I turned out just fine.

The reason I bring up The Monster Squad is that it was finally released on DVD yesterday. That’s right, this movie had become so obscure and forgotten that it hadn’t even been released in the DVD format. Sadly, none of the stores in my area had any copies of the movie in stock (again…obscure) so I had to order my copy online. It should be at my house in a matter of days.

I recommend that you all add this gem to your Netflix queue or pick it up at Blockbuster. I doubt that many of you will be disappointed.

I’m currently in the process of coming up with a playlist of songs for the blessed event.  That’s where you people come in.  What songs would you suggest I put on a playlist for a nice, but more-casual-than-most wedding reception?

I’ve considered a number of songs.  I’ve also considered an alternative playlist filled with the cheesiest, crappiest songs I can think of.  Personally, I think that would be hilarious.  But, something tells me that not everyone attending the wedding would get the joke.  Then, they’d go home and tell their friends about how, this one time, they were at a wedding, and the music was nothing but Aaron Neville and Keith Sweat.

Okay…actually, that would be kinda funny.

Anyway, help me out here.

While some of you will think I’m a condescending retard for even bringing this up…but, I’ll give a cookie to the first reader who identifies the figure in my current header.

I want to guage the cinematic literacy of my audience.

In fact, I’m placing it at the top.

My new favorite movie for the year so far is Once.  It’s a whimsical, modern-day musical set in Dublin, Ireland.  Every time I try to explain this movie to people, I do a crappy job.  So, I’ll just say that, when I say “musical,” don’t think “Chicago” or “Sound of Music.”  The movie is about music and people trying to make music.  But, like those other movies, the songs are the centerpiece of the film and the focal point of the mood of the entire story.

Just go see it, okay.

Here’s the trailer.

US actress Cameron Diaz has apologized for wearing a bag with a political slogan that evoked painful memories in Peru.

The voice of Princess Fiona in the animated Shrek films visited the Incan city of Machu Picchu in Peru’s Andes wearing an olive green bag emblazoned with a red star and the words “Serve the People”, perhaps Chinese Communist leader Mao Zedong’s most famous political slogan, printed in Chinese.

The bags are marketed as fashion accessories in some cities around the world, but in Peru the slogan evokes memories of the Maoist Shining Path insurgency that fought the government in the 1980s and early 1990s in a bloody conflict that left nearly 70,000 people dead.

“I sincerely apologize to anyone I may have inadvertently offended,” Diaz said in a statement. “The bag was a purchase I made as a tourist in China and I did not realize the potentially hurtful nature of the slogan printed on it.”

One prominent Peruvian human rights activist said Diaz should have been a little more aware of local sensitivities when picking her accessories.

Every reasonable person on the planet said that Diaz should be more aware of the fact that wearing accessories glorifying a dictator responsible for the murders of 50 million people is both tacky and in poor taste.

Okay, okay…I added that last paragraph. But, it’s true.

Last week, Lott complained publicly about the inaccurate statements that have been made on talk radio about the bill.  When interviewer Chris Wallace asked him about this problem, he said this:

LOTT: Dianne and I were just talking about that. One of the mistakes that we have made many times on legislation is it’s introduced, it comes out of committee, we bring it to the floor. We never bother to explain what we’re trying to do and what is in it.

I think that was the mistake that was made with immigration. Talk radio defined it without us explaining that there were reasons for it and the good things that were in it.

So the onus is not on them, it’s on us to do a better job of communicating what we’re trying to do.

And I just want to make — you know, look, I’ve been defended by talk radio many times and I will support their right to tell their side of the story, right, left or the middle, forever.

I don’t think this fairness doctrine that would try to require that there be X amount on both sides is fair. So you know, it’s caused quite a stir, but, you know, it goes with the territory.

WALLACE: But, Senator, I’m not going to let you off the hook quite that easily. Take a look at this. You said this also last week. “I’m sure senators on both sides of the aisle are being pounded by these talk radio people who don’t even know what’s in the bill.”

Now, I talked to some of the talk radio people, and they say you make it sound like they’re leading around their listeners like a bunch of sheep. They say look, they know what’s in the bill, their listeners know what’s in the bill, and they don’t like it.

