This blog was an answer to Scripps How-
ard columnist Bonnie Erbe's article in th
Star Banner newspaper 0n 4/4/'08. We
obtained permission to reprint it from
the author.

NEOCON DRIVEL

It was troubling getting through Bonnie
Erbe's column "Which One Should Drop
Out?" (April 4) when she used Mike Bar-
rone as an oracle to dispense wisdom not
usually found in mere mortals.

Ms. Erbe describes Mike's analysis of the
current Democratic presidential contest
as "sophisticated". If Barrone made a
"sophisticated analysis" of this or any
other subject it will touch a new
experience for him.

Through Barrone, Bonnie resorts to a
well rehearsed diversion among neocons:
statistical distortions to match their
points of view- a perrenial staple of neo-
con jive. Not many readers pay much
attention to it anymore, so it's more than
somewhat suprising Bonnie swallowed
Barrone's blabber.

It has come to pass that almost everyone
is aware that all members of the neocon
ilk are rarely correct in their assumptions,
prognosticatons or purported reasoning.

Their isn't much "sophisticated analysis"
in the balance of Bonnie's treatise, but it
may help in future discerning if she is
given a fact she can take to the bank: The
Democrats will vote for Hilary or Barack
and swamp the Republicans in the fall.
Ergo, do not waste pen, ink thought or
time trying to help John McCain and his
lobbyist quarterbacks.

The outstanding justificaton for that
certainty is the fact that McCain is deep
into his dotage stage and the longer he
stumbles and bumbles along the more
people will see it. My God! Doesn't the
simple fact that the silly old man is
being corrected and coached by a
blinkered schlemiel like Joe Lieberman
tell us what we need to know?

FUN AND GAMES

This is a memorable date.
The golf course was dry and fast and
gave the ball a great roll.

Perused Naomi Wolf's book "End Of
America" and found it shows prom-
ise of a powerful read.

Then a US Senator, after listening to a
rant by HIS President, declared it was
an Alice-In-Wonderland harangue
where up is down and down is up.

That analogy started thoughts of
Lewis Carroll's story and a favorite
quatrain quoting the famed walrus.

Forgive the paraphrasing. Just
couldn't resist. Blame Bush.

"The time has come the prexy said
to speak of things he's done
Of peace thru war, of truth thru lies
And how its been such fun."

NOTES ON THE FABLE MONSTER

On 3/2/08 Columbia invaded Ecuador
and murdered 17 people. It was an inter-
national crime with a potential for dire
consequences for the region and the U.S.

The internet went ballistic. Newspapers
pro & con condemned it. Only the 24
hour TV news channels sensing a third
war for the U.S. (bringing great ratings)
weaseled around justifications for the
Columbian agression.

But far & away Hilary Clinton came with
the most stupefyingly stupid, war mong-
ering statement of any organization or
individual. She starts her account by
blasting Venezuela's defensive moves as
"unwarranted and dangerous". When she
comes up with the fact the incursion was
Colunbia raiding Ecuador with Chavez
not involved Our Lady of Experience
comes with an outlandish conclusion
that would embarrass Pres. Bush:
"After reviewing the situation, I am
hopeful Ecuador will determine that
its interests lie in closer co-operation
with Columbia" Then to confirm she
no idea of what she's talking about her
statement continues: "Hugo Chavez
must call a halt to this provocative
action"

Hello, hello, Hil Baby listen up. Colum
bia invaded Ecuador. Chavez and Ven-
ezuela were not involved. He merely
helped to calm things down in con-
junction with the OAS. The U.S. and
Columbia stood alone among South
American nations.

Couple of personal comments from SJ:
He doubts our brilliant Lady of Experi-
ence is the politician he would have
faith in to answer that 3 A.M. call she
made famous. Secondly, He doesn't
feel our brilliant Lady of Experience
is that brilliant and the experience
she claims she has must be in some
other field. Ruthless ambition maybe

McCAIN AND THE LOBBYISTS

Honest John did not have sexual relations with
"that woman". Outside of the families involved
and those citizens involved who in hell cares?

After multitudinous attacks on Sen. Mac by
Stinky Limbauger & his mob of cocklebrained
screamers the New York Times gave them a
shot at redemtion. Since it now appears Mac
will be the Repug nominee this fall Stinky does
not want to be left out so he & his ilk broard-
sided the NYT for printing the reporters re-
port.

Criticism by the TV& newspaper punditry
hollered the Sen did nothing wrong with "that
woman" Nary a word about the essential part
of the report: lobbyists. But with America's
pre-occupation with sex it was predictable
the savants of the fourth estate would miss
the essence. Of course we wonder what Mac
did for Ms. Iseman and for Ms. Isaman's
clients including Lowell Paxson & his com-
munications company. Mac said unequiv-
ocally he did nothing untoward with her,
with Paxson, with the company.

