About Me

Name: Charles Mudgeon
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Baseball Season Starts? So What!

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Saturday, March 31, 2007 8:51:36 AM
For, lo, the winter is past,
The rain is over and gone;
The flowers appear on the earth;
The time of the singing of birds is come,
And the voice of the turtle is heard in our land.

With these words Detroit Tigers' Hall of Fame broadcaster Ernie Harwell opened the first baseball game each season.  Another baseball season starts Sunday.  And I don't give a rip.  I don't care who will win the World Series - someone will tell about it in December, just after the season ends.

"He doesn't drink; he doesn't smoke; he doesn't gamble; he doesn't stay out late with women.  He still can't hit."  -  Casey Stengel

The time was when I could spout off the starting line-ups for the Yankees, Dodgers and Giants; tell you who the starting pitcher would be next Tuesday for each team and who would be on the mound opposing them.  No more.  The time was when the Yankees were a 90% home grown team instead of buying their talent from the teams who developed it.  The time was when you knew the best player on your favorite team would be there next year.  No more.

"I lost the ball in the sun."  -  Dodgers pitcher Billy Lowes commenting on why he muffed a bunt that was rolling back to the mound.

The time was when I looked forward to going to Forbes Field in Pittsburgh three or four times a week to watch Roberto Clemente, Bill Mazeroski, Smokey Burgess, Dick  Stuart (The Original Dr. Strangeglove) and others play ball.  No more.  I could go to Forbes Field for a month for the price of one ticket today.

"The Giants win the pennant.  The Giants win the pennant.  The Giants win the pennant.  The Giants win the pennant."  -   Giants' boradcaster Russ Hodges after Bobby Thompson hit "the  home run heard 'round the world" in September of 1951.

The time was when I could watch Mickey, Willie and the Duke play centerfield in the same afternoon.  Now I wouldn't walk across the street to watch Andruw, Junior or Juan Pierre.

"HEY, OISK, YA BUM, YA"  -  Unknown Dodgers fan at Ebbets Field in Brooklyn yelling at Dodgers pitcher Carl Erskine.  ("Oisk" being Brooklyn-speak for Erskine who was one of the Dodgers better pitchers at the time.  It didn't matter to the fan.)

The time was when I eagerly listened to the words of baseball broadcasters Rosie Rosewell (Doing play-by-play of a Pirates away game via ticker tape.), Mel Allen, Red Barber, Russ Hodges, Bob Prince, Jack Brickhouse, Ernie Harwell, Harry Caray, Jack Buck, Vin Scully, Dizzy Dean, Don Drysdale, and on and on.  The new crop of play-by-play guys are very professional, very articulate and very bland.

 "Think! How the hell are you gonna think and hit at the same time?"  -  Yogi Berra

The time was when baseball was the national pastime.  Now it has past its time.  Baseball is a radio game in a television age.  Baseball is a slow lazy game in a high speed world.  Players used to spend the off-seasons working in the town where they played.  They were part of the community.  Now they sell their autographs.  Record holders used to be admired.  Now record holders are under a cloud of suspicion - did they cheat, or didn't they?

"He slides into second with a stand-up double."  -  Jerry Coleman, voice of the San Diego Padres

I liked it better before.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

I Hate Bill Gates - Bless His Heart

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:14:15 AM
"He is a solemn, unsmiling, sanctimonious old iceberg who looks like he is waiting for a vacancy in the Trinity."  Mark Twain had a way with words, didn't he?

And how, 100 years before the fact, could he have so perfectly described one Mr. William Gates?  Don't get me wrong, I am in awe of Bill Gates.  He (Microsoft) has not only made my life easier, in many way he has made my life possible.  I have made told amounts of money with the aid of his products.  Billy Gates is my hero.

Today, I would gladly pinch his head off.

For today I find myself in a predicament that has befallen me far more often than I believe necessary.  Today I had to buy a new computer.

When it comes to computers, I am not ignorant, but I'm not an idiot savant either - at least not the savant part.  So off  I go to the computer place to have the nice man explain all the wonderful new stuff to me - you know, all the great technological advances that have come about since the last time I needed a new computer so short a time ago.