LOTT: Well, let me tell you why I said that. As a matter of fact, I do talk radio in my own state in particular, but others, and I’m sure Dianne does, too.

I was doing one interview, and the talk radio host said, to his credit, “What are you trying to do here?” And I explained that we were trying to improve a bad situation. And that’s a summation of it.

Then he said, “Well, tell me four things in this bill that you think are significantly better than the current law.” So I ticked them off. He said, “That’s in there?” I said, “Yeah.”

See, that’s the point. It’s not that they’re maliciously trying to, you know, distort it. And this is a complicated bill with a lot of moving parts. Some of it I don’t like.

You know, I’m not committed to voting for the final product. The wheels may come off. But I am committed to trying. That’s what the United States Senate should be trying to do…

Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it?  When there are voices in the media making false claims and distortions, the best way to combat them is to put the truth out there.  You know, the whole “marketplace of ideas” approach.  Google it.

Of course, if you’re a Democrat, the best way to deal with the problem is to limit free speech.  Right after this exchange Senator Dianne “I Love My Husband So Much I Got Him Millions In Government Contracts” Feinstein said this:

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information.

This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it’s the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don’t seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people.

Interesting.  Instead of, I don’t know, coming up with talk radio shows that people want to listen to, liberals believe that we need to limit the number of conservative shows and mandate, by law, that both sides get equal time.  To hell with the market.  To hell with free speech.

Here’s the thing, people.  We hear every day complaints from leftists about how divided the nation is, about the all the harsh political rhetoric.  The fact is, 20 years ago, before cable television, talk radio, and the internet, the only side of any argument that made it to the media was the leftist side.  All the major TV networks and virtually all of the major newspapers in the country were decidedly liberal (and still are).  With the advancement of new media, more voices are being heard.  That is why liberals think the country is more divided…because, now, after all these years, people actually get to hear conservatives speak.

Apparently, this is a problem.  And, apparently, if you’re Dianne Feinstein, the solution is create laws to limit the number of adversarial voices in the media.  Seriously, I think Hugo Chavez would be right at home in the Democratic Party.

Anyway, I don’t want to give extensive commentary on the list. But here it is. I will do this…if I think movie is ranked WAY too high, I’ll put it in bold. If it’s ranked WAY too low, italics. Also, I will say that, while I more or less agree with the top four, I’d put them in this order: 2, 1, 4, 3 (look at the list, you’ll see what I mean). Anyway, here you go:

1. “Citizen Kane,” 1941.

2. “The Godfather,” 1972.

3. “Casablanca,” 1942.

4. “Raging Bull,” 1980.

5. “Singin’ in the Rain,” 1952.

6. “Gone With the Wind,” 1939.

7. “Lawrence of Arabia,” 1962.

8. “Schindler’s List,” 1993.

9. “Vertigo,” 1958.

10. “The Wizard of Oz,” 1939.

11. “City Lights,” 1931.

12. “The Searchers,” 1956.

13. “Star Wars,” 1977.

14. “Psycho,” 1960.

15. “2001: A Space Odyssey,” 1968.

16. “Sunset Blvd.”, 1950.

17. “The Graduate,” 1967.

18. “The General,” 1927.

19. “On the Waterfront,” 1954.

20. “It’s a Wonderful Life,” 1946.

21. “Chinatown,” 1974.

22. “Some Like It Hot,” 1959.

23. “The Grapes of Wrath,” 1940.

24. “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” 1982.

25. “To Kill a Mockingbird,” 1962.

26. “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” 1939.

27. “High Noon,” 1952.

28. “All About Eve,” 1950.

29. “Double Indemnity,” 1944.

30. “Apocalypse Now,” 1979.

31. “The Maltese Falcon,” 1941.

32. “The Godfather Part II,” 1974.

33. “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” 1975.

34. “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” 1937.

35. “Annie Hall,” 1977.

36. “The Bridge on the River Kwai,” 1957.

37. “The Best Years of Our Lives,” 1946.

