__December 16, 2011
Congress votes the Republic out of existence
There seems to be some disagreement over whether the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 allows the military to detain United States citizens indefinitely. A simple reading of the bill answers that question. The answer is yes.

How do I know? I did something members of Congress never do: I read the entire bill. That's right. HR 1540 is 1,150 pages long (1,844 with attachments), and I read the whole thing. I also did something members of Congress always do: I lied. Of course I didn't read the entire bill. I'm not that pathetic.

But I did read sections 1021 and 1022 of the bill, the sections that will hasten the death of the republic. Why did I focus on those sections? Because an aide for Congressman Steve Scalise, who represents [sic] me in Louisiana's first congressional district, told me sections 1021 and 1022 contain language stating that U.S. citizens are exempt and cannot be detained by the military. Uh, except Mr. Congressional Aide is wrong.

He first directed me to section 1022, subsection (b)(1), on page 657. Here's what it says:

"(b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.--
      (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

Got that? The requirement to detain a person in military custody does not extend to citizens of the United States. But the option to detain U.S. citizens in military custody is very much alive.

Section 1022, subsection (a)(1) mandates that everyone who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by Public Law 107–40 (an unconstitutional law) must be detained by the Armed Forces, with exceptions for U.S. citizens, some lawful resident aliens, and others whose detention by the Armed Forces could pose a national security risk. For those lucky dogs who fall under the exceptions, detention by the Armed forces is not required, but neither is it prohibited. (Also, using private paramilitary forces to detain United States citizens appears not to be prohibited, either.)

When I pointed this out to Mr. Congressional Aide, he proceeded to tell me that section 1021, subsection (e), on page 655, would certainly alleviate my concerns.

Not quite.

Here's that passage: "(e) AUTHORITIES.— Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States."

Read that again. Notice what is not to be affected: "existing law or authorities"! If the intention was that this bill would not affect protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, it would say so. But it doesn't say that. It says "existing law or authorities" shall not be affected.

I told all of this to Mr. Congressional Aide. I asked him whether he knows anything about existing law or authorities. I asked him whether he has ever heard of the case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. I asked him whether he is aware that the president has claimed (and used) the authority to order the killing of U.S. citizens without charging them with a crime, or producing witnesses or evidence, or providing them with a speedy trial before a jury. I asked Mr. Congressional Aide whether he realized that that is existing law and authority. I told him that the last thing we need is a bill that affirms existing law and authority, and what we really need is a bill that overturns them.

Mr. Congressional Aide remained silent. Apparently that's a right they haven't taken away yet. After a while he directed me to section 1021, subsection (b), page 654. Ah, yes. The "Covered Persons" portion of the bill. First, it's frighteningly broad (i.e., "including any person who has committed a belligerent act . . ."). Second, it presumes that the government knows who the guilty parties are without there being a trial. This is really, really bad stuff. And to think Mr. Congressional Aide thought it would satisfy my concerns.

And now for the punch line.

After I voiced my concerns about the "Covered Persons" section to Mr. Congressional Aide, he told me, I assume with a straight face, to read a one-minute colloquy that took place on the floor of the House prior to the vote. Seriously. Try this on the guy waterboarding you: "Uh, excuse me, but didn't you read the freakin' colloquy?"

Here is the colloquy. We can all rest easy now.

Mr. MCKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with my friend from Louisiana. (Mr. LANDRY).
Mr. LANDRY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MCKEON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LANDRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in order to fulfill my constitutional duty of ensuring that the liberties and freedoms are protected of the men and women that this bill authorizes to fight for. The protections bestowed on U.S. citizens are the ones that I am concerned with the most. The question now upon us is whether or not the NDAA impacts the rights of a U.S. citizen to receive due process to challenge the legality of detention by the executive before an article III court.
Mr. MCKEON. This conference report does no such thing. It in no way affects the rights of U.S. citizens. [But that's bad! We want a bill that affects, as in restores, the rights of U.S. citizens -- TK]
Mr. LANDRY. My concern is that when the writ is suspended, the government is entirely free of judicial oversight. So do we agree that no section of the NDAA purports to suspend the writ of habeas corpus?
Mr. MCKEON. I agree completely.
Mr. LANDRY. Do you agree that, as the Supreme Court has held, ‘‘a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of our citizens’’?
Mr. MCKEON. I do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MCKEON. I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
Mr. LANDRY. Will the chairman assure me that together we will work with the committee to further clarify the language contained in this bill in order to ensure that the clear and precise language which protects the constitutional rights of American citizens is protected?
Mr. MCKEON. I do, and I will be happy to work with you to that end.
Mr. LANDRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. MCKEON. I reserve the balance of my time.

September 7 -- Do we need a new investigation of 9/11? No? Well, you may change your mind after this show. The commissioners themselves no longer believe their own story, plus we heard shocking eye-witness accounts from reporters, firefighters, police, and others who were at the impact sites that morning. Would you believe Sarah Palin supports a new investigation of 9/11, and John Kerry believes that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition? Really? Yes, really.

September 11, 2011
Ten years later: Can we finally get a real investigation?

Ten years after the attacks of 9/11, and many questions remain unanswered.

A reminder to those who say the conspiracy theories have been debunked:  You can debunk theories, but you cannot debunk questions. You can ignore them, but you cannot debunk them, and the "The 9/11 Commission Report" seems to ignore more questions than it answers.

For purposes of this article, I will point out only a few anomalies and unanswered questions. Sadly, there are many, many others.

But first, ask yourself these questions:

Do you know that the commission's Chairman and Vice-Chairman are convinced that they were "set up to fail"; or that the commissioners believed they were lied to by the Pentagon, NORAD, the CIA, and the Whitehouse?

Does it matter to you that "The 9/11 Commission Report" does not mention any physical evidence or eye-witness testimony regarding the crash sites; or that it does not mention the collapse of WTC 7, which housed New York City's Emergency Command Center? What kind of official report is that?

Does it matter to you that the official report ignores eye-witness testimony of two New York City government officials who were in WTC 7 the morning of 9/11 and reported explosions inside the building? Or that it also ignores the statement to the FBI by a woman in Shanksville, Pennsylvania who reported seeing, only a few feet away, what may have been be a missile at the time Flight 93 was there?

Can you swallow then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's story that he did not learn of the plane crashes in New York until more than twenty minutes after the second plane had hit?

Can you swallow the tale told by then-acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers that he did not learn of the plane crashes in New York until about thirty-five minutes after the second plane had hit?

Does it matter to you that the official report by FEMA of the collapse of WTC 7, the third building to come down on 9/11, suggests that fires brought the building down, but then admits that "[t]he specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence"? Is that answer acceptable? Is it even an answer to blame the collapse on fires, then say you don't know how the fires caused the collapse and that your hypothesis "has only a low probability of occurrence"?

