Our comrades at Uncle Popov’s Drunken Sports Rant published an article in April claiming that it is okay to hate Tiger Woods.  But his recent “transgressions” have probably enhanced the level of hatred for many.

But I have a problem with the entire Woods v. Elin garbage and its starts with the alleged negotiation of the prenuptials.

Yup, she's the love of my life...and she only cost $5 million!!!

First off, prenuptials scream insecurity.  Certainly people with lots of money do not want to get taken to tasks by someone that they are marrying.  Problem is that you should not jump into a marriage haphazardly.  If you are getting married, you should be confident in the person you are marrying and not just “gettin’ hitched” for the hell of it.  Love should be paramount and money should not matter.  Is that not the point of the whole “for richer or poorer” nonsense that is repeated in weddings?  You are supposed to stand by your partner no matter the financial situation.  But a prenuptial undermines that.

Second, the “renuptials” (if you will) is the ultimate show of money overcoming love.  It is being reported that Elin will receive at least $5 million to STAY WITH WOODS!!!  Um…is this not a form of prostitution?  Y’know, paying for love?  But that is not for marriage.  To steal a line from American Beauty, their “marriage is just for show.”  If you have to pay to keep a woman, that is not marriage.  And it makes Elin look like a greedy whore who cares nothing about Woods or their children.

But the problem we have with the whole Woods fiasco, and believe us it is a fiasco, is that how hungry people are to see Woods (or any celebrity) fail.  Some blame the media for driving the craze and fueling the fire over the car accident and the affairs.  But if people did not consume this type of news, there would be no need for the media to produce “dirty” news.  And while his ambigous responses and attempts to “hide” everything just drives that hunger…the sharks can sense the blood in the water.

Nevertheless, go to a supermarket check out line and peruse the tabloids (y’know, right across from the candies).  Stories of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, or Britney Spears, or Kirstie Alley, or Oprah, or Jon & Kate, or Lindsay Lohan.  All stories of celebrities going down in flames.  People love that.  They want to consume bad news.

I’ve watched late night television shows and watched Letterman or Conan interview someone and think to myself, “Why the hell are they talking to this person about wallpaper!?!?”  Are people really interested in this shit?

The whole industry of “dirty” news has never made sense to me.  I am not much for the whole celebrity obession.  I do not care about celebrity lives; I do not like the paparazzi…LEAVE CELEBRITIES ALONE, DAMMIT!!!  I really do not care about what celebrities do.  Again, I hate the hordes of cheap celebrity magazines and how they whore themselves off with stories of who’s getting fat, or knocked up, or back in rehab.  And it is not just the magazines, as I have seen “breaking news” about bullshit like Starr Jones being forced off a daytime talk show!!!!  Seriously!?

But what drives all of this nonsense about celebrity lives?  Well, it is a form of escapism.  Think of it this way: celebrities live a luxurious life that a majority of people can only dream of.  This is why we love shows such as Cribs…seeing the extravagant homes of the wealthy is a form of escapism.  Through the lives of musicians and actors and athletes, we can leave (escape) our “hum-drum” lives and live vicariously through our favorite celebrities.

The only "real" news for some people.

But sometimes, the mundane lives some of us live can lead to dissatisfaction and resentment about those that have more.  So, if we see a celebrity fail — someone who is placed on a pedestal (no matter if they are lofted up by the media or their own doings) — it makes us feel better about our lives.  We are reminded that even the “best” can falter.

So, “dirty” news is produced because there is a market for it.  And, as referenced above, it is because it takes our attentions off of how dismal our own lives are.  Consider the following…

You get up at 6am to drive your Geo Prism to your shitty job, where you work your ass off for no respect.  You are probably working under some punk-ass kid with no experience who only got the job because his daddy knew someone.  Then, you drive home in rush hour traffic, which is at a stand-still for 45 minutes.  You make dinner — meat from a can and potatoes from a box.  And, just when you find the perfect vein to slice open (remember, up the arm, not across it)…BAM!!!!  There is a sign of hope on your 13-inch television.  It’s Tiger Woods!  And he has released a statement about his “transgressions” and that he is not “perfect.”  Ah, hope!!!!  Even Eldrick slips.  That makes your day end on a happy note.  You put the razor blade down and smile.  All is right with the world…….at least until 6am.