38. “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” 1948.

40. “The Sound of Music,” 1965.

41. “King Kong,” 1933.

42. “Bonnie and Clyde,” 1967.

43. “Midnight Cowboy,” 1969.

44. “The Philadelphia Story,” 1940.

45. “Shane,” 1953.

46. “It Happened One Night,” 1934.

47. “A Streetcar Named Desire,” 1951.

48. “Rear Window,” 1954.

49. “Intolerance,” 1916.

50. “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring,” 2001.

51. “West Side Story,” 1961.

52. “Taxi Driver,” 1976.

53. “The Deer Hunter,” 1978.

54. “M-A-S-H,” 1970.

55. “North by Northwest,” 1959.

56. “Jaws,” 1975.

57. “Rocky,” 1976.

58. “The Gold Rush,” 1925.

59. “Nashville,” 1975.

60. “Duck Soup,” 1933.

61. “Sullivan’s Travels,” 1941.

62. “American Graffiti,” 1973.

63. “Cabaret,” 1972.

64. “Network,” 1976. Seriously? Not even in the top half?

65. “The African Queen,” 1951.

66. “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” 1981. Easily a Top 10…if not a top 5.

67. “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”, 1966.

68. “Unforgiven,” 1992.

69. “Tootsie,” 1982.

70. “A Clockwork Orange,” 1971.

71. “Saving Private Ryan,” 1998.

72. “The Shawshank Redemption,” 1994.

73. “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” 1969.

74. “The Silence of the Lambs,” 1991.

75. “In the Heat of the Night,” 1967.

76. “Forrest Gump,” 1994.

77. “All the President’s Men,” 1976.

78. “Modern Times,” 1936.

79. “The Wild Bunch,” 1969.

80. “The Apartment, 1960.

81. “Spartacus,” 1960.

82. “Sunrise,” 1927.

83. “Titanic,” 1997.

84. “Easy Rider,” 1969.

85. “A Night at the Opera,” 1935.

86. “Platoon,” 1986.

87. “12 Angry Men,” 1957.

88. “Bringing Up Baby,” 1938.

89. “The Sixth Sense,” 1999.

90. “Swing Time,” 1936.

91. “Sophie’s Choice,” 1982.

92. “Goodfellas,” 1990.

93. “The French Connection,” 1971.

94. “Pulp Fiction,” 1994.

95. “The Last Picture Show,” 1971.

96. “Do the Right Thing,” 1989.

97. “Blade Runner,” 1982. Should be at least in the top 75

98. “Yankee Doodle Dandy,” 1942.

99. “Toy Story,” 1995.

100. “Ben-Hur,” 1959.

There are a ton of movies I’d add to the list, but I won’t go into that.

What do you people think?

Remember when you were in elementary school and you thought that Garfield was the funniest comic strip ever? I can’t speak for everyone, but, at my elementary school, the newest Garfield books were always the most popular items at the library. If you weren’t lucky enough to get it, you had to endure the chuckles from across the room as the kid who was slightly faster than you (I always hated that kid) as he rubbed it in your face.

Of course, then you grew up and realized that Garfield is bland and very unfunny (yet, I’m still a little bitter about that kid laughing in the corner….seriously, what was his deal?).

Well, some people have apparently found a way to make it funny again (thank goodness). If you eliminate Garfield’s words (which, if you remember, are actually thoughts) the comic becomes surreal and enjoyably random. Like an episode of Arrested Development…or some French movie.

I’m being serious here. You can view several examples at this thread. There’s a bunch Garfield strips with Garfield’s thoughts photoshopped out. A lot of them are hilarious. This one is my favorite:

I have a confession to make. I like Rush. No, not Rush Limbaugh. No, not the poignant film featuring a powerhouse performance by Jason Patric. I’m talking about Rush, the band. The rock band.

I like Rush alot. Indeed, I’d have to say that they are one of my favorite bands of all time. Am I ashamed? Not at all…well…not very much, anyway.