Does it matter to you that the official report of the collapse of WTC 7 by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) admits that the building fell at free-fall speed for more than two seconds? Does that mean anything to you? Do you know that only controlled demolition could have caused this?

Is it acceptable that the official report fails to mention the presence of molten steel and fires estimated at 1,500 °F under the debris at the World Trade Center nearly six weeks after 9/11? What could account for that? Do you think a comprehensive investigation should mention it?

Official report pathetically deficient

Two critical aspects to any investigation are physical evidence and eye-witness testimony, and "The 9/11 Commission Report" is pathetically deficient in both areas. In fact, one can make a strong case for a new investigation by considering only the deficiencies of the official report.
The body of "The 9/11 Commission Report" consists of 428 pages.

Here's how many pages are devoted to what happened on board the planes that morning:  about 20.

Number of pages devoted to eye-witness testimony of people at the crash sites: 0.

Number of pages devoted to the collapse of Building 7 of the World Trade Center: 0.

Number of pages devoted to an examination of the physical evidence of the wreckage of the planes: 0.

Number of pages devoted to an examination of the physical evidence of the wreckage of the buildings: 0.

Twenty pages.

The government's official report of perhaps the worst crime in the nation's history devotes twenty pages to the crime, eye-witness testimony, and physical evidence.

I've written term papers longer than that, the night before they were due.

If that doesn't convince you a new investigation is warranted, there's this: Thomas Kean (Commission Chairman) and Lee Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) have both said they believe the commission was "set up to fail."

Then there's this: According to The Washington Post, the commissioners so strongly believed that they had been lied to by the Pentagon that they met in secret and "debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation." The commissioners ultimately compromised and turned the matter over to inspectors within the Department of Defense and Department of Transportation (as if that would go anywhere).

Or how about this . . .  The Washington Post quoted Kean as saying, "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Then there's the final sentence of "The 9/11 Commission Report": "We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate."

So if the commissioners are no longer comfortable with their report, and they encourage a "national debate," is it really crazy to ask for a second opinion?

Bush did nothing, Rumsfeld and Myers knew nothing

One thing an independent investigation might do is explain the failure of our national defense. Some very key players did a whole lot of nothing that morning.

George W. Bush, President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief
This guy sat — infamously, tragically and stupidly— in a first-grade classroom for several minutes after learning that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, because he "didn't want to rattle the kids" and "wanted to project a sense of calm." Hey, W, you could have calmly excused yourself, left the room, and assessed whether more attacks were coming. And, W, in case you haven't heard yet, more attacks were coming. But you chose to hang out at the school for a while, deliver a speech (that likely rattled the children), then drive away without taking any action. And a few minutes after you left the school, the Pentagon was hit.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld was in a meeting at the Pentagon that morning. He says he didn't learn that the World Trade Center had been hit until fifteen minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Simple math tells us that Rummy somehow was oblivious to the attacks in New York until about 9:25. I was in an '89 Volvo with a radio that only halfway worked, and I knew about it a few minutes after it happened, probably some time between 9:06 and 9:08. To think that I and most of the country learned about the crashes in New York several minutes before the Defense Secretary did is preposterous. But, believe it or not, Rumsfeld was way ahead of Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Richard Myers, acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Poor General Myers was probably the last person in the United States between ages 11 and 111 to learn of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center. According to his own account, he didn't hear about it until at least thirty minutes after I did in my '89 Volvo. I know what you're thinking: "Give the guy a break. He must have been hunting moose in the Yukon or something." Uh, no. He was at the U.S. Capitol, where the cell-phone service is pretty good and they have landlines.

So we have the Commander-in-Chief, the Secretary of Defense, and the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the absolute top of the military command structure, utterly clueless that the Pentagon was in danger. That's absurd, especially given the testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, who said that he and others in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center received status updates every few minutes about a plane that was heading toward the Pentagon. I can be gullible and stupid, but I'm not that gullible and stupid. Someone's got some splainin' to do.

Official report does not mention the collapse of WTC 7

Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47-story giant that took up an entire city block, was the third building to come down on September 11. It was not hit by a plane, of course, yet at 5:20 p.m., it fell at nearly free-fall speed into its own footprint (and for much of its fall it did indeed fall at free-fall speed; see below). But even though WTC 7 was where New York City's Emergency Command Center was located (on the 23rd floor), and even though a significant portion of the official report was devoted to the city's response to the emergency, the commissioners did not even mention the collapse of WTC 7.

FEMA report on WTC 7 blames fires but can't explain why

Knowing it had to come up with an explanation for the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, FEMA pinned the blame on fires, but then undid their own work with this admission: "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence." Presumably, the authors did not mean for this to be a joke.

NIST admits WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed (controlled demolition only explanation)

The commission's failure to mention the fall of WTC 7 is nowhere near as damning as the final report published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). For years, people who understand this sort of thing much better than I do pointed out to NIST that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed, without resistance, for a significant portion of its collapse. And for several years, NIST's response was that WTC 7 could not possibly have fallen at free-fall speed. After all, the only way a building can fall at free-fall speed is if all of its support fails simultaneously, which requires a controlled demolition. And in the case of WTC 7, we know that didn't happen.

There was one teensy, weensy problem for NIST. WTC 7 did indeed fall at free-fall speed for much of its fall, and even NIST finally had to admit it. From NIST's final report:

"This free-fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft)," and lasted for 2.25 seconds.

Not surprisingly, NIST did not explain how WTC 7 could have fallen at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds. As I mentioned before, I don't know much about these things, but even I know that a building can come down at free-fall speed only if all resistance has been eliminated simultaneously, which can be achieved only through controlled demolition.

As of this writing, 1,548 architects and engineers have signed a petition demanding "a truly independent investigation with subpoena power."

Zero independent architects and engineers have signed onto the notion that fires can cause a building to collapse at free-fall speed for 2.25 seconds.


Molten steel present at WTC site weeks after 9/11

I don't know much about the temperature at which steel weakens or melts, but when a New York firefighter says , "You'd get down below [the debris at the WTC site] and see molten steel running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry, like lava," then not investigating further is foolish.

Here's what John Gross, one of NIST's lead investigators, had to say about molten steel under the rubble at the WTC: "I know of absolutely nobody, and no eyewitness who has said [there is molten steel], and nobody who has produced it. Now, I was on the site.  I was on the steel yards. So, I can't, I don't know that that's so.  Steel melts at about 2,600 °F.  I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperature in a fire."

Now, when a firefighter talks about "molten steel running down the channel rails, like you're in a foundry," and one of NIST's lead investigators says, “Steel melts at about 2,600 °F. I think it's probably pretty difficult to get that kind of temperature in a fire," then failure to investigate the fireman's claim is unacceptable. Yet NIST turned a blind eye, and so the 9/11 Commission.