Here at the Path of Wrong Speech, we never admit to being correct all of the time.  We are mostly just an opinion site full of ranting and ravings.

One thing that we do not do is remove articles.  But, if we think we are off-base, we are willing to revisit that article.

This is the case of the Ft. Hood Shooting, which we wrote about on 9 November 2009.  Now, a lot of information is still coming out, and I am not saying that the initial analysis is inaccurate.  I still believe that Major Hasan had some mental issues and this played a major role in him snapping.

But little by little, connections are being made between Hasan and reactionary Islamic clerics.  And the possibility that this could be defined as an act of terrorism raises with each connection made.

Now, I stand by the initial analysis that Hasan does seem like a rogue Muslim.  And until there is clear evidence that he was directed by someone to pull this off, I stand by that statement.  It seems that his own delusions coupled with his alleged conversations with reactionaries and concerns of fighting against his fellow Muslims drove him to commit this heinous act.  Plus, I wrote “And it seems that this [mental health issue] is a possible reason behind Hasan’s killing spree.”

That stated, even without that directive to commit the crime, it could still be a form of ideological terrorism based on his contacts.  Terrorism is hard to defined, but even the one we used here (an act of violence against any member of society [including civilians] to further a political objective), it is possible if his [Hasan's] goal was to diminish morale.  But still, that is a stretch.

Nevertheless, since these connections to Muslim reactionaries seems legit, I will admit that we jumped the gun and were wrong to dismiss this as an act of terrorism.  Even if his mental condition was the cause, it can still to some degree be connected to the furtherance of the objectives of reactionaries.

So, we will eat our murder of crows.

In the Tuesday (10 Nov) edition of the USA Today, Chip Fetner of Wilmington, North Carolina wrote an eloquent piece regarding the defeat of same-sex rights in Maine.  Why some dunce from North Carolina is concerned with Maine politics is beyond me.  Nevertheless, Chip writes

“Traditional marriage, defined in the Bible as being between one man and one woman, has been upheld by the will of the people.  . . . Apparently, gay marriage supporters are not going to listen and are intent on forcing others to accept their immoral lifestyle.  . . . It must be understood that the gay rights movement is not based on ethnic or racial differences.”

Notice how the daughter is with the mother and the son is with the father? Weird!

And Chip goes on to yank a quote from the “good book” and urge all U.S.ians to take a stand for “traditional marriage.”

Oh, Chip.  Where to begin?

Something tells me that if the institution of marriage had been extended to same-sex couples that people like Chip would not have listened to the will of the people and attempted to overturn the vote.  For example, it seems that Protect Marriage Washington is going to continue to crusade against same-sex unions (and marriage) despite the will of the people of the Evergreen State speaking loudly and approving such unions.

And while not an attempt to overturn the will of the people, Christian groups and anti-gay organizations have attempted to overturn same-sex marriage laws in states that allow for the practice.

Second, what of Christians attempting to force their version of morality on people?  What one thinks is “moral” but not be so for another.  Now, I am not justifying hideous acts such as murder, saying that maybe some see it as a right.  But in terms of social norms, who has historically been in control of crafting the social norms?  Well, Christians…and whites…and males…and heterosexuals!

Through the course of human history we have eroded the power of whites and of males to allow for non-whites and non-males (well…females) to have a voice; to have the same rights as their counterparts.  We have seen the error of our ways and corrected them.  Shouldn’t we do the same here?

Third, slavery is in the Bible.  Why not wonder why the U.S. cannot support slavery?  Hey, it gets shit done, right?  Southern ministers relied heavily on the Bible during the Civil War, claiming that slavery in accordance to the Bible was okay.  After defeat in what some southerners claimed was a holy war, ministers explained that the South did not practice Biblical slavery and attempt to convert the savages.  Just because it is in the Bible does not mean that it is okay.

Besides, I thought Christians were supposed to ignore the Old Testament.  Chip cites Genesis!?  Why not cite Leviticus while you are at it?

Fourth, Chip insinuates that homosexuality is a choice and not inherent like ethnicity (he includes “race,” but there is nothing biological about “race”).  Do you know what else is a choice?  Religion!  You are using something arbitrary (religion) to argue against same-sex marriage.  Why not use one of Glenn Beck’s books?  Or Dr. Suess?  It would be just as “valid.”