Here’s the thing, I think that all hardcore Rush fans have always had to live with the fact that what we lack in “cool” we make up for with taste and intelligence. At least that’s what we tell ourselves. It may be more accurate to say that what we lack in cool we make up for with uncool…but don’t tell the administrators of the Rush Fan Club I said that…I don’t want to lose my platinum membership.

Let’s talk about how big a Rush fan I am.

I’ve actually engaged in a debate over who would win between The Digital Man and The Analog Kid (The Digital Man would totally win…duh…he’s digital).

There was a brief period in my Politics in Film and Fiction class that I considered including a reference to the Temple’s of Syrinx in a paper. I mean, if Orwell was required reading for that class, how are these lyrics not relevant when you’re talking about totalitarian ideologies?

We’ve taken care of everything
The words you hear, the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
Its one for all, all for one
We work together, common sons
Never need to wonder how or why

We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hollowed halls
We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
All the gifts of life
Are held within our walls

Look around this world we made
Equality our stock in trade
Come and join the brotherhood of man
Oh what a wide contented world
Let the banners be unfurled
Hold the red star proudly high in hand

We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
Our great computers
Fill the hollowed halls
We are the priests
Of the temples of syrinx
All the gifts of life
Are held within our walls

While serving an LDS mission, my buddy Sam and I actually used to include passages in our letters that consisted entirely of Rush lyrics (we called it Rushese). Now, before you run and tell my fiance what a loser I am, I need to clarify that this was done for humorous purposes. Plus…we were…like…only 19 at the time.

I think that’s enough evidence.

Why am I bringing this up right now? Because Rush is coming in concert to the DC area this weekend and yours truly is going to be there. Needless to say I’m pretty stoked about it.

This will be my 4th Rush show, officially making them the band I’ve seen the most times (excluding Melting Planet, Sam’s band from high school…but they don’t count). The first time I saw them (May 1997) I was only a casual fan, familiar only with the hits. But, and I’m being serious here, that first show left a sizable impression on me.

I had seen U2 in concert just a few weeks previously. And, while U2 are widely considered the greatest live act ever (at least as far as “big” rock shows go), I can honestly say that, to this day, I remember more moments from my first Rush show than from that U2 concert. I won’t bore you with the nerdy details. Let’s just say that, when Geddy first sang “Look in [brief pause] to the eye of the storm,” Force Ten became one of my favorite songs of all time.

Anyway…that’s all I got. You jealous yet?

As is typical, those in the mainstream media interview Michael Moore like they’re interviewing Lindsay Lohan — just getting good quotes and selling a papers, but not asking any real questions.  This would be fine…but, when they do this, they perpetuate the myth that Moore is some sort of working-class sage.  Which, of course, is far from true.

The fact is, Moore is a colossal idiot who happens to be a decent filmmaker.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with that either.  But, he’s also extremely deceitful and disingenuous.  Of course, so are a lot of other people, some conservatives even.  But, for some reason, Moore seems to get a free pass in the mainstream media, when others who have a similarly poor relationship with the truth are derided and eventually discarded.

Luckily, there are more than enough resources available to debunk most of what Moore tries to pass off as fact.  I just read an article that does just that for Moore’s latest movie.  It’s great, check it out.

Another great resource is Moorewatch, a blog devoted to countering the misinformation that Moore and his legion of supporters put out in the media.  I’ve been reading it since I saw Bowling For Columbine on DVD almost four years ago.

A funny story about Moorewatch.  One of the founders of that site, JimK, received an anonymous donation of $12,000 about a year or so ago, which was roughly the cost of one year of the personally-contracted health insurance program in which his sick wife was enrolled.  A year later, Moore came forward and admitted that the donation came from him.  How did he make this revelation?  He put it in his movie.   Read about it, it’s hilarious.  Even funnier are the responses from thousands of Moore’s fans who, after hearing that Moore’s generosity did not entice Jim to become a socialist, decided to bombard him with hate mail.  Classy folks, those liberals.

I’m gonna post more on Moore in the coming weeks.  I’ll probably go see his movie, too.  Why?  Because I believe in capitalism…even if Moore doesn’t.

It’s a cheap shot, but it made me laugh.

So, here’s my list.