Eye-witnesses contradict the official story

Several eye-witnesses have made astounding statements, and until these are investigated by some sort of independent body, why should any of us trust our own opinions more than we trust theirs? Following are partial accounts of three eye witnesses.

Susan McIlwain claims that on the morning of 9/11, in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, she saw a small, white, low-flying thing (but not a plane), "no wider than [her] van" pass directly above her van below treetop level, then rise, bank, and crash at the time we have been told that United Airlines Flight 93 crashed there.

Barry Jennings, Deputy Director of the Emergency Services Department in New York City, was called to the Emergency Command Center at the 23rd floor of WTC 7 after the North Tower was hit by "a small Cessna." When he arrived on the 23rd floor, he "noticed that everybody was gone" and had left behind hot coffee and "half-eaten sandwiches." He then "called several individuals, [and] one individual told me . . . to leave and leave right away."

Jennings and Michael Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York (see his account, below), realized they were the only people there and needed to get out immediately. They "went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, and when [they] reached . . . the 6th floor . . . there was an explosion, and the landing gave way."

Jennings and Hess made their way back up to the 8th floor, where they were stranded until firefighters rescued them later that morning. Jennings stated, "All this time, I'm hearing explosions." When Jennings got back to the lobby, he did not recognize where he was because "the lobby was totally destroyed." He and Hess were led out of the building through a "makeshift hole," and Jennings said a police officer told them, "We got reports of more explosions, so you have to run." 

Some might suggest that what Jennings thought were explosions were actually the towers falling. However, Jennings is clear on that point, saying, “When we made it back to the 8th floor (after hearing the explosion at the 6th floor) . . .  both buildings were still standing.”

Jennings told his account to the 9/11 Commission, who, of course, left if out of the official report.

Michael Hess, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, was with Jennings in WTC 7 the morning of 9/11. Here is what he told a television reporter on the afternoon of 9/11: “I was up in the Emergency Management Center on the 23rd floor, and when all the power went out in the building, another gentleman and I walked down to the 8th floor, where there was an explosion, and we were trapped on the 8th floor with smoke, thick smoke, for about an hour and a half.”

Does anyone who has actually read the official report still support it?

Call me crazy, but when the commissioners producing the official report no longer trust their own work; when eye witnesses report explosions and other anomalies that contradict the official version; when a building inexplicably collapses into its own footprint, and especially when part of the collapse is at free-fall speed; when many architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, and firefighters see the need for an independent investigation . . .

Yes, call me crazy, but given all that, the controversial position is to be satisfied with the official conspiracy theory.

August 21, 2011
Peace, sound money, freedom, honest media, non-intervention: How idiotic

We got some interesting feedback from listeners over the last few days. Here are a few of my favorites . . .

"BEST RADIO IN THE SOUTH" (yes, in all caps).

"By rule, I'm not a talk radio fan, but listening to your archives the past couple of nights . . . has reminded me that every rule has its exception. Thanks for keeping it real."

"Listened to about 5 hours of old shows while I painted my house. You guys rock!"

But my favorite was this: "IDIOTS" (yes, in all caps).

To that charge, I'll enter a plea of guilty for me. Blondie is on her own. Come to think of it, this is a case of prosecutorial overreach. I may be an idiot, but even my wife knows I'm no IDIOT.

I'm not sure what we said that made the listener think we're IDIOTS, since he didn't enumerate a bill of particulars. His comment consisted of a single word. But maybe if we look back on the show on which he commented (August 17), we can figure out why he made the accusation. Here is a list of what we talked about:

1. Presidential candidates Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich are only now speaking out against the Federal Reserve, where Ron Paul has been doing so for decades. This is obviously true, so the listener couldn't have been referring to this.

2. Ron Paul for decades has maintained an anti-war position and insisted that only Congress can declare war. Definitely true.

3. The corporate-controlled media largely ignored Ron Paul after his strong second-place showing at the Iowa straw poll, and when they did mentioned his name, it was to say he cannot win the nomination. I think we were on solid ground here.

4. Michele Bachmann is a former IRS tax enforcer. Texas governor Rick Perry by executive order forced sixth-grade girls to be vaccinated against HPV, and he was Al Gore's Texas campaign manager in 1988. All true.

5. The tea party, which originally was a grassroots effort started by supporters of Ron Paul over concern about wasteful spending and the national debt, has been co-opted and bears no resemblance to what it was. Duh.

6. Denouncing those concerned with the debt for causing the country's financial crisis is like a sinking ship shooting at rescue boats. This hardly makes us idiots, er, IDIOTS. The problem, of course, is that the debt is too high, not that the debt ceiling is too low.

7. Warnings by Oborrower and Janet Napolitano about a "lone-wolf terrorist" serve only to frighten the public and do nothing to stop an attack, since it is impossible to stop an attack by an intelligent, evil "lone wolf." Hardly and IDIOTic statement.

8. I made several references to Janet Napolitano as being hot. I even called her "Hottie Janet." Most listeners probably thought I was kidding. I wasn't. I think she's beautiful. I guess I have this thing for statist tyrants who look like a cross between Cruella de Vil  and Fred Flintstone, and who think it's good that Americans are sexually molested at airports. Okay, so maybe this makes me an IDIOT, but I can rest easy knowing that the jury will likely have a few supporters of the Bush/Oborrower doctrine that the American people are the enemy.

9. A Democratic strategist said that Oborrower needs an attack "similar" to Oklahoma City to help him politically. That strategist is Mark Penn, who made the comment to Chris Matthews on "Hardball." That makes IDIOTS not of me and Michele, but of Mark Penn (for saying it) and Chris Matthews (for not saying "WTF?!") .

10. The U.S. military planned terrorist attacks to be carried out in American cities and at the American base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Fortunately, Kennedy squashed it. We didn't make this up. The plan was called "Operation Northwoods"; check out the National Security Archive.

11. The CIA overthrew Iran's democratically elected president in 1953 and installed the shah, which ultimately led to the hostage crisis in 1979. Just because Rick Santorum hadn't heard of this before Ron Paul schooled him doesn't mean it's not true.

12. The Department of Homeland Security's "If You See Something, Say Something TM" program brings to mind the spying done by the Stasi in East Germany. This hardly makes us IDIOTS, given that Stasi is short for Staatssicherheitsdienst, or State Security Service, and, according to Konrad Jarausch, a historian at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, "They offered incentives, made it clear people should cooperate, recruited informal helpers to infiltrate the entire society."

In sum, we spoke out against media bias, war, candidates who support the status quo, intervention in the affairs of other nations, and government spying on citizens, and we stood up for the Constitution, sound money, peace, truth in media, and freedom. And for doing so, we get called IDIOTS. I shouldn't be surprised, though, as there are many who support the status quo, the corrupt financial system, and these illegal wars of aggression started by Bush and expanded by the Nobel Peace Prize Winner in Chief.

