Subject: Comments on last issue (#2779)
You've been super busy -- three issues in three days? Wow!
Another fantastic issue, #2779 -- no one can touch your site for info,
for thoughtful commentary,
and for some laughter mixed in to help the daily pains go down just a
little bit easier.
Still no job here, but I have redoubled my resolve to get you a nice,
fat check as soon as a gig
comes in once again. Doesn't help, now, I know -- but your
future's looking up some. : )
Meanwhile, just had to write:
* Re: Hats off to NLadd for the comment on the
Congressional work schedule, so called.
I'm stunned they sneak in even that much time to do the business of the
People (or so it is
currently called). But, look around. We get what the
corporations pay for, huh? Geez.
Sidebar: No offense to our neighbors north, but I keep thinking
Canada is the country WE
could have been, should have been -- for starters. (And, yes,
here we need to add in all the
"if-only" and "but, because" statements. I am pained and weary of
where we are as a country,
y'know? Of course you do. It shows.)
During the last Winter Olymics,
somebody said, "We're just like
America, but without
the wars, the murders, the 200M
guns, the mega-cost of health care, the torture, etc."
They were right.
* Re: Wolf the
Douche: He is a joke representing a joke of a network which is
bald joke on all of us. News? You must be kidding, high, or
both. Remember the CNN
Republican "debates" cabal and production agreements with the
'Baggers? Yeah, well -- always
pays to remember who we're dealing with, to remember the source.
(Personally, I gave up on
network/cable/TV "news" after Uncle Walter and Huntley-Brinkley --
how's that for a fast trip
through the Way Back machine?)
* Speaking of debates -- and how can we ever call these
Republican freak shows that? --
I would give up at least one precious body part if we held UK-rules
debates, real debates,
and forced candidates to speak about facts and problems, with point
awards made only for
scores using logic.... then televised them for the education of the
population. You know,
to achieve that educated, interested, and engaged population the
founders relied on to
protect Democracy. And while we're at it, the
founders also rejected career politicians.
(I know -- blah, blah, blah. I'm preaching to the choir again.)
Good point - wouldn't it be
great to see them debate with no moderator?
Some would be bullies, some would be time hogs, some would be obnoxious
Political debates don't need a moderator cutting them off every 30
seconds - let them go at it.
We'd certainly learn more about them if they were unchained.
* Re: Messaging against the
Rethugs and for Our Side: No, I have no idea whatever why
Dems absolutely cannot (and/or refuse to) message -- not even a
little. It's not like they're
out there trying, test-driving ideas, mixing it up, trying to make
people think, fine-tuning as they go.
They're not even trying. Zee-row. Nadda. Zip.
Comatose. Makes me crazily furious -- or is
that furiously crazy? Same diff.
This is especially true of
Obama, but it's also true of most Democrats:
They fight tooth-and-nail to get
elected, then they go to sleep until the next election.
The whole seven years that
Cheney-Bush were destroying America, the Democrats either
voted with them or sat there silent as a log while the bastards turned
us into Torture Nation.
* Re: The Goldman Sachs
morons in the "homeless costumes" need a strong, cold dose
of Reality in their own forced eviction and instant homelessness.
That should help create a
little empathy where there is currently *less* than none. (That's
a key problem with we humans,
I've noticed: No empathy or sympathy for situations not
personally encountered and fully experienced.
Sidebar: Go figure how that all fits into the Darwinian puzzle,
any of the me-first and screw-you
behaviors we constantly see on display around us. There's a hive
mind on one end of the spectrum,
and pathological self-involvement on the other; then, somewhere
in between, I though we still had
room for plain-old helping everyone limp down This Road We're On,
whatever it's about, whatever
it's for. I suppose that scholarly theory should be tuned up now,
and renamed the Survival of the
Fittest Individual, and *not* the Survival of As Many of Us as Can Fit
in the Lifeboat.
* Re: Astrocat's healthcare tale: Thank you both for
injecting experience and information into
the discussion. I did not take offense at the remark regarding
the doc's racial membership. I took it
as an attempt to allay the heaps of lies, fears, and untruths spread by
those who *love* the status quo
-- you know, the ones who enjoy suggesting a Nigerian or
Guatemalan doctor might save one's life
under a universal health care program here.
* Re: Roger/Dick Stone: Geez Louise, the crud that
sticks to (and is) the GOP! I had not heard
about this dangerous, hypocritical asshat (well, ALL of them are, of
course, it's just a matter of degree)
until now. Thanks for the heads-up.
* Re: Herman "Mr. Grabby Hands" Cain: Yup, you pegged
it. Clarence Thomas, one more once.
(We don't even need to get into my low political opinions of him, nor
any of his Rethug colleagues --
it would be a waste of time, trying to honor any of these dolts with an
intelligent discussion about
* OK, I can't not say it: Were the GOP and 'Baggers
thinking they could expunge their racist,
fascist selves by incorporating a minority candidate? And, BTW,
with the country going to hell *NOW*
why in hell are we squabbling about pinheaded candidates more than a
year out from a so-called election?
(Don't get me going on electronic voting machines.) No other
country puts its citizenry through these
dreadful, painful, miserable, year-long circuses. I guess it must
be the script as written by the Big Boys
-- the Kochs and others -- to ensure we are fully distracted from facts
and reality, and continue to be set
at one another's throats, whipped into uber-propagandized, homicidal
* Re: JS in NM on religion: I smell double standards
at work here, when he expects you to look past
his Christianity but cannot look past your own beliefs on the
subject. But, I appreciate him airing his
views with decorum, as much as I appreciated your own restrained and
thoughtful reply. Thank you
gentlemen, both -- it's very nearly enough to make me believe once
again in the possibility of intelligent
discourse at normal speaking volume, and a willingness to disagree in
an agreeable manner.
* Re: Tulsa: Bart, what the hell's up there? 75
to 10 odds? Are the police in Tulsa fearful wimps,
just way-over-the-top, over-reactionary, or what? This
situation and reporting makes no sense to me,
any of it, especially given the apparent surprise of those
pepper-sprayed for -- nothing?!
Doing as instructed by police? WTF?
* Mystery Car stuff: Love this feature, and the red Bobby
Darin machine. (Sounds like you were
having more file-naming hassles, with the blue car popping up a lot
-- maybe a Tucker from an earlier issue?
-- in place of the big red boat.) As I say: Love this
feature. BTW: I'm thinking '56 Studebaker for today,
but that's just a hipshot guess.
* Re: High School Photos: Yup, just stupid. Easy,
easy answer: BIG, stick-on name tags -- not the
little "Hello I'm..." tags -- lettered by someone with a good hand and
a BIG marker.
OK, this wasn't gonna be that long a note. OOPS.
Thanks again, and keep on swingin'
Alex in Oregon
Could you tickle the Back Issues listings again?
I was trying to track down something from Monday's issue. Thanks!
Alex, thanks for that.
Just so you know, if
updating back.htm you
can always look in the window at the top
of the page and if today's
issue is 2799, just change
that to 2798 and you have the
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com