Since then my buddy, Mr. Gates, has come up with a new operating system.  Ta-Da: Vista.  I asked about all the whiz-bang new features.  The nice man couldn't have looked more perplexed if I had asked about his last root canal.  "New features?" he said, "Vista don't need no stinking new features."

In answer to what seemed to me to be a logical question, that is, why do I need Vista?  I was told I need it because nothing else is available.  Oh.

Then I discovered that Vista does indeed have a new feature:  almost nothing from my current computer, no matter how recently purchased, will work with Vista.  Products bought especially for the most recent Microsoft operating system, Windows XP (about five years old), will not work with the newest Microsoft operating system.  So in addition to buying a new computer, I got to spend approximately twice as much money on new software items - most of which were Microsoft products.  Yippee!

Is that impressive, or what?  It's way past planned obsolescence into guaranteed obsolescence.  Am I upset about being forced to buy more than I think I should need?  Sure am.  But I have to marvel at the sheer genius that makes it happen.

And don't come whining to me about a monopoly.  A monopoly can't be sustained without government assistance and support.  Microsoft is a smart, efficient, cut-throat business that must stay smart and efficient or some other geek working in a garage will come along and take their cookies (pun intended).

So get upset about Microsoft; gripe about Bill Gates; but if you can't appreciate and accept the free market in all its glory, don't pretend to be a capitalist or a conservative.  Microsoft does things better and smarter than anyone else.  And until they collapse under the weight of their immense size, Bill Gates will remain the bigwig in my toupee factory.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jim Webb and the Sorcerers Stones

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:27:29 AM
WASHINGTON - Congressional Democrats are in turmoil after alert Capitol Police uncovered an apparent coup attempt spearheaded by Senator Jim "Che" Webb, head of the infamous Macaca guerrilla fighters.

Phillip Thompson, an aide to Senator Webb who plays second-fiddle in the guerrilla band, was stopped attempting to smuggle arms into the Russell Senate Office Building by surreptitiously concealing them in an Anna Nichole Smith blowup doll.  The bomb squad later determined the doll to contain an M-16 rifle, three IEDs, a rocket launcher and, of course, a couple of bazookas.

At first, Thompson, who initially claimed to be Cynthia McKinney, said the weapons were merely an attempt to restore second amendment rights to the District of Columbia.  But even Thompson couldn't keep a straight face while making this assertion, since Democrats are to the second amendment as frisbees are to peanut butter.

Thompson later confessed that the second amendment ploy was an attempt to give Senator Webb plausible deniability - plausible in the sense that Webb is a gun owner; deniable in the sense that lefties never take responsibility for anything.

To date, Webb, who apparently fled on foot, has not made any comment about the incident.  At this writing it is assumed he is either scouring the Middle East for additional munitions, or has taken up residence at Gitmo.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Wii, Wii, Wii - All the Way Home

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, March 26, 2007 9:17:38 AM
Once again Sunday morning I left the house in search of a Nintendo Wii.  Once again I returned home without one.  This has been going on in one form or another since last November.  My daughter, Calamity, even went to a store at 1:30 in the morning shortly before Christmas in a fruitless attempt to secure one for me.  (Given one's upbringing, one would have thought one would have more sense.)  As Winston Churchill once said, probably not about the Wii, "This is a situation up with which I shall no longer put."

The trip out the door Sunday morning was inspired by a Circuit City newspaper ad.  The ad said they had a minimum of ten Wii consoles per store in stock, and that vouchers would be passed out one hour before the store opened - that would be 9:00 am.  I arrived at the store with my wife, Mrs. Bubbles Mudgeon, about ten minutes till nine.  Woo-woo!!  There were only four people waiting at the door.  With a minimum of ten consoles per store, I thought my long national nightmare was finally over.

Well, that's what I get for thinking.  After conversing amicably with my fellow Wii-wanters for a few minutes, someone ventured out from inside the store with the news that the vouchers had been given out at 7:00 Sunday morning - two hours earlier.  The Wiis were kaput.  The weary woebegone Wii-wanters went wandering away without a Wii once again.