1.  The Lookout — I’m ashamed to admit it, but Roeper and I have the same top movie.  Hopefully this will change before the year is over, because Roeper is lame.  This movie, however, is awesome.  The kid from 3rd Rock From the Sun is actually an amazing actor.  I told you.

2.  Hot Fuzz — Oh what a glorious, funny movie.  Almost wet my pants several times.

3.  Knocked Up — Yes.  I saw it.  Yes, I felt a little guilty.  But this movie was hilarious and actually quite uplifting.  It had characters that, for the most part, were good people trying to do good things.  It’s hard to say that about most dirty comedies.

4.  The Host — Best Korean monster movie ever.  Period.

5.  Waitress — Another comedy, though this one is more serious than the other two.  I’ve been recommending the crap out of this movie…too bad no one’s listening.

Honorable Mention: 300, Zodiac, The Hoax.

If I was in a metaphoric mood, I’d say that I was putting my money where my mouth is. But, I’m not. I just want to have, on record, my prediction so that, 18 months from now, you will recognize me as the wise, sage-like prognosticator that I am.

Republicans

Fred Thompson – President

Rudy Giuliani – Vice President

I’d be pretty pleased with this ticket actually. Thompson would be a candidate that social conservatives would get behind. Rudy would woo a few (but only a scant few) moderates to vote Republican. In the end, I think this ticket would signal an end of the Bush-Delay-Frist days in which the party seeks to win elections by pandering to religious zealots while, at the same time, spending money and expanding government like drunken socialists on a date with Che Guevara (no clue what that means).

But, in the end, I don’t think that ticket will win.

Democrats

Hillary Clinton — President

Barack Obama — Vice President

Here we’d have a ticket of a couple political lightweights with no real leadership experience or any clear-cut policy ideas. The media wouldn’t ask them any difficult questions so as not to appear sexist, racist, or conservative. Instead, we’ll hear a nonstop barrage of superlatives lauding just how inspirational it is that a Presidential ticket includes both a woman and a racial minority. Of course, Democrats will still argue that America is the most sexist and racist country in the world (but, then again, logic has never been the left’s strongest suit).

There won’t be a single substantive policy debate about Iraq or anything else. But, that won’t matter, who needs an actual debate when Bruce Springsteen is performing at the Democratic National Convention? The Boss rocks!

Your Future President

Hillary Clinton

That’s right, people. Even with all her shortcomings and her decided lack of qualifications, Hillary Clinton will be elected President…I’m more or less sure of it. For those Republicans who think I’m crazy and don’t think that Mrs. Rodham Clinton will ever be elected, I’ve got three words for you: George W. Bush. Okay…I’ve got four words: George W. Bush, Iraq.

It pains me to say it but George W. Bush has done more damage to the Republican party than any figure since Herbert Hoover. We Republicans are on the verge of once again becoming a more or less permanent minority party. Not because the Democrats have better ideas (they don’t) and not because they’re better leaders (they aren’t) but because the Bush presidential model of catering to a loud minority (i.e., religious zealots who believe that the biggest problems facing our nation is abortion and rampant homosexuality, two things the President, by nature of his office, is impotent to do anything about) and then governing in inept, skewampus fashion that, in end, doesn’t even make Pat Robertson or James Dobson happy.

Plus, there’s the whole Iraq, trust-me-our-strategy-is-working debacle. All of the President’s failings as a leader would have been overlooked if Iraq had not been a mishap from start to finish. However, his indiscernible domestic policies have been overshadowed by his clueless foreign policy that has weakened America’s prestige and credibility and, by most accounts, made us less safe.

The only chance a Republican ticket will have is if the candidates run against Bush (like the Democrats will). Sadly, I don’t think that will happen.

So, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen, the Bush legacy: the death of the modern Republican party and the election of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Will America be better off with the Democrats in power? Hell no. But, what’re you gonna do?

I know, I know…I haven’t posted in a long, long time. I apologize. I’ve been busy. I’m engaged, you know.  But, I’m back now…I swear.