If you really want people to take a stand for “traditional marriage,” then why not encourage abstainance, so teenagers would not be getting hitched because the girl was knocked up?  Your “social norms” that paint out-of-wedlock sex as immoral is what drives these impromptu weddings that tend to fail.

Speaking of that, if you want to defend marriage, then do something about the insane number of divorces that occur in this country.  That would be a better defense.

If a same-sex couple marries, how will that affect you?  How will that make your life any worse?

Arthur Ashe statue in Richmond

I am reminded of the debate in Richmond, Virginia when the city was attempting to decide where to place a statue of Arthur Ashe.  The proposed statue of Ashe, a black man known as much for his humanitarian work as his tennis play, was to be placed on Monument Avenue, a stretch of road lined with Confederate (white) heroes!

There was much outcry over this proposed placement (from both blacks and whites), but the argument from one white opponent is interesting.  The argument was that placing the Ashe statue on Monument Avenue would somehow “diminish the quality of life [in Richmond].”  Ironically, it was this type of statement that swayed some opponents of the site to actually vote for it.

Is this what Chip Fetner is worried about?  Does he really think that same-sex marriage will “somehow diminish the quality of life here”?

Congratulations, Chip Fetner.  You are A Cunt Above the Rest!

The tragic shooting at Ft. Hood is now morphing into religious intolerance and peculiar equations.

Here is a question: what is terrorism?  Simply put, it is an act of violence (or the potential for violence) to further a political agenda.  Did Major Nidal Hasan attempt to further any political agenda?

Well, he allegedly posted messages online that justified suicide bombings.  He also claimed that his nationality was Palestinian (again, allegedly).  This could mean that he sympathized with the Palestinians.

But everything points to the fact that this was a guy who had some mental issues of his own (ironic considering that he is/was a psychiatrist).  And his own delusions, as well as his faith, drove him to do something heinous.  But unless the dots can truly be connected to a terrorist organization, it seems like this was more the lone work of a wack-job.  A “rogue” Muslim, so to speak.

I like that phrase…”rogue Muslim.”  He [Maj. Hasan] does not represent all Muslims.  He does not even represent Islamic extremists.  He did all of this on his own.  It is no different than those “rogue” snipers who pick off Iraqi citizens in order to produce a higher body count.  Those cats do not represent the U.S. mission in Iraq, right?

But see, here is the problem.  People are too quick to label Hasan an “extremist” and a terrorist.  Blogs such as this one quickly use a faulty equation that is similar to one from the Cold War.

Islam = Terrorism

Socialism = Soviet Union = Communism

Remember the latter one?  Forget the fact that socialism existed in Western European countries during the Cold War.  It was convenient to equate socialism with the Soviets, who were also equated with communism.  So if you were socialist, then you were communist.  Funny thing is Chinese communism and Vietnamese communism are/were different from Soviet communism.  But do not let facts get in the way of the simplistic equation.

Such ignorance continues today.  It is not to say that there are not Islamic terrorist; obviously there are.  But Islam does NOT equal terrorism.  In fact, terrorism does not equal Islam.  There are terrorist in every religion.

But it humors me that people are quick to claim that Hasan is/was a terrorist not only because he was Muslim, but also because he allegedly yelled the takbir (“Allahu akbar” or “God is great!”).  Um, again, driven by his own delusions and the notion of going to fight a war against his religion (as he sees it), it makes sense that he was driven to do this crime and, in the process, scream a common Islamic statement.

Keep this in mind.  There is a major problem with mental assessment among U.S. soldiers prior to deployment.  Suicide rates are incredibly high for soldiers while they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.  One report notes that suicide attempts among soldiers fighting in Asia are at five per day (up from one per day prior to the Second Iraq War).  This can be attributed to withheld information (on the part of the soldiers themselves), as this article from the Hartford Courant notes.

Furthermore, suicides prior to deployment are also a problem.  A letter to The New York Times (allegedly from a mental health lawyer) claims that pre-deployment suicide is a problem that is related to misevaluation.  This is a phenomenon that is not unique to the United States, as this article from the U.K. suggests.  Even some soldiers that are not even scheduled for deployment have committed suicide because of the war.