Something is wrong here.  There are reports that Nintendo sold 350,000 Wii consoles in February - and there is still a shortage.  A free market economy does not work in this manner.  It's being tampered with.  But how?

Fifty years ago there were "fair trade laws."  This was an intrusion by government into the free market economy.  In theory, the fair trade laws made it possible for smaller retailers to compete with the retail giants by allowing manufactures to set minimum prices on some items.  In practice, consumers got to pay up to 20% more than they would have otherwise.  Surprise.  But eventually, even after being given anti-trust exemptions, the laws were deemed unconstitutional.  Government was thrown out of the marketplace - at least in this instance.

With the advent of video game systems, however, I ask you this question:  Be it Nintendo, Playstation or Xbox, have you ever seen any major retailer price a video game system more or less than than a competitor?  I haven't.  They may vary by a few cents, but in general the pricing is constant.

Why?

Somewhere there is an anti-capitalist in the woodpile.  Either the manufactures are setting the prices of the consoles and threatening to cut off the products from the retailers if they don't comply; or the retailers are fixing the prices amongst themselves.  Philosophically, I have no problem either way, as long as the government doesn't put its greasy paws in the mix - but it does explain the shortages.

If the market place were allowed to function, the price of the Wii would have been allowed to rise as the pressures of supply and demand took effect.  Today the price of the Wii may well be more than I'd be willing to pay, but at least the option would be mine because they would be available.  As things stand now, I have no say in the matter.

And I'm getting a Wii bit annoyed.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hot Air, Al Gore and Global Warming

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Friday, March 23, 2007 8:30:45 AM
If you rearrange the letters in Al "Greensleeves" Gore Jr.'s name, you can spell hypocrite.  Not really, I am speaking metaphorically, or metaphysically, or Al-Gore-ically,.... something.

The thing is, Mr. Gore would like us all to behave in ways that he, himself, will not do.  We should cut back on anything that increases carbon emissions in the atmosphere.  His own electric bill is ten times that of the average person, but he says he buys offsets so he is really carbon neutral.  That's like me saying that I spend ten times as much as I earn, but I put the excess on credit cards so I'm really fiscally neutral.

Nevertheless, the ex-vice president is big in the environmental movement.  Given his current weight, he'd be big in any movement - including bowel.  But the environmentalists love him.  They are positively Gore-gasmic.  It doesn't seem to bother the greenies that Gore tends to exaggerate just the wee tiniest bit.  He claims the oceans will rise 20 feet in the next hundred years - methinks he's out-kicked his coverage on this one.  The next highest estimate - this by some scientists, one of which Gore isn't - is about two feet.  Again he's high by a factor of ten.  So if Gore had reported on the Ten Commandments, he would have insisted there were 100.  I have all I can do handling ten.

In the next 15-20 years, China will increase its coal usage by one billion tons per year.  In terms of carbon in the atmosphere, that is the equivalent of an extra three billion full size SUVs on the road.  Are the greenies ragging on China?  Nooooo.  They want you to lower your standard of living, while they pretend China doesn't present any problem.

Put it this way, if a city the combined size of New York and Los Angeles were to dump raw sewage into a river and some campers were to fertilize an area near their campsite, the greenies would be railing against the campers and ignoring the city's pollution.  In the overall picture, how much damage is being done by the campers when compared to what the city is doing?  As my sainted grandmother used to say, "About as much as a chicken, ..um, urinates."  Grandma was somewhat more colloquial when she said it.

Will there be a problem with global warming over the next hundred years?  I don't know and neither do you.  But apparently a computer model says yes.  You should be reminded, however, that a computer forecast is responsible for telling you what your weather will be three days from now.  How's that working out for you?  And there are literally dozens of computer models guessing at the forecast.  How does anyone know which, if any, is right?  Or even closest?  And you expect me to believe that one specially selected computer model can accurately predict the conditions in 100 years?  Really?  Are you kidding me?

Just as an aside, when you test the computer model that has predicted disaster in 100 years by using data from the past, it doesn't come up with what actually happened.  So I wouldn't bet the ranch that it will be correct about conditions 100 years from now.

