Stretching the Truth.....

In yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times there was a story about a Dr. Sheldon Burman. At age 80, the state of Illinois revoked his license to practice because in the past ten years he had been named in 45 malpractice suits. What makes it worse is that Dr. Burman specialty is Penis Enlargement.

Ouch.

The article goes into detail how Dr. Burman's procedure worked, or in 45 cases how it didn't work. I'll spare you all that. What I thought was bizarre was that Dr. Burman was once a respected heart surgeon until a car accident in 1981 left him with limited mobility (read in "he got the shakes"). Now I respect the Doctor's decision to shutdown his cardiology practice, but wouldn't you think that he would have realized that one mistake down there could be just as life-altering?

Affirmative Actionless Oprah?

Oprah Winfrey, along with her gal-pal Gayle (who I love, if only Oprah was more like her. She's just fun), kicked off her $55 million network with a conversation, not so surprisingly, that centered on Oprah, and how successful she is (and she really is). This report from TMZ .com :

Oprah talked about her humble beginnings in Mississippi, and particularly about how her mother's highest aspiration for her was that she might end up cleaning white people's houses, because "they give away nice clothes." And then Oprah pointed out that now that she's Oprah, she has "all these white people" working for her, and that in fact there's only one black person on the staff.

What was that?

Oprah pointed out that now that she's Oprah, she has "all these white people" working for her, and that in fact there's only one black person on the staff.

Oh, OK.

I just want to point out to Oprah that the population of Chicago (home of Harpo Studios) is 30% African American. This community of a million strong has a 13% unemployment rate - nearly 3 times greater than the national average. Yet Oprah has a staff of all white people. Well if it makes Oprah feel better about herself I guess its ok with me.

Clinton's Conspiracy

Bill Clinton has been making a lot of headlines lately, from my perspective they have not been the most flattering. First Clinton threatens ABC in a vain attempt to stop the airing of their 9/11 drama and now he goes ballistic when Chris Wallace ask the former President if he done enough to capture Bin Laden. President Clinton, always a master protector of his image, has completely lost it with his finger-pointing response to Wallace:

“But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including the right-wingers attacking me now, they had eight months to try, they did not try. I tried. So I tried and failed.”

When Clinton pulls out the vast right wing conspiracy excuse it rings hollow because we remember the last time it was used and realize that Clinton lied when he said “I did not have sex with that woman.” Clinton uses the same tactics now as he did then. You have to ask what would make us think that he isn't lying now? So already there is a credibility problem with Clinton’s tirade.

The same can be said about Albright's and Clinton's protest of the Path to 9/11. The main beef wasn’t so much that what was portrayed by the controversial scenes didn’t reflect the Clinton’s foreign policy, but that the actual meeting never took place. So what we have is a parsing of words again. Ok, maybe conversations took place over the course of several meetings but not at one meeting like the movie made it out to be. Therefore the entire movie should be discounted. Sounds like “depends what you mean ‘is’ is” all over again.

We know that after the ’93 WTC bombing nothing was done to get Bin Laden. We know that when our troops were killed in Somalia, we did nothing. We know when our embassy in Kenya was bombed we did nothing. We know that when the USS Cole was bombed we did nothing. We know that Bin Laden was responsible for all of these attacks, we did nothing. We know when the Sudan offered to turn Bin Laden over us, we did nothing. We know that when the CIA had Bin Laden targeted we did nothing but inform Pakistan that the Tomahawk missiles were on the way, thus giving Bin Laden the warning needed to defy death. We know that Clinton was President when we did nothing.

Let’s make this clear, there was one man responsible for 9/11 and that man was Osama Bin Laden. Not Bill Clinton or George Bush. As Americans we need to keep that in mind. However, it does not serve anyone to make claims of a right wing conspiracy as a means to ignore the mistakes of history. You would think that someone of Clinton’s stature would know when to keep his mouth shut. By making comments on the ABC movie and screaming at Chris Wallace, Clinton has started a new debate of his role in 9-11, forcing people to do a retrospection of his 8 year presidency and proving what a partisan hack he has always been. It would have been nice to hear Clinton just say that I tried to get Bin Laden but failed, but this would have required a bit of humility, a virtue that Clinton has always lacked.

I Hate the Steelers

I hate the Pittsburg Steelers more than life itself. This is the dirtiest franchise in the history of the NFL. A team that has put the "Cheap Shot" as a legitimate play in their playbook. The latest cheap hit was against Carson Palmer in last year's playoffs. Some would argue that Kimo Van Oelhoffen's hit on Palmer was caused when he was pushed into Palmer. That's BULLSHIT! Look at the pics, no one can tell me that Kimo didn't intentionally wrap his hands around Palmer's keee.

If this was the first time that the Squeelers did such a thing that would be one thing, but taking out opposing players from a game has been their M.O. for decades; from Kenny Anderson to Bernie Kosar to Eddie George and now, Carson Palmer.

My hate is so intense that I asked if I was alone with these feelings? Am I the only person on this planet that the mere thought of black and gold makes me want to vomit? I searched the web for an answer and sure enough my emotions were validated. Hundreds of web matches with the phrase "I hate the Steelers"! Here are some of the best:

The Steelers Suck - This page created by Charlie Frye's Fans with great pictures supporting his feelings.
The Sports Column Blog - Great posting where he gives 5 reasons why he hates the Stoolers and their fans. The best being No. 4 - No cheerleaders. He even gets a swipe at Sharon Stone which is priceless!
The Furnier Files - I debated to put this link in the posting, but thought what the heck, Brown's fans are almost people too.
What Really Grinds my Gears Blog - A fellow blogger who shares in my hatred. One of his posting had a reply from a Steeler fan who called him a douche bag, classy people those Squeeler fans.
http://www.lookatmeshirts.com/ - A web retailer where one it's best selling t-shirt says "Even God hates the Steelers".
Angry Ken.com - Ken gives us one of his typical rants against the Steelers after Carson Palmer's SI interview. Needless to say - he's angry.