Point is that there does appear to be a problem with the mental health of many U.S. soldiers, including psychiatrists.  And it seems that this is a possible reason behind Hasan’s killing spree.

Maybe religion did play a role.  After all, to some Muslims — even moderate ones — there does appear to be a war on their religion.

Not justifying Hasan heinous actions.  But I am sure some moron will think that I did justify it.

Larry Johnson is an ass.  But it is more than just his homophobic responses to people who disagree with him.

By now, it is been over-blogged and over-hyped about Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson and his “Twitter” post attacking his coach.

Here are his posts:

My father got more creditentials than most of these pro coaches.

My father played for the coach from “rememeber the titans”. Our coach played golf. My father played for redskins briefley. Our coach. Nuthn.

Hmm. This is somewhat of an odd picture.

Now, it was his dropping of “fag” and the reference to Christopher Street (located in Greenwich Village and related to the gay pride movement) on his Twitter account that sparked the controversy.

This was compounded when he used the derogatory term again, this time towards reporters.

But there are other atrocities here as well.

First is the fact that he has a “Twitter” account.  That should be a sign of shame for anyone over the age of 16.  Besides, how narcassistic is “Twitter”!  Letting everyone know what you are doing right now???  “Look at me!  Look at me now!”  Grow up, Cat in the Hat!

But what of the abuse of the English language!?  Let’s reset those posts.

My father got more creditentials than most of these pro coaches.  . . . My father played for the coach from “rememeber the titans”. Our coach played golf. My father played for redskins briefley. Our coach. Nuthn.

Holy hell!

Hey, I get it.  People make mistakes with grammar and spelling.  But that is ridiculous!  What happened to that Penn State education?

Do they teach English at PSU?

Hell, I am impressed that he was actually able to use insinuations by referencing Christopher Street!

Where is the outrage over the abuse of the English language?  The waste of an education from a fine public university?

I guess we know what LJ learned at Pennsylvania State University — “Nuthn.”

A video game; a bike; or your life.

Apparently that is the type of bargaining that goes on in southern Florida.

According to reports, 15-year old Michael Brewer received a video game from fellow teen Matthew Bent.  Allegedly, Brewer did not pay for the video game so Bent attempted to steal a bicycle that belong to Brewer’s father (valued at over $400???).  Bent called the cops and Brewer was arrested.

The next day, while hanging out at the pool, Bent and a group of other teenagers accosted Brewer, doused him with rubbing alcohol (that they just so happened to find) and set him on fire!

Brewer was taken to the hospital with burns on 65 percent of his body, while the alleged firestarters were arrested.  Doctors do think Brewer could make it, but organ failure is possible, as is infection.

Matthew Bent (big ups to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel)

The teens charged in the attack reportedly laughed at the incident.  Only one child showed any form of remorse.  All of the kids charged in the incident apparently have a criminal background (already??).

Is this racism at work?  Bent is black.  Brewer is white.  The ethnicities of the other alleged attackers appear to be either white or Hispanic.  Fact is that it was a black boy attacking a white boy over a video game.

In Florida, where this incident occurred, there is a hate crime elevator (Florida statute 775.085):

(1)(a)  The penalty for any felony or misdemeanor shall be reclassified as provided in this subsection if the commission of such felony or misdemeanor evidences prejudice based on the race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, mental or physical disability, or advanced age of the victim…

So does this apply here?  Should this not be considered a hate crime?  If Brewer survives, should the classifications of the crime be elevated?

Well, before delving into that, consider the following.  Two people are arguing in a park — one is white and one is black.  The black individual calls the white “redneck” and “cracker,” suggests that the white goes back to their “hick town,” and insinuates that the white individual could be killed “around here!”  Is that racist?  Is that a hate crime?

Well, making threats of bodily harm, including murder, is a crime.  And, the argument could be deemed disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, and if there are groups of people there could be considered to be inciting riotous behavior.  Since racial rhetoric was used by the black individual, and a crime could be committed (disorderly conduct, for example), then the hate crime elevator comes into play.

Poppycock?  There is no way that such a scenario could occur, right?

I present to you State of Wisconsin v. Welda.  According to a law blog from Marquette University…

the defendants were convicted of disorderly conduct arising out of what seems to be an argument with some African-American passers-by who objected to the defendants’ repeated use of the n-word.