July 30, 2011_
My turn to brag. Finally.
The reason most people don't brag is that it's rude in polite society. Now, I'm not too concerned about the delicate sensibilities of members of polite society, so bragging is definitely an option for me. And yet, I don't brag. Here's why: I have never had anything to brag about. I'd brag my ass off if I could.

I'd brag about my '68 Camaro SS convertible, if I had one. I'd brag about my cats to no end if they did cool stuff like rescue little kids from burning buildings, instead of just sleeping all day every day for years. If I were a scratch golfer, I'd brag brag brag to no end, unlike the few scratch golfers I have known, who never talk about it. If I had arms and abs and a tush to kill, I would absolutely brag about them, leaving humility to those with better manners.

So my apparent humility and good manners are nothing of the sort. Humility has been forced upon me, because I haven 't had anything to brag about.

Until now.

The fall semester of the 2011-12 school year will be starting soon, and my 19-year-old daughter, who is the age of your typical incoming college sophomore, is an incoming college senior. Yes, she is two years ahead of schedule. Sadly, her GPA has suffered due to her heavy workload, and it now stands at 3.88.

Is she smarter than your typical incoming sophomore? Perhaps. Is she smarter than your typical smart incoming sophomore? I don't think so. She has accomplished what she has through hard work, dedication, and sacrifice, for which there is no substitute and for which she has no superior. She started the fall semester of the 2010-11 school year with thirty-three hours. She now has ninety. Think about that for a minute. Where twenty-four hours in a school year is considered full-time, thirty keeps one on pace to graduate in four years, and thirty-six is considered a heavy load, this kid piled up fifty-seven. Fifty-freakin'-seven.

How? Hard work, dedication, sacrifice.

I often remind her of the "Rules of Success" of John Wooden, legendary basketball coach at UCLA. Specifically, these two rules, which are closely related:

"Concentrate on what you can control"; and

"Focus on the effort not the result."

How interesting: Wooden constantly reminded his players to focus on effort, not winning, yet for many years all UCLA did was win (in Wooden's last nine years as a head coach, his teams were 259-12 and won eight national championships, including a seven-year stretch in which they were 205-5 with seven national championships).

I also remind her of what Danny Thomas told his daughter Marlo: "I raised you to be a thoroughbred." Except I modify it. I remind my daughter that Twice A Prince, My Gallant, Private Smiles, and Sham were thoroughbreds, too. They were the thoroughbreds who were at the starting gate with Secretariat at the 1973 Belmont Stakes but were in another zip code when Secretariat crossed the finish line. I tell my daughter: "You're Secretariat." I tell her that thoroughbreds don't have a chance against her. She believes me.

Besides giving a little advice now and then, I have had very little to do with my daughter's work ethic. She definitely doesn't get her scholastic aptitude from her parents. If we can take any credit at all, it's not for what we have brought to her, but rather for what we have kept away from her. To name a few: daycare, television, school, junk food, and fluoride. She has taken it from there.

My greatest reward by far is that she loves hanging out with her dad. Sorry about the bragging.

July 22, 2011_
Saving the economy, in 10 easy steps
I don't know much about economics, being a lowly dumbass American voter and not a "professional politician" of the sort Oborrowa is convinced can save us from, uh, the mistakes of professional politicians.

Not being a professional politician, I cannot understand how it is that when the problem is too much debt, the solution is (I can't believe I overlooked this) to take on more debt. But it's not my fault I don't understand it. After all, I haven't graduated from the Professional Politicians' School of Wasting Money and Convincing Lowly Dumbass American Voters That It's Really Really Good for Them and the Government Will Take Care of Everything, Trust Us (or, as the professional politicians themselves call it, the U.S. Capitol).

So forgive me for not understanding that borrowing more will make everything better. And to think the solution has been right in front of us this whole time! Call it our Dorothy Gale moment: "You mean we could have fixed our debt problem any time we wanted by just borrowing more?!" Followed immediately by our Homer Simpson moment: "DOH!"

So don't worry. Between now and August 2, or — as the corporate-controlled media call it, Financial Armageddon When Grannies All Across America Would Be Better Off Slitting Their Wrists If Our Benevolent Professional Politicians Don't Rescue Our Pathetic Selves — the professional politicians and Savior Oborrowa will save the day.

Here's how:

SPOILER ALERT! Stop here if you don't want to know how our overlords will save the drooling masses.

Okay, despite all the posturing and harrumphing and bluffing and lying and gnashing of teeth and pretending that the federal government might not send out Social Security checks, the professional politicians will indeed rescue us by borrowing more money, raising taxes, and trimming a few things that have nothing to do, of course, with the war machine, our massive military presence across the globe, and the surveillance/police state run by hottie Janet Napolitano.

That's it. That's their Big Idea. Yes, believe it or not, with Greatest Economic Minds in the Universe working around the clock on our financial mess, they come up with, drum roll, please . . . more borrowing, higher taxes, and nominal cuts.

Many are pretending they won't raise taxes, but of course they will. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of our lives. So when the dust of a crashed American economy finally settles, we will have deeper debt, higher taxes, a few nominal cuts, and a bigger-than-ever surveillance/police apparatus and war machine.

Can you blame Oborrowa and the rest in the District of Criminals for hiding this from us poor, ignorant dummies?

As I mentioned at the start, I don't know much about economics, so anything I suggest must certainly be nonsense. So, here are ten nonsensical steps we could try after the professional politicians' Brilliant Solution fails.

1. Cap annual government spending according to the following formula: $2 trillion – ($1,000,000,000C) – ($1,000,000,000M) – ($1,000,000,000I), where C equals grams of coke snorted by Congress annually; M equals number of mistresses (or misters) per senator; and I equals innocents killed by U.S. drone strikes.

2. Being a mere American voter instead of a professional politician, I'm not a hundred percent sure that World War II and the Korean (undeclared) War have ended, but I have heard rumors that the shooting stopped a few decades ago. If indeed that's true, we could consider the insane notion of bringing our troops home from the former war fronts (and everywhere else). Our aggressive, offensive capabilities might be diminished, but our national defense would certainly be strengthened.

3. Get rid of the following departments for three years and see if anyone outside the federal government complains: Commerce, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Labor. Oh, and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

4. Get rid of the legal-tender laws that force us to use those ridiculous Federal Reserve Notes for currency. We don't need to abolish the Fed. They couldn't hurt us much if we traded in something other than FRNs in our day-to-day lives. Traded in what? Put it this way: ANYTHING would be better than FRNs. Let the brilliant professional politicians in the District of Criminals continue using FRNs, and when we need FRNs to pay taxes, we just convert whatever currency we're using into FRNs and be done with them until next the tax season.