Al Gore reminds me of the army commander who addresses his troops before a big battle.  He talks about how dangerous the mission is; how the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against them; about the impending loss of life.  But he also talks about how proud he is of them; how much the battle plan - indeed the country - is counting on them; how much he has enjoyed fighting along side them.  Knute Rockne would have been pleased.  But the last words he said were: "I'm just sorry I can't go with you."

My advice to you:  Whenever a politician, or any other self-professed leader, asks you to sacrifice your standard of living (or anything else) for the "greater good"  - especially when he is breaking the rules he has set down for you - run.  Run as fast and as far as you can.  But run.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bucket and Universal Health Care

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:58:24 AM

My granddaughter, Bucket - if you think you know how she got her name, you are probably wrong - anyway, Bucket is 16 and starting to take tests in school that will make her eligible for various kinds of college scholarships.  On a recent test an essay type question said:  The government should provide health care for everyone.  Do you agree or disagree?  Take either side and explain your position.

Oh, my; oh, dear.  Bucket chose to agree.  My daughter, Calamity - if you think you know how she got her name, you are probably right - Calamity was aghast, dismayed even.  Where had she gone wrong, she wondered?  Had she failed as a mother?  What was to become of Bucket?  And on, and on, and on.

So I decided to speak to Bucket, "BUCKET!!!"

"Yes, oh great and wise Grandfather Mudgeon dear?"  Bucket is nothing if not a good judge of character.

"I got some 'splainin' to do to you, child," I said.  And I proceeded to tell her why she was flirting with the possibility of becoming an endangered species if she didn't grasp a couple of concepts rather quickly.

Bucket works at a golf course during the summer months.  Eighteen holes of golf costs $85.00.  "Suppose," I said, "the government decided that there where too many people who wanted to play golf, but couldn't afford those prices as often as they wanted to play.  And suppose the government said that everyone should be able to play golf at a nice golf club at prices they could afford.  And the government decides that a fair price would be $10.00.  If golfers only had to pay $10.00 to play eighteen holes of golf, how many golfers do you think would show up on Saturday morning?"

"Oh great and wise Grandfather Mudgeon dear, we'd have golfers up the ying-yang."  Okay, Bucket didn't say ying-yang, I said ying-yang.  But she would have said ying-yang if she weren't one of the more refined members of the family.  We're working on that, too.

"And what," I asked, "about the people who can afford to play anytime they wish and who now must compete for a tee time with the masses?"

"They are up Schmidt's Creek without a paddle (I know, that isn't the way you heard it.), oh great and wise Grandfather Mudgeon dear,"  Bucket correctly said.

"Where is the government going to get the money to pay the golf course the difference between $10.00 and $85.00?  They will start a payroll tax and everybody will get to contribute, even if they don't play golf.  And don't forget, we have to protect the public against greedy golf courses who might claim more golfers than actually played.  There must be regulations, paperwork and oversight to insure that public money isn't wasted.  With these added costs, what do you think will happen to the price of eighteen holes of golf?"

"Well, oh great and wise Grandfather Mudgeon dear, the price will get bigger than Al Gore."

"Exactly," I said. "So now what do you think about government messing with the free market system?"

"Well, oh great and wise Grandfather Mudgeon dear, it looks like it produces shortages, higher prices and a bureaucracy.  Fundamentally, it sucks."

"Welcome back to the family, my child."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hillary 1984

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, March 19, 2007 11:04:09 AM
Those of you with enough gray hair and who have teeth long enough may remember a particular 1964 attack ad by Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater called "Daisy."  For the benefit of you youngsters, it showed a little girl picking the petals off a daisy.  As the petals are removed, a voice-over kicks in saying, "Four-Three-Two-One."  This was followed by a scene of a nuclear explosion. The message was clear:  Vote for Barry Goldwater and this is in your future.

Until this morning, I thought it was the most effective political attack ad ever made.