So, yes, the elevator could be applied to the park case.  (And, by the way, that was a real situation that I witnessed, although was not a part of).

Back to the Bend case.  Is that racist?  Was race a motivating factor in the attack?

Honestly, I do not think so.  It seems difficult to pin skin color being the motivating factor behind Bend’s retaliation to being “snitched” out.  Bend had a right to his money (for the game), but there are proper avenues for securing that.

But that is not to state that Bend was not targeting because of ‘race.’  We will not know that until more of the details come to the surface.  But, again, I seriously doubt it was a racially-motivated crime.  Nevertheless, it is possible to see the crime’s category be elevated, given how odd the judicial system can be.

I bring up ‘race’ here for one reason.  What if it was a white boy who set a black kid on fire?

I’ll leave it at that.

“You lie!”

“You racist!”

Flows oh so nicely.  Notice how any criticism of President Obama gets slapped with the racist label.  Our dear friend The Apostle is outraged.  In hi “special edition” of the Sean Hannity Show (actually, every show seems to be a “special edition”), he spouts off how any criticism of Obama’s policies is quickly labeled ‘racist’ by Democrats.  And, to The Apostle, it is ridiculous.

As delusional and misguided as Hannity is, he is correct.  But how quickly he forgets that the same propaganda and attempts to discredit dissent occurred from Republicans as well.  Keep in mind how quickly war protesters were labelled kooks and radicals and, worst of all “un-American” [sic].  They were unpatriotic.

I made this argument a few weeks ago to a friend.  It is amazing how one anti-government policy protest is labeled “un-American” [sic], while another was described as patriotic and standing up for “freedom and liberty.”  The former was the anti-(Iraq) war protests and the latter was the so-called “Tea Party” protests.  And, of course, one could easily ascertain which media outlet and political party made such statements.

Oh, but it is not just The Apostle and The Joker and those in the traditionalist media that play with words.  Progressives painted those who protested the war as standing up for their rights (to protest) and being the voice of most U.S.ians.  Meanwhile, they have labeled the “Tea Partyers” as misguided and racists!

I came across this clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and found it at least supporting the paragraph above on the traditionalist coverage of protests.

LINK: Mad Men

Someone could probably do the same for progressive coverage of protests.

The labels of “un-American” and “racist” are interchangable in the rhetoric used to disempower and discredit dissenters.  Those that are in power will always paint dissenters as misguided and on the fringe.  You could take the same statements being made by progressives against those anti-Obama people and simply replace “racist” with “un-American” and you would have statements similar to those in 2002 and 2003.

Hell, the cries that anti-war protesters were the voice of the U.S. people (against an unpopular war) are the same cries that “Tea Party” protesters are the voice of the U.S. people (against an unpopular health care bill…or whatever the flavor of the month is).

Dissent is patriotic.  The problem is that too many people roll over and just take it.  The problem is that once the side that people support achieve power, they forget about what they were called on to do.  Believe me, once the conservatives achieve power again, they will turn their back on those that helped get them there.

It is a never-ending cycle.  The Democrats replace the Republicans, who then replace the Democrats, who turn around and replace the Republicans.  The general policies may be the different, but the self-interests is still the same.

I told a friend not too long ago that revolution is not possible in the United States.  People are too comfortable.  People are too fixed in the symbiotic relationships that we have created between our beliefs and the two-party system when neither party truly represents our beliefs.

Yes, people are mad as hell.  The problem is, they continue to take it!  Where the hell is Howard Beale?

“Wu-Tang is for the children.”

During the 1998 Grammy Awards (for the 1997 music year), Puff Daddy won the sympathy vote and took home not only the Best Duo or Group Performance (for “I’ll Be Missing You”) as well as Best Rap Album (for No Way Out).  The latter was in competition with Wu-Tang Clan’s Wu-Tang Forever.

No Way Out really did not deserve to win, and I am not even stating that Wu’s album should have won as the Notorious B.I.G.’s Life After Death and Wyclef Jean’s album were also better than Puffy’s release.  Nevertheless, he won and the Ol’ Dirty Bastard was upset.