5. Allow anyone who wants to opt out of Social Security to do so.

6. Eliminate foreign aid.

7. Tell Ben Shalom Bernanke that we'll be glad to pay to the Federal Reserve all the money they legitimately lent to us.  And when I say legitimately, I mean money they already had on hand, as opposed to money created on the spot.

8. Criminalize fractional-reserve banking.

9. Prosecute all governors, state treasurers, and secretaries of state in those states that do not comply with this part of the United States Constitution: "No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debt."

10. Abolish the IRS and institute a five-percent national sales tax that can be raised only if a majority of senators agree to have their ears chopped off. Why five percent? I have no idea. I just made it up. For the record, I do not like the idea of a national sales tax. But if it means getting rid of the IRS? Are you kidding me?

Would this work? How am I supposed to know? I’m not a professional politician, like Oborrowa. So trust the professional politicians who will offer up the new, brilliant, progressive solution: More borrowing, more taxes, more war profits.

July 9, 2011_
I'm from the government, and I'm here to terrorize you

What if "terrorists" did the harmful things that governments do?

What if terrorists stationed themselves at airports and radiated us, sexually assaulted us, detained us, humiliated us, threatened to kidnap us if we didn't go along, and pummeled us and did kidnap us if we resisted?

What if terrorists threatened to kidnap us and hold us for more than three months just for planting vegetable gardens on our private property?

What if terrorists stole trillions of dollars and funneled it to banks and war profiteers?

What if terrorists crashed through our doors and detained us for hours, claiming that someone we know owes them money?

What if terrorists flooded our economy with massive waves of money they printed, destroying the standard of living of millions?

What if terrorists forced the federal government to borrow, and borrow, and borrow, for decades, turning us and future generations into debt slaves?

What if terrorists monitored our phone calls, Internet usage, library records, and bank records?

What if terrorists pulled us over on the highway and sole our money?

What if terrorists demanded that business owners give terrorists keys to their front doors, and threatened to take money from them or kidnap them if they resisted?

Sadly, this list could go on forever, because governments perpetrate their evils faster than I can type them.

So, what would the American people do if terrorists, instead of governments, did the evils that governments do? Americans of the 1770's would have had a teensy-weensy problem with it. Americans of the 21st Century would probably thank the terrorists for keeping them safe, then beg them to run for public office.

June 21, 2011_
I pledged already. Can we move on?
So NBC omitted "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Zzzzzzzz. People seem to be more upset about that than they are about the destruction of the value of the dollar (and by extension our standard of living) by the Federal Reserve, the transfer of wealth from the middle class to giant corporations, and the war machine that marches ever onward and outward. Actually, that last one isn't so bad once you accept that the slaughter of innocents in the name of humanitarianism is, well, humanitarian.

If you don't like NBC for omitting "under God," try this: Don't ever watch NBC again. Seriously. What good will that do, you ask? Well, who knows how it will affect NBC, but you will benefit tremendously.

I've only just started and I'm already way off course. This was never meant to be about NBC's omission of "under God." After all, here's what I care (or, rather, don't care) about NBC and what they do: a rat's ass.

So while I don't care at all about NBC, I do have some questions about the Pledge of Allegiance, starting with this one: Why do we keep saying it? Seems to me that once you take a pledge, whatever you pledged is the new default setting, and silence on the issue means the pledge remains intact.
Does this sound radical? Okay, but how many times do we say our wedding vows? How many times do immigrants take an oath to their new country? How many times during a trial is a witness sworn in? How often do senators, congressman, and presidents take their oath of office? (Here's a good one: How often does the average American openly pledge allegiance to his or her parents, or children?) Admittedly, the answer to some of these examples is more than once in a lifetime (see Gingrich, Newt: serial wedding-vow sayer), but once every two years is as often as it gets (um, except Newt).

And just what does it mean to "pledge allegiance" to the republic? I know how to show my allegiance, but I'm not sure how to pledge it, unless pledging it means I promise to keep on showing it forever and ever. But if that's the case, we're back to the question about why we keep saying it. Isn't it pointless to pledge to do something I'm already doing? Why isn't the doing enough, especially after I have taken the pledge?

Look: I live my allegiance to the republic. I know its history, I pay its taxes, I obey its laws (even the really stupid ones), I understand and respect its Constitution, and I'm raising a really awesome young lady who probably understands the Constitution better than most senators. If you're already walking the walk, why is it so important to talk the talk about promising to walk the walk you're already walking? Or something like that.

JFK famously admonished us to "Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country." Um, I have never asked what my country can do for me. But now I will ask: What more should I do for my country than I already am? Should I pledge my allegiance every month? Every week? Every day? Whenever peer-pressure in a group setting demands it? The only answer, in a free society, is that the timing and text of any pledge must be determined by the individual making the pledge. Sure, there is an official Pledge of Allegiance, but since a pledge belongs to the one making it, and since any legitimate pledge must be made voluntarily, we, as Americans, are free to say whatever pledge we wish whenever we wish, even if it means amending an existing pledge. (I'm not talking about NBC here, as they were purporting to air the official Pledge.)

Allegiance, of course, is a two-way street. So if we are to follow JFK's admonition, then our servants (hah!) in Washington should "ask not what the American people can do for the country — ask what the country can do for the American people." (Alas, the mindset in Washington is: "Ask what the country can do to the American people.") Maybe we should demand that  the clowns in Washington every day recite the Pledge of Allegiance and their oath of office, plus read the Constitution (not to mention all the bills they vote on).

So maybe you're still upset with NBC. Fair enough. But ask yourself this: Which did you spend more time doing last week: watching NBC, or reading, say, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution, or maybe the Federalist Papers or Anti-Federalist Papers, or even the USA PATRIOT Act?

Baldy's take on lies

In Defense of Anthony Weiner

May 3, 2011_
Security suggestion: We should have waited a few years, then said the lone nut Lee Harvey Sirhan Sirhan shot bin Laden in the back from the front fifteen times with a six-shooter
We're told we killed Osama bin Laden and then, apparently because we couldn't flush him like a guppy, promptly punched his ticket to Davy Jones's Locker. Many Americans were appalled that we treated the corpse with so much respect, as if becoming fish food is preferable to becoming worm food.

One explanation is that we didn't want to martyr him any more than we did with a bullet and a bath. After all, we probably just made a lot of enemies as it is, the thinking goes. Why make even more by disrespecting Muslim burial traditions? Good point. Except for this: For years we have been told "they hate us for our freedom" and the notion that the attackers are motivated by revenge is nonsense. Really? Then why headlines like this one in The Guardian: "Taliban commander vows to avenge Bin Laden's death"?