This is more than somewhat disputed by
Mike Isikoff and Newsweek who produced
letters from Mac over his sig that he wrote
as chair of the Senate Commerce Comm-
ittee asking for a decision on a Paxson
request.

We know Mac is up to his gonads in lobbyists
in his Senate office and his Committee (Buse,
Black, Davis, etc. etc.). We also know lobby-
ist mogul Jack Abramoff recently tipped us
on how that profession bores in on legislators
and suckers with food, drink, favors and
$100,000 outings. When it becomes necessary
they'll even compose a bill when a zombie-like
legislator can't seem to get it togther.

My bookmaker says the betting indicates the
NYT would not have printed the story if it
could not back it up. Conventional thought is
Mac was wise to button up the subject after
his strident disclaimer. By claiming the fifth
he'll have less to explain when the other shoe
drops. And drop it will.

The Times did not get to be America's paper
of record by letting a bottom of his class mid-
shipman out-maneuver it.

Spoiler John disagrees with conventional
thought on this. Such a firestorm was created
by this relatively harmless report it put the
Times in a position of having to prove it.
They can and they will.

EDWARDS LEAVES RACE, WHAT'S LEFT?

John Edwards splitting from the presidetial
gambit eliminates the last best chance to put
the squeeze on our supreme rulers: the multi
nationals and the defense department.

Let us presume Obama wins the presidency,
his naivete will be manna for the corporations
and they will eat him alive.


Try Hillary. She knows who and where the
power is and she will put in with it.

McCain? He is body and soul with the Mil-
itary-Industrial complex. A McCain pres-
idency willl be more of the same obstinate
bullying, wars, flip-flopping & incompetence.
John is not the swiftest kid on the block.

Romney was, is and would be with the su-
preme rulers and their minions. He is a
"let them eat cake" man .

So it is a sad day that America has left it-
self without the one candidate who was on
their side.

BILL KRISTOL AND THE N. Y. TIMES

Clark Hoyt, Times public editor, wrote an
article on 1/13/o8 headlined "He May Be
Unwelcome, But We'll Survive". Let me
try to take your hubris down a peg.

Is it the goal of America's Paper of Rec-
ord to survive? Surely, there are more
salubrious objectives for the vaunted
Grey Lady. e. g. its economic health,
its communal leadership. And so on.

The 1/13 piece quotes the publisher
as seeking an opinion in line with the
"conservative republican movement".
Mr. Hoyt, Bill Kristol does not rep-
resent a conservative republican
movement. He belongs, votes, hawks,
and represents the neo-conservative
party line. There is a cataclysmic
difference between those two con-
servative concepts and barring a
discordant drive one would expect
the leadership of the Times to dis-
cern that difference.

Again, quoting the Publisher. "He'-
"ll strengthen the discussion".
.Kristol's input into any discussion
is so far afield of reason, of depth,
of thought as to be embarrassing.
His predictions? bewilderingly il-
logical.

Many people in the industry excuse
Mr. Kristol's sappy deliveries saying
he is only playing to the shock value.
HAH!

57 DEMS SELLOUT TO REPUGS ON
WIRETAPS AND SURVEILLANCE.

Are you surprised? Shouldn't be, it was pre-
dictable. And our ever alert Repugs knew
the lack of gumption of the Dems was on
their side.

They already have a new ploy that went
into effect today: They will promote the
idea the Congress, with its Democratic
majority and agenda, didn't have such a
bad session so far this year. In reality, the
Repugs are joyous Bush made mince meat
of Dems on the illegal Iraq war, notwith-
standing Bush has the credibility of a gnat.
Also they backed down like beaten curs as
soon as Bush threatened no August recess,
if they didn't give him what he wanted on
the wiretap and surveillance bill. Bush
added insult to injury by inserting Alberto
Gonzalez as the "decider" (with McConnell)
on all wiretaps and surveillance. Of the 3
amigos (Cheney,Bush and Gonzo) Al may
have the least crediibility of all. And that
may really be scraping the barrels bottom.

Also nothing was done to reign in the big
corporations who are giving our jobs and
our manufacturing to yonder lands. Then
there is insurance, health, infrastructure.
Nothing. No wonder Bill Sammons on Fox
News didn't blast the Dems, these items are
the Repugs life blood. Bill sees a lot more
buckling under and so do I.

If the Repugs were the controling party and
were setting the agenda they could not have
done better and probably not as well.

Bye, bye Nancy, Harry, Democrats. Have a
nice vacation.