I mean, he bought a suit just for the occasion.  The ODB’s outrage seemed somewhat “sincere.”  I mean, listen to the Wu-Tang’s lyrics.  They are obviously for the kids!  But really, it was just the ODB being the ODB…or Big Baby Jesus!

Jump forward to the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, a celebration of their former image of MTV (you know, as a channel for music videos!).  [Honestly, I did not know that MTV still aired videos as I have not watched in years].  And apparently someone was a bit upset that Beyonce lost out to a country singer.

While Beyonce won video of the year, she lost to Taylor Swift for best female video.  And honestly, Beyonce’s video was better and P!nk’s video was probably the best in that latter category.  But hey, Beyonce still grabbed one (well, she actually grabbed three).

Oh, but someone was pissed…and it was not Beyonce!

Kayne West, like an ass-hat, jumped up on stage and dissed the Best Female Video winner Swift, who appeared dumbfounded by West’s stupidity.

“Yo, Taylor.  I’m gonna let you finish.  But Beyonce had one of the best videos of all time!”  [link...CLICK ME!!]

Get off the stage, clown!

Jumping up on stage and yelling "Wu for the kids" is something we expect from the ODB!

This is not like ODB’s interruption.  First off, the ODB did not come on stage while Puffy was making his acceptance speech.  He waited to jump up just after Shawn Colvin’s was announced as winner of Song of the Year, scaring her in the process it seemed.  And, well, the Ol’ Dirty Bastard is right…Wu-Tang is the best!

Plus, those kind of antics are expected from the ODB.  He is crazy!  Well, was crazy.  But Kayne West is not crazy and jumping on stage seems out of character and those were not really the antics we would expect.

West’s ego-trip was misguided and his ire misplaced.  Swift, someone that I did not even know until this morning, was embarrassed and flustered by West’s attack.  And, although he was brief with his “tirade,” even Beyonce (and the other nominees for Best Female Video) were unhappy with his antics.  Also, he is wrong to begin with.  Beyonce’s video is NOT the best of all-time, or even this decade.  Not sure it was even the best from this year.

But here is where it gets better.  This is not the first time West has pulled his bitch fest.  After losing the 2004 American Music Award for Best New Artist to country singer Gretchen Wilson, calling it bullshit and, allegedly her music bullshit.  He did later apologize.

He later in 2005 prior to the Grammys, he bitched that everyone was out to get him and that his garbage album should have been labeled a “classic” by Vibe and Source magazines.  And then towards the end of his rant tells people who criticize him or question his statements, “Who are you?  I don’t know you!?”  He’d go on to win three Grammys, all in the rap category.  But, could not win the general categories.  Guess Late Registration was not “classic” enough to transcend the rap category.

That was followed up by his drunken tirade at the 2006 MTV European Music Awards.  After losing to the electronic collaboration between Justice and Simian (“We Are Your Friends”), he comes up claiming “Oh, hell no!” (to which I believe one of the members of Simian calls him “Canyon.”).  He let’s the award winners know (who he calls one of them n***a), that the video cost a million dollars and had Pam Anderson in it.  Well, fuck-a-doodle-doo!  You lost, dickweed!

His arrogance is amazing.  In the montage to the nominees for the Best Video at the MTV EMA, he claims that he is one of the three best artists in the world (of course, he is basing it only on Western [and like only U.S.ian] music as I doubt he listens to much beyond that).  During an episode of “Punk’d” he kept stating that he had to leave for Paris, but pompously pronounced it as the French do (paʁi like “Pair-ee”).  He is attempting to show how much higher he is than everyone.

You know, given the shots he has taken, I see a trend!  Gretchen Wilson — white!  The members of Justice and Simian — white!  And now, Taylor Swift — white!!!  Is Kanye West a racist!?  Well, I’ll just leave that open.

He is no ODB. And he is no Flava Flav, either. He is simple a dipshit!

Hmm, actually looking back at his history of tirades against white artists and, well, really everyone, maybe his antics at the MTV Video Music Awards should have been expected.  But really, it was just Kanye West being Kanye West…or being “Canyon” West!

So there are some similarities.  But, West is no ODB.  West’s style is common and has been done over and over again.  The Ol’ Dirty Bastard was unique…after all there was no father to his style!  Any video with the ODB in it is better that West’s videos…and likely did not cost a million dollars.