Come to think of it, it makes  perfect sense. Now that they can't hate us for our freedom -- because we don't have that anymore -- they'll have to hate us for something else. If the headline in The Guardian is any indication, maybe it's now true that they have a teensy weensy problem with murder, mayhem, and destruction.

Which leads to this question: Why the announcement? Why did we announce that U.S. forces killed bin Laden, if indeed it's true that the announcement could lead to more terrorist attacks? Why not wait a few years, then say the crazed lone nut Lee Harvey Sirhan Sirhan shot bin Laden in the back from the front fifteen times with a six-shooter? Is our need to take the credit that important? What if a thousand people die next week in terrorist attacks motivated by our killing of bin Laden? Would the announcement have been worth it? (Some would say yes.)

Many have been asking, "What took so long?" We spend a few bazillion gazillion on intelligence every year, yet we couldn't find the mansion/compound sooner. Check out this excerpt from an article posted on Bloomberg.com today:

"[O]fficials said they were shocked by the compound: Built in 2005, it was eight times larger than other homes in the area and worth $1 million, U.S. officials said. The three-story main house was surrounded by walls as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire. Two security gates restricted access to the compound, which is just a mile from the Pakistan Military Academy, the country’s equivalent of West Point.

Its residents burned their trash, unlike their neighbors, and there were no Internet or phone connections detected.

Altaf Khan, 35, a nearby resident, said the house looked like a fort. There were closed-circuit cameras all around it and the women living inside the house used to speak in Arabic, he said at his house.

'What we see in this compound is different than anything we have ever seen before,' Brennan said. "

Given that bin Laden must have been hiding in a fortress and likely in Pakistan, maybe instead of spying on the American people, our intelligence/surveillance apparatus should have been looking for, say, oh I don't know, fortresses in Pakistan cleverly disguised as fortresses.

I"m just sayin'.

April 22, 2011_
Why Oborrowa will win in 2012
I recently appeared on Jeff Crouere's television show, Ringside: Politics With a Punch, on WLAE in New Orleans. Not owning a television (since 1994), I haven't seen how I looked. However, several people have advised me to stick to radio. So noted.

With me on the show was my radio co-host, the insightful and brilliant Michele Gaudin. Listeners to our Baldy and The Blonde show know that Michele has a gift for stating complex and controversial arguments in ways that are persuasive and easy to understand, and that I say a bunch of stupid stuff, plus a few smart-sounding things I copied off of someone else. When I get too stupid, Michele mercifully cuts me off. Miraculously, we seem to always agree on issues big and small. (Listeners to our first few shows may recall the only on-air disagreement we have ever had: I think "Burnin' Love" is a cool song; Michele thinks it stinks. She is wrong, of course, but I can't kick her out of the booth for that.)

While taping the Ringside television show, we discovered another area of disagreement when I said I think Barack Obama will win again in 2012 (ugh). That didn't go over well in the studio, and I'm likely in an ever-shrinking minority who thinks we'll get another four years of "Change," but I think things are lining up well for the Teleprompter-Reader-In-Chief.

In no particular order, here is why I think Barack Obama, or Barry Soetoro, or whatever his name is, will win in 2012:

1. MONEY. Lots and lots and lots of money. Oborrowa will likely have a billion-dollar propaganda budget for his campaign, and he won't leave anything on the table. If there's one thing he does well, it's spend. Of course, the Republican nominee will have a giant war chest as well, but it will be significantly smaller than Barry's.
MONEY EDGE: OBORROWA.

2. DUMBASSES. Lots and lots and lots of dumbasses. The mass of Republican voters are not dumbasses, but the Republican establishment certainly are, and thanks to them the Republicans will nominate a clunker who resembles Oborrowa in more ways than they care to admit, like continuing these undeclared wars of aggression, giving Wall Street whatever it wants, allowing the Federal Reserve to continue its destruction of the American economy, spending way more than what the Treasury takes in, and bailing out large corporations and even entire countries. The mass of Democrat voters are not dumbasses, but the Democrat establishment certainly are, and thanks to them the Democrats will nominate someone who has taken the worst of the Baby Bush presidency and somehow made it even worse. The mass of the Independent voters are not dumbasses, but a disturbingly large number of them will vote for the Republicrat for the millionth time in a row, hoping that this time will be different. In the battle for capturing the dumbass vote, the edge certainly has to go to the worst candidate, and no one could be worse than Oborrowa.
DUMBASS EDGE: OBORROWA.

3. EXTREME DUMBASSES. Lots and lots and lots of extreme dumbasses. These are people who make your everyday dumbasses look fairly sensible. These are people who already have their mind made up, and they will vote for Oborrowa no matter what. For example, at a recent fund-raiser in San Francisco, some "protesters" serenaded Oborrowa with a song that started like this:

"Dear Mr. President we honor you today sir
Each of us brought you five thousand dollars
It takes a lot of Benjamins to run a campaign
I paid my dues, where's our change?

We'll vote for you in 2012, yes that's true
Look at the Republicans — what else can we do
Even though we don't know if we'll retain our liberties
In what you seem content to call a free society."

Apart from being the most pathetic protest song of all time, it reveals a disturbing sentiment: Oborrowa can fail to deliver the change he ran on, he can even threaten our liberties, and yet the extreme dumbasses will continue to donate heavily and have already pledged to vote for him in 2012. Of course, there are extreme dumbasses among Republican voters, too, but they haven’t publicly told their candidate, "It's okay if you turn out to be the opposite of what we thought, and that you might threaten our freedom. You've got our money and our votes."
EXTREME-DUBMASS EDGE: OBORROWA.

4. WARS. Lots and lots and lots of wars. Americans love them, and O-Bomb-Away has delivered big-time. Republican candidates talk a good game when it comes to attacking countries that have not attacked us, but O-Bomb-Away has fired the missiles and deployed the troops. Plus, incumbent presidents don't lose elections when we're fighting a war, much less four of them.
WAR EDGE: O-BOMB-AWAY.

5. ELECTION FRAUD. Lots and lots and lots of election fraud. This one is a toss-up, as both parties are really good at it. But Oborrowa has something none of the Republicans have: the U.S. Attorney General.
ELECTION-FRAUD EDGE: OBORROWA.

6. FREE PROPAGANDA. Lots and lots and lots of free propaganda. Much of the media will continue to praise O-Bomb-Away for expanding our undeclared (read: illegal) wars of aggression and for his promise to redistribute the wealth (although they‘ll call it something else). School children from coast to coast will once again break out in song about our Dear Leader Who Will Bring Change. Last year, Siena College asked 238 "presidential scholars" to rank the U.S. presidents; Oborrowa was ranked fifteenth-best.  Earlier this year the Institute for the Study of the Americas at the University of London ranked Oborrowa eighth-best. The Republicans have nothing that can match this nonsense.
FREE-PROPAGANDA EDGE: O-BOMB-AWAY.