Anyway, I couldn’t let the events of the last several weeks pass without saying something publicly about it. If the above picture doesn’t make the subject of this post obvious, please stop reading now (p.s, I hate you).

For those of you who have been paying attention, the Utah Jazz have been on what many have called “a downright magical, if not utterly maniacal, and uber-sweet playoff run.” Seriously, tons of people have been calling it that….that description has been sweeping and Swiffering™ the nation…surprised you haven’t heard it.

On Monday night, the Jazz lost Game 5 of the Western Conference Finals, making their playoff elimination (and thus the end of the magical, maniacal uber-sweetness) more or less imminent.  I must admit that, after Monday’s game, I was more upset than any grown man should be about something that doesn’t involve either the death of a loved one or the end of E.T. 

But, I recovered and, as I watched them get blown out (and finally eliminated) last night,  I was more sad than anything else.  Sad that the season was over and that I’d have to wait five months to see them play again.  Sad that I have to cancel the trip to Detroit/Cleveland me and my roommate Damion were planning so that we could see an NBA Finals game in person.  And, of course, sad that I have endure yet another year of the nation’s sports media singing the praises of Manu effing Ginobli.  Seriously, I hate that flop-happy Argentinian (I’m not too crazy about Argentinians in general, but Manu’s especially annoying).

Today, as I’ve had a night to sleep and a morning to reflect, I’m finally at peace.  Let’s face it, people, the Jazz were never going to win this series.  While the Spurs are a bunch of whiny, cheap-shotting little girls, they are, at this point, a much better team than the Jazz.  So, I’m no longer angry.  Instead, I’m actually pretty happy.

As a Jazz fan, I’ve got a lot to look forward to.  We’ve got a young team with at least two legitimate superstars and they finally got a little respect (but only a little) from the national media.  Honestly, I can’t wait for next season.  Sure, I’d like be spooning with Damion in a Detroit/Cleveland hotel room, but that’ll just have to wait.

At this point, I just want to say two things:

1.) Thanks, Jazz.

2.) Rot in Hell, Manu.

Good night and good luck (that movie sucked, by the way).

The war in Iraq “is lost” and a US troop surge is failing to bring peace to the country, the leader of the Democratic majority in the US Congress, Harry Reid, said Thursday.

“I believe … that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week,” Reid said, on the same day US President George W. Bush was giving a speech at an Ohio town hall meeting defending the war on terror.

What a douche.

I’ll be brief so as not to get too boring.

Notes for Democrats:

You’re stupid.

You can’t use the Senate oversight process as a witch hunt or a fishing expedition.

Not all inconsistencies in testimony are lies, and only childish logic (i.e., your mom says she’ll pick you up at 7, but she showed up at 7:30, therefore she lied) would lead you to that conclusion.
No evidence of wrongdoing or illegality is no evidence of wrongdoing or illegality. No number of pedantic rants by Charles Schumer will change that.

If you don’t have any evidence of wrong doing or illegality, why are you wasting our time?

You’re stupid.

When the law says that all US Attorney serve at the pleasure of the President, you should really take it at its word.

Does the law require that the Administration explain the firings to you? No? Then shut the hell up.

If the Justice Department proposed a change in the law, and you vote in favor of that change, you can’t blame the Justice Department for the changing the law (see: Article I of the Constitution; powers of the Congress).

You’re really stupid (this last one is meant specifically for Patrick Leahy).

 Sometime after he killed two people in a Virginia university dormitory but before he slaughtered 30 more in a classroom building Monday morning, Cho Seung-Hui mailed NBC News a rambling communication and videos about his grievances, the network said Wednesday.

Cho, 23, a senior English major at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, killed 32 people in two attacks before taking his own life.

NBC News President Steve Capus said the network received the package in Wednesday morning’s mail delivery and immediately turned the material over to FBI agents in New York. The FBI is assisting Virginia State Police in the investigation.

The package included a long, “rambling, manifesto-like statement embedded with a series of photographs,” Capus said. The material is “hard-to-follow … disturbing, very disturbing — very angry, profanity-laced,” he said.