Furthermore, I do not think that Big Baby Jesus ever apologized for his outburst.  To me, that means he was sincere about his statement and meant what he said.  It was not just being pissed off in the “heat of the moment.”  He truly believed that the Wu should have won!  Kanye West just came off as bitter.  His quick turn around to apologize (to Wilson and to Swift) just means he was pissed that either did not win or the person he wanted to win lost.    I am sure he believes he should have won (or Beyonce should have won), but he comes off as bitter and egotistical.

This is why the ODB can get away with jumping up on stage.  After all, he is the Ol’ Dirty Bastard, while Kanye West is simply a bastard!

By the way, another errant drift over to traditionalist talkers found me catch a caller claim that Obama (as a presidential candidate) wanted the U.S. to fail because he opposed the surge in Iraq.  The caller and Steyn extrapolated from his [Obama's] opposition to the “surge” and that he would not have supported even after the fact.

Somehow, to the pseudo-Brit, that means he wanted the U.S. to fail.  AND that position is worse than Papa Rush’s desire for Obama to fail.

Huh?

Was it not President Bush 41 who claimed he would not apologize for the U.S., regardless of what the facts are?  In other words, stand by your words, yeah?  Well, is Obama not doing the same thing?  Standing by his position?

Besides, Steyny is reaching.  And it is a major reach.  His main claim is that for someone to make that claim during a time of war is treasonous.

But he did not explicitly state that he wanted the surge to fail.  Did he secretly wish for the surge to fail?  Well, we do not know for certain.  Perhaps.

We do know for certain that Papa let it be known that he wanted President Obama to fail.  There is no denying that.  And a statement like that is treasonous and easily translates into a desire for the U.S. to fail.  Here’s how.

Limbaugh’s backtrack was to claim that he meant he wanted Obama’s policies to fail.  Ok, I get that he is attempting to deflect the criticism that he meant in an ideological sense.

BUT, if he wants the policies to fail, and assuming that all of Obama’s policies are implemented, then it would be devastating to the United States.  Even if you claim that the policies would be harmful in and of themselves, the fact that they fail would not mean the U.S. would be better!  It would mean that the U.S would be setback.  And it would therefore be damaging to the U.S.’s position in the world.  If the U.S. is damaged because of the failure of policies, then the United States of America would indeed be failing.

Thus, because of the ripple effect, Limbaugh is so “desirous” for Obama to fail that he is too blind to recognize that it would have serious reprecussions on the U.S.  It is simple logic.  If Obama’s policies fail, then the U.S. will fail.  Limbaugh wants Obama’s policies to fail.  Therefore, Limbaugh wants the U.S. to fail!!!

Simple!!!

Keep in mind, I am not claiming that things would be perfect if Obama’s policies work (and therefore it is the only way).  And Limbaugh would be better served to claim that he does not want Obama’s policies to see the light of day (not to fail).

But, take Papa Rush at his word.  And to want the president to fail is to want the country to fail.  It is just that simple.

I did it again!  I drifted over to damn traditionalist radio and caught a pseudo-Brit named Mark Steyn hosting the Rush Limbaugh show (on the Excrement in Broadcasting radio network).  And apparently he was railing against an apparent broadcast-message to elementary schoolers from none other than God…I mean, President Barack Obama.

Kind of communist.  But what humored me…oh, sorry Steyny…”humoured” me was how he and a caller noted that this was something done in “socialist” countries.  Again, conflating communism with socialism is erroneous.  And, I am sure that Sweden and Singapore and certain states in India do this ALL the time.

But the other part was pseudo-Brit insinuating that using the education system is only a “liberal” tactic…which could be extrapolated to something only Dems do.  Hmm, really?  What was all that Cold War rhetoric that I remember being fed?  The Evil Empire and maps showing how dangerous the Soviets were.  Academics were stale if they did not promote the cause of the U.S. mission.  No questioning of the “status quo” because to do so would mean you are “un-American” [sic].

Yeah, that was the 1950s.  Problem is, I was in grade school in the 1980s!  And we still received education about the evil commies!  Since progressives are Commie-lovers, something tells me they were not the ones pushing such an agenda in education.

Love short-term memory!  Or maybe he just is not up to par on U.S. history.