7. SPECIAL FOOTNOTE. Oborrowa may have a difficult time if the economy suffers a serious downturn before the election. Actually, that's practically a guarantee. But what's also a guarantee is that the propaganda machine will tell us that turds are roses and rats are kittens, and many will believe it (see dumbasses and extreme dumbasses, above). The propagandists will also tell us that everything would be much worse if Oborrowa had not saved us. Yes, I know all about Jimmy Carter being one-and-done, but I also know that every day of FDR's presidency, the country was in a depression and/or war, and he was 3-0 as an incumbent.

BOTTOM LINE: Oborrowa can lose only if the economy suffers a complete meltdown in the next eighteen months, and even then he's got a good shot. Unless . . .

BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:  . . . Unless the Republicans nominate someone who is significantly different from Oborrowa on major issues like the wars, Wall Street, corporate favoritism, and spending. Don't hold your breath.

April 5, 2011
Baldy's Priceless Parenting Advice
Free to our premium subscribers, and everyone else

Recently I helped a friend of mine cater a baby shower. Seems it's a tradition that someone goes around with a journal and writes a few words of advice from each of the mothers. No one asked me for advice, of course. If I had been asked, I would have said something like this . . .

. . . Wait. First a little background. My daughter turned 19 a few days ago. She would be approaching the end of her freshman year in college if she were a typical student, but, being the offspring of two wildly atypical parents, she's not typical. She is so not typical that she will be graduating college next spring, a full two years ahead of schedule. I home-schooled the poor child, by the way. Okay, back to the advice . . .

Listen closely to your baby, and ignore everyone else. That's it.

Please hold all hate mail that goes something like, "Are you crazy?! Don't tell parents to ignore their child's pediatrician!"  When I say "ignore everyone else," I mean when it comes to parenting. Don't blow off your pediatrician, but don't blindly take any medical advice either. If you listen closely to your baby and stay in tune, you won't need any advice, and It won't take long for you to become the supreme expert in all the world when it comes to matters of your baby.

Hunter S. Thompson said, "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." Likewise, I'm not advocating what follows. It's not advice. It's just a partial list of things my wife and I did, and it always worked for us. Your reaction will probably be NO WAY! Hey, it ain't advice. It's just what we did. So, um, yes way.

1. Family bed. Mommy, Daddy, Baby, all in the same bed.
2. Baby got to nurse as long as she wanted to.
3. We read to her. A lot. No, seriously, a LOT.
4. We held her and held her and held her.
5. We never let her "cry herself to sleep."
6. We played for hours on end, practically every day, for years.
7. We were constantly at the playground, children's museum, etc.
8. No TV. Sold it.
9. No daycare. One of us was always with her.
10. Home school, or in our case, un-school. No testing, ever. No formal curricula. (Except she did go to school for eighth and ninth grades; all A's there, by the way).

Uh oh. It's 3:57 a.m. Feels like when she was little.

April 8, 2011
"The Elephant in the Room --
What an Ass"
(originally posted as part of the Nov. 7, 2010 Baldy's Bombast)

This story starts around the time of the War to Prevent Southern Independence, about 150 years ago. A guy named Joe kept a few pets. One was a donkey. One was an elephant.

One day, the donkey crapped in Joe’s living room. Joe smacked the donkey and scolded him. The donkey had a strange reaction. Being a talking donkey, it said: “Joe, what the hell are you smacking me for? You must really love the elephant. But why do you love the elephant? Don’t you realize he crapped in your kitchen?”

Joe’s response seemed quite reasonable. He told the donkey: “Yes, you ass! Of course I know the elephant crapped in my kitchen! Do you honestly think I would not notice a pile of elephant crap in my kitchen?! But that has nothing to do with what you did in my living room!”

And the donkey, being a stoopid ass, replied, “But if you smacked me, you must love the elephant and everything he does. The elephant is a HORRIBLE creature! Just look at what he did in your kitchen! Throw him out of the house at once!"

Well, the stoopid ass was right, of course. The elephant had dropped quite an impressive load in Joe’s kitchen. So Joe smacked the hell out of the elephant and scolded him. Joe got a bizarre response from the elephant: “Hey, why do you love the donkey so much? Didn’t you see what he did your living room? Throw him out of the house at once!”

But Joe couldn’t throw out either the donkey or the elephant. It wasn’t up to him. Matters like this were put to a family vote. Some members of Joe’s family enjoyed the smell of donkey-doo and voted to let the donkey stay. Other members of Joe’s family enjoyed the smell of elephant-doo and voted to let the elephant stay. A few members of the family didn’t like the donkey or the elephant and wished they would stop doing their dirty business in the house, but they preferred the donkey and elephant to the dogs who lived outside. They didn’t like the dogs at all, because the dogs never stopped barking their warnings about the donkey and the elephant and their dirty business.

So, of course, the donkey and the elephant both got to stay. And stay. And stay. And stay. For a really long time.

Several generations of donkeys did their business in the living room. Several generations of elephants did their business in the kitchen. Several generations of Joe’s family kept voting to keep the donkeys and the elephants inside the house, where they continue to do their smelly business.

And the dogs keep barking.

March 24, 2011
Pictures don't lie (can't say the same about President o-BOMB-a)

Lots of jokes go something like this: "Look up 'moron' in the dictionary, and you'll see a picture of Baldy." I thought I would put it to a real-world test, but using Google instead of a dictionary. The results were interesting.

A search for images on Google using the term "constitutional professor" peace (quotes included) yields 365 results, the first of which is a picture of Obama (o-BOMB-a from here on). Another search for images, this one using the term bomb libya, yields more than three million results, the first of which is a picture of o-BOMB-a. How about "bomb pakistan"? No surprise: 5,160 results, o-BOMB-a being the first.

That a so-called anti-war Constitutional professor can easily be convinced to wage undeclared — and therefore unconstitutional — wars is no surprise to those of us who recognized o-BOMB-a long ago for what he is: a fraud, a liar, and a puppet for the warmongers and war profiteers.

It's no surprise, then, that a picture of o-BOMB-a is No. 1 for the search term warmonger fraud liar, or that pictures of o-BOMB-a take up the first nine spots when the search term is "nobel peace prize" warmonger. O-BOMB-a drops to No. 2, behind  Harry Reid, for the search term peace fraud liar.

Years ago I used to wonder what would happen if those in power simply ignored the Constitution. Now we know, and it's a disaster.

By the way: A search for the term "only congress can declare war" (in quotes) yields 2,470 results. Of the photographs, as opposed to posters, graphs, etc., the first is of a newborn baby; the second is of Ron Paul. The juxtaposition of the two is fitting, seeing that the latter delivered about four thousand of the former in his days as an OBGYN.

March 4, 2011
Find your inner Gilligan

Happy Friday Before Mardi Gras.