Now I've seen "Hillary 1984" which is supposedly unauthorized by the Barack Obama campaign.  It's based on the Apple Computer ad that aired during the 1984 Super Bowl.  You can watch the Hillary ad here:

There are at least two very interesting points about the ad.  First, the Barack Obama campaign claims not to know anything about the ad or who made it, even though the ad concludes with the logo: "BarackObama.com."  As Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes used to say, "I know nothing."  It should also be pointed out that no one from Senator Obama's campaign has made an effort either to find out who made it or to disavow the content of the ad.  As one political consultant said, "They get to call Hillary Clinton a pabulum-spewing pseudo-fascist, without having to own it."

Secondly, it will be interesting to see how the Clinton campaign handles the whole thing.  If they complain loudly and often, they will bring more attention to the ad which, so far at least, is confined to viewers on the Internet.  Bringing additional publicity to this 74 second spot could prove to be disastrous - the ad is devastating.  On the other hand, to ignore it would be to let it fester in the ethos, gathering momentum on the force of its own effectiveness.  Quite a dilemma for the senator from New York.

It couldn't happen to a more worthy person.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How to Little Bunny Foo Foo the Lefties

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Friday, March 16, 2007 5:14:27 PM
The quickest way to win any verbal conflict with lefties, if you remember the words to Little Bunny Foo Foo, is to scoop 'em up and bop 'em on the head.  But invariably this method violates some sort of ordinance, so it is not recommended.  And since the whole "nation of laws" thing comes into play, I suggest moving to the second best approach.

Before getting to that, it is necessary to understand how lefties will attack if you are so brazen as to actually question what they say.  They realize the quickest way to win a verbal dispute is either to keep their opponents from talking at all, or to define the words of the opponent to suit themselves.  If they can keep you from talking, they win.  If they can define your words, they can restate the argument so that you can easily be defeated.

Recently, Vice President Cheney had the gall to criticize Nancy Pelosi's stand on the war in Iraq.  Did she engage Cheney in a rational debate?  No.  Did she discuss her position and why she believes it to be correct?  No.  What she did was throw a fit claiming Cheney had questioned her patriotism.  The highlight of the fit was a visual display something akin to a rain dance.  The goal was to silence Cheney --  either by embarrassing him into not talking about it anymore, or forcing him to paw the ground with one foot and say, "Golly, gee, I certainly wasn't implying that you don't love your country."  No matter which way it goes, she wins.  Either her policies aren't being challenged anymore, or the subject has been changed away from her policies in such a way to make the other guy look bad.

And now all of a sudden, President Bush can't replace his own political appointees.  Eight U.S. Attorneys were fired for performance or policy reasons.  No laws were broken, no ethics rules were violated.  But oh my, oh dear, the world is about to collapse around us.  The decibel levels increase as the Democrats give out banshee cries about (sit down now and cover the eyes of your children) POLITICS.  Imagine, politics, in Washington D.C., whoever heard of the like?  And once again the administration is on the defensive.  "Oh no, not us, politics?  No, no.  We wouldn't do that.  And we're sorry we didn't tell the world about everything we did, or thought about doing, even though we didn't have to."  And they continue to apologize and grovel when there is no need.

Why do the lefties do it?  Because there is no price for them to pay.  They can continue to make outrageous statements and no one puts them on the defensive or pushes them at all.

The answer is rather simple:  Don't shut up; don't let the subject be changed; don't grovel -- attack.

When Nancy Pelosi say her patriotism is being questioned, the response ought to be:  You bet your heinie, sweet cheeks.  Anyone whose policies give aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war needs to have her patriotism questioned.  And anyone with such policies who professes to support our fighting men and women should be recognized for what she is: an hypocrite.  And if you think you can defend yourself, we'd like to hear it -- without all the whining about your feelings being hurt.

As for the U.S. Attorneys, the president should say, "Politics, you bet.  And you guys should recognize it when you see it, because you have made it a science.  But understand, these were my appointees, I can keep them or dismiss them or trade them in for a peach smoothie if I chose.  It's none of your concern.  Get back to work for the people of this country and try to do something positive, because you aren't getting anyone from the administration to be a whipping boy at one of your hearings."