It does not include any images of the shootings Monday, but it does include “vague references,” including “things like ‘This didn’t have to happen,’ ” Capus said in an interview late Wednesday afternoon.

Capus said gloved NBC security personnel handled the package very carefully as soon as it arrived. The network immediately called the FBI and turned it over.

But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion.

“Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it,” he says toward the end.

So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life.

“There’s also another kind of violence that we’re going to have to think about. It’s not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways,” he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of “violence.”

There’s the “verbal violence” of Imus.

There’s “the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country.”

There’s “the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored,”

And so, Obama says, “there’s a lot of different forms of violence in our society, and so much of it is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other.”

Clearly, he thought it was (politically) inappropriate to jump on a gun control bandwagon, and I commend him for that. However, he apparently couldn’t just express his sympathy and move on. He just had exploit this tragedy to make a political point. Of course, he’s a Democrat, so he probably couldn’t help himself.

So, for Obama, Imus’s “verbal violence” and out-sourcing are comparable to the mass slaughter of innocent college students? Interesting.

So, in order to stay a little ahead of the game (for once), I’m going to post a series of short, concise blurbs on the various issues as they crop up in my mind.  Here’s the first.

Arguments of the Anti-gun Crazies

Gun control is one of those issues that brings out all that is wrong with the modern American left.  The leftist arguments in favor of gun control are entirely devoid of any logical connection to the real world.  In fact, if you confront an anti-gun liberal with the actual facts about gun ownership and gun crimes, their head will spin uncontrollably and they’ll mutter something unintelligible about Columbine (and now they’ll add Virginia Tech).

Like many liberal policy preferences, their position on gun control is based more on their position in the so-called culture war than it is about public safety or saving lives.  You hear in movies, TV shows, and in press releases from the Brady campaign that guns have no place in a civilized society.  The obvious implication of this is that anyone who owns a gun is somehow uncivilized. 

Instead of engaging the issue on policy grounds, liberals throw up a series of pro-gun straw men (usually crazed militia/anti-government types who believe that they need their guns to protect themselves from the eventual U.N. takeover) and ridicule them.  For example, in Bowling for Columbine, to date, the only piece of fiction to win an Oscar for Best Documentary, the only gun-ownership advocates interviewed by Michael Moore were one of Timothy McVeigh’s accused co-conspirators (a loon by anyone’s estimation) and Charlton Heston (in a guerrilla-style interview as he was entering the first stages of Alzheimer’s).  The reason for doing this is simple, if everyone who argues in favor of gun ownership is either crazy or senile, it’s easier for them to convince people that owning guns is not the “civilized” thing to do.  This is their only approach, because the facts about guns and crime just aren’t on their side.

So, as with most of their policies, liberals aren’t against guns because of any substantive policy issue.  No, they’re against guns because they don’t like people who like guns.

I could go on here, but I don’t have the time.  Instead, I’ll briefly go over the major gun control measures that have been advocated in recent years and show that none of them could have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre.

More extensive background checks — Would have done nothing here.  The shooter had no criminal record and had not been involuntary committed to a mental health facility.  Unless you want to start including plays people wrote in a college English class in a background check, this argument is misguided.

Longer waiting periods for handgun purchases – The guns used here were purchased long before the shootings, one in March and the other in February. 

Mandatory gun registration — Are you kidding me?  The guns were found on the scene…no need to trace them to anyone.

Ban on so-called “assault weapons” — Yeah…right.  Unless you broaden the vague “assault weapons” definition enough to include handguns, you’re barking up the wrong tree. 

Legal limits on the capacity of ammunition clips — Now you’re just stupid.  This kid had a ton of ammunition and reloaded several times.  All this would have done was slow him down a few seconds.

So there you have it folks.  That’s all they’ve got.  You won’t be hearing serious arguments about banning handguns nationwide.  Only really stupid people think that: a) a handgun ban would work and b) anyone outside of their gated Beverly Hills community would support a handgun ban.  So, instead, you’re going to hear Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold arguing for the above measures, using Virginia Tech as their justification.  It won’t make any logical sense, but, with regard to gun control, most Democrats abandoned logic a long time ago.