That greeting probably won't mean anything to you unless you're either from New Orleans or, like me, a transplant to the area. I moved here almost exactly ten years ago from Portland, Oregon. Of course I knew Mardi Gras was huge, but I had no idea that the day before Mardi Gras, and the day before that and the day before that and the day before that, and even the day before that, are pretty big themselves.

Friday day is no big deal. The city runs pretty much as usual, although, admittedly, that's not always a good thing. But by the time late afternoon morphs into early evening, getting around certain parts of town gets pretty tough. Especially Uptown. And if you're driving and need to get near St. Charles Avenue, you had better be driving a float, because cars aren't much use at that time. No one schedules appointments in Uptown New Orleans late in the afternoon near St. Charles Avenue on the Friday before Mardi Gras. No one. No one even considers it. And if anyone did try scheduling something, the response would be laughter, derision, and questions like, "Are you crazy?"; "Are you high?"; and "Are you stupid?"

I know, because I tried. Short version of a long story: On the Friday before Mardi Gras in 2002, at 4:30 in the afternoon, I found out I needed to get an appraisal done that day on a house in Uptown New Orleans, a block off St. Charles Avenue. I didn't know any better, so I told the homeowner I knew someone who could do it on short notice. I was met with the above reaction (as in, all of the above). But I still made the call. And the guy's reaction was, well, all of the above. So I called someone else. I had never talked to this guy before, but by this time I was pretty sure I knew what his response would be. I was wrong. What he said was: "I can be there at five."

The famous quote, "Ignorance is bliss" is actually a famous misquote. The correct quote is, "[W]here ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." My ignorance served me well that day, my first Friday Before Mardi Gras. I didn't know it was impossible to get an appraiser to that area at that time on short notice, so I wasn't hindered by preconceived notions. Kind of like when Gilligan had made some wings and was showing the Skipper he could fly. Skipper, while Gilligan was keeping himself airborne by flapping his arms, shouted, "Gilligan, you can't fly! It's impossible." Gilligan's question was directed as much to himself as it was the Skipper: "I can't?" And when the Skipper answered, "NO!" Gilligan said, "Oh," and crashed to the ground.

Ignorance is definitely not bliss, but sometimes the ignorance of Gilligan is what we need to accomplish something that others think is destined to fail.

_February 27, 2011
Serious wardrobe malfunction: I can't
give away a sweater to a cold panhandler
Temperatures in New Orleans are back to normal, but until a couple weeks ago, global warming gave us many sub-freezing days. Combine that with last year's Summer of Recovery that resulted in more foreclosures and homelessness, and you've got a lot more people on the street who are cold as hell, but have to go on taking it.

I have recently noticed a large increase in the size of what is becoming a virtual tent city not far from the Superdome. Not surprisingly, I have also noticed a large increase in the number panhandlers in that area. I don't have a lot to give, but I'll certainly give what I can. During one of those global-warming-caused cold spells, I was in my car approaching an on-ramp to the Interstate, near the tent city that sprang up as a result of last year's Summer of Recovery. I was approached by a gentleman who didn't seem to benefit much from the Recovery and who was shivering as a result of the cold snap caused by global warming. I gave him all I had, 27 cents, and apologized that it wasn't more. At least he was 27 cents closer to recovery than Obama had made him.

Then the man went off in search of someone else not named Barack Obama and therefore perhaps willing to help him. After a few seconds I realized I had a sweater on the seat next to me. Surely he could use that! What a great idea! Or so I thought.

I called out, "Hey! You need a sweater?" He turned around and made his way back to my car.

"What you got?"

I held it up for him to see. "Here. You want this?"

Instead of telling you what his response was, I'll let you try to pick it out from the list below.

A.  "No, thank you."
B.  "Wow! Thank you!"
C.  "Bless you, brother. This will really help. It's cold out here."
D.  "Thank you, but I don't really need it. Do you mind if l give
      it to my friend Harvey who's over there under the bridge?"
E.  "Nah. What else you got?"

Now, of course someone in his situation wouldn't say, "Nah. What else you got?" Except he did. There was no hint of gratitude, or humility, or of a desire to help Harvey under the bridge. There was only: "Nah. What else you got?" I was reminded of this exchange from The Sound of Music:

Captain von Trapp: It's the dress. You'll have to put on another one before you meet the children.
Maria: But I don't have another one. When we entered the abbey our worldly clothes were given to the poor.
Captain von Trapp: What about this one?
Maria: The poor didn't want this one.

At least he didn't react like this when confronted with generosity.

January 31, 2011
Our debt is real. Our debt: Israel.
So, Rand Paul wants to do away with all foreign aid, including aid to Israel? For the ridiculous reason that we can't afford it?! Is this guy for real? Seriously, Rand has lost his mind. Doesn't he know we can NEVER run out of money?! Earth to Rand: Dude, we got this, like, Federal Reserve that can get us all the money we need any time we need it. Let's airlift crates of cash to everyone! We give Israel only $3 billion per year. That's awfully stingy of us, considering the money machine has no limit. So come on, Congress. Screw Rand Paul! Let's send Israel $3 TRILLION this year! After all, with Oborrowa in office, trillion is the new billion!

And, um, Rand? You're kind of outnumbered. Haven't you heard that the Chairman and Vice‐Chair of the Federal Reserve are Jewish, as is the Secretary of the Treasury and the ranking member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations? If that's not enough, you're also going up against the President of the United States. Or maybe you didn't know that Joe Biden made the following comments when he addressed the Jewish Federations of North America’s General Assembly conference in New Orleans in November, 2010:

“I feel so absolutely certain that our support for Israel must continue … forever.” Forever is a really long time, Rand. Biden also said, "President Barack Obama feels exactly the same way I do, I assure you.” Rand, he said "exactly," okay?

So, Rand. I know you're a U.S. Senator and all, and I'm just a Bald Guy in a Booth. But listen: Since there's no limit to the money we can get from the Fed, and since our support for Israel must continue forever, I'm thinking we can save a lot of time and aggravation by writing one last check to Israel, in the amount of $∞.

That oughtta do it.

January 3, 2011
$14 Trillion and Counting
The national debt just passed $14 trillion. To put that into perspective, if you placed fourteen trillion one-dollar bills end-to-end, they would stretch around Al Gore's waistline 322 times. Now, the $14 trillion figure is certainly a misunderestimation, being the official figure. Plus it doesn't take into account the unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Social Security, which the Federal Reserve estimates at well over $100 trillion.

Here's a tribute to the 1979 movie Americathon, in which the country is bankrupt and holds a telethon to keep from being repossessed by wealthy Native Americans. Come to think of it, if we're going to be owned -- which we are -- we may as well be owned by Native Americans instead of international bankers. But we digress. (Note that the donation counter goes up to $1 trillion. Ah, the good old days!)