God knows I could go on and on, hating the East Coast Raiders is a universal feeling.

Is it tomorrow yet? Who Dey!

The Return of Vichy France

President Jacques Chirac has broken ranks with the US and Britain by calling for the suspension of UN Security Council action against Iran during negotiations over its nuclear programme.

In a radio interview yesterday before flying to New York for the UN General Assembly, the French President provoked a diplomatic storm by backing Iran's demand that the Security Council should halt its involvement in the nuclear dossier.

The demand is spelt out in Iran's confidential 20-page response to a Western offer of technological and economic co-operation in return for a freeze on nuclear activities which could lead to production of a nuclear weapon. The Independent has obtained a copy of the document.

M. Chirac suggested that the group of six nations involved in talks with Iran - Britain, the US, France, Germany, Russia and China - should "set an agenda, then start negotiations".

"We must, on the one hand, together, Iran and the six countries, meet and set an agenda, then start negotiations. Then, during these negotiations, I suggest that the six renounce referring [Iran to] the UN Security Council and that Iran renounce uranium enrichment during negotiations," M. Chirac said.

An American Hero

This week on HBO's Inside the NFL the subject of Pat Tillman's death was featured. For those unfamiliar, Pat Tillman decided to walk away from the NFL during the prime of his career to join the Marines and defend his country in the aftermath of 9/11. Literally Pat Tillman gave up millions for the opportunity to bring Osama Bin Laden home. Tragically on April 22, 2004 in Afghanistan, Pat Tillman was killed in action. The Pentagon stated that Tillman was killed in a heroic charge protecting his fellow Marines during an ambush from enemy combatants. These initial reports proved to be untrue as it became clear that Tillman was taken down as a result of friendly fire. Unfortunately friendly fire is something that happens during the course of any war, but even though the military knew that the initial reports to the media were untrue they did nothing to correct the misinformation. A month after Tillman’s funeral the Pentagon changed its story stating that Tillman’s death was due to friendly fire aggravated by the intensity of the firefight. It was later learned that no hostile forces were involved and that two allied groups fired on in confusion over an exploded mine. It becomes obvious that the Pentagon, whether to avoid embarrassment or to exploit Tillman’s death, was less than forthright to the Tillman Family.

As a result the Tillman family is unable to bring closure in dealing with their son's death. It is unfortunate in every aspect. To Pat Tillman’s family and friends it is important that they know the truth, and I hope they can get that when the Pentagon's investigation concludes at the end of the month. To the general public it's more important to focus on how Pat Tillman led his life, not his death. Regardless of the circumstances, Pat Tillman’s story is one of a man who demonstrated self sacrifice and courage. I, for one, will always keep that in perspective. Pat Tillman remains my hero.

Some Things Never Change

You may have notice that for awhile there I stopped making postings, but I can't help but think that some things just never change. Back in March the story of the day was the Muslim protests of editorial cartoons, today the story is that the same people are protesting the remarks of Pope Benedict XIV.

What amazes me that the lazy mainstream media has allowed the Muslim world to characterize the Pope's remarks, rather than informing the public what he actually said. I have read news report after news report to find out exactly what words the Pope used. Not one story quoted the Pope directly nor has any major news agency try to accurately represent the Pope’s intent. I personally think that it is important to try to understand the Pope in the proper context. Therefore, the following is an exerpt from the Pope's speech:

"In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...". The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?...."

Pope is merely stating that spreading faith through violence is an unreasonable thought and counter to the nature of God. The Pope's message is squarely targeted to the Islamic radicals calling for a jihad. The only thing offensive about these words is that they came out of the mouth of the leader of the Roman Catholic Church and not from a Mullah in Mecca. When will the message that there is nothing holy or reasonable about waging a violent jihad come from the Muslim leadership? Let me make this clear - the Pope is not criticizing Muslims in general, but I am!

The Path to 9/11

Over the weekend there were a firestorm of stories of how high ranking members of the Democratic Party demanded that ABC pull the broadcast of The Path to 9-11. Immediately there were comparisons to the CBS mini-series about Ronald Reagan, only that time conservatives were the ones screaming that the mini-series was factually inaccurate. The producers called both mini-series "docu-dramas", this is just deceptive term that is only meant to confused viewers into believing that that what they are seeing is actually the truth but sprinkled with enough lies to keep the drama moving forward. I hate this "docu-drama" term, lets stop pretending that this is a "fair and balance" news report. There is no way that the people in charge of the creative process of creating any "work" can remove their personal emotions from their representation of the truth. It's naturally going to be slanted. I personally don't believe that there is anything wrong with that. It's not that hard to understand, imagine the difference if the Passion of the Christ was directed by Rob Reiner rather than Mel Gibson.

I think I am one of the few people in this country that saw both the Reagan and the 9-11 mini-series. One difference I noticed during the entire controversy was the way liberals went about lobbying ABC vs. the way conservatives went after CBS. The Pull the Reagan mini-series was a grass root movement of people who were ready to boycott any advertiser sponsoring the program. The Yank 9-11 Campaign consisted of a few high ranking Democrats and Clinton advisors who threatened ABC's license to broadcast. Not that any of this matter because the real difference between the two shows was that the Reagan mini-series was downright horrible (which is the real reason why CBS pulled it) and The Path to 9-11 was exceptional, probably the best mini-series aired on any broadcast network in decades (which is why ABC aired the program).