Make the price go up.  Whenever they come off the wall with some asinine smoke screen, call them on it; don't allow the subject to be changed; verbally bop 'em on the head.  Make Little Bunny Foo Foo proud.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Perfect Presidential Candidate (Part B - The Democrats)

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 3:46:37 PM
The last time we met, Dr. Mudgeonstein took some pieces-parts from several Republican presidential candidates in order to assemble the perfect candidate.  In fairness, and by jingo by jango we're all about fairness here, I should do the same for the Democrats.

From Hillary Rotten Clinton..... How's that?..... It isn't?........ Are you sure?...... Okay.  From Hillary Rodham Clinton we'll use the ability to inspire the fanatical 20% of the population who think her husband can walk on water.  You know, the people who think if she is elected that Bill will become the proxy-president - the guy who, by osmosis, will infuse her with the ability to charm folks.

Barack Insane Obama...... What?...... Again?....... And he actually prefers that?..... Very well.  Barack Hussein Obama will provide the leadership skills that he got that one time when sat in as chairman of the local PTA.  And don't forget his ability to speak for hours on end, sounding great, without actually saying anything.

Al "Greensleeves" Gore, who insists that size really does matter, is a mountain of ecological guidance.  He would only agree to run for the presidency if can replace William Howard Taft as the jumbo-daddy of all presidents - so far, so good.  At present, the only question is whether his carbon footprint will be larger than his actual footprint.

Physical fitness can come from John "The Preacher" Edwards.  Chasing ambulances certainly builds up the wind - which he can also supply in cyclonic proportions.

John "Swifty" Kerry can donate fiscal responsibility.  Whenever the budget needs balanced, he can just marry someone with enough money to cover the problem.

Joe "Your Speech Is My Speech" Biden can chip in the integrity part of the candidate.  It's been 20 years since he, uh, borrowed a campaign speech.  I sure he has learned to cover his tracks better since then.

A calming influence for the country can be extracted from Bill "Mr. Excitement" Richardson.  There are some legal questions to be settled, of course, before any part of him could take office.  When he walks into a room, he may well infringe on the patent for Prozac.

Dennis Kucinich?  As another lefty, John McEnroe, once said, "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!"

Showing us all how to just get along, Al "Strom" Sharpton, can show us what we can learn from history - and how to make a very big stink about it.

There you have it.  When Dr. Mudgeonstein combines all the best traits from these Democrats to come up with the perfect presidential nominee, something becomes very clear:  Like unicorns and ex-U.S. Marines, there ain't no such thing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Perfect Presidential Candidate (Part A - The Republicans)

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Saturday, March 10, 2007 3:54:40 PM
No one seems totally happy with the choice of Republican presidential candidates for the '08 election.  Okay, fine, maybe Dr. Mudgeonstein can help.  I'll take the best attributes of a few of the guys and see if we can do better.

We'll start with Mitt Romney.  Let's use his body to begin.  The guy looks like a president.  And we'll take liberal (you should pardon the expression) portions of his organizational skill and his executive ability.  He put together the 2002 Winter Olympics and they came off pretty well - plenty of experience making boat-loads of money and running a state, too.

From Rudy Giuliani we'll take leadership ability.  Anybody remember September 11, 2001?  Mr. Giuliana did a fine job dealing with the situation, as I recall.  Then we'll mix in plenty of his feisty, take-no-crap-from-nobody chutzpah.  Eight years of watching Rudy swinging from the lip would be fun - well worth the price of admission.

And don't forget Newt Gingrich.  A successful president would need his political savvy and seemingly unlimited supply of fresh ideas.  Handfuls of Newt must be mixed in.

John McCain will provide the military background that brings understanding and balance to the use of deadly power.  Additionally, we will scoop up the sense of humor that endeared him to so many during the 2000 campaign.

Next throw in the conservative and traditional values of Mike Huckabee.  That should provide a philosophically sound foundation any Republican could support.

For personal warmth and sincerity, let's sprinkle in a few cups of Fred Thompson.  How can anyone not like Fred Thompson on a personal level.

So there you have it.  Dr. Mudgeonstein's perfect presidential candidate.  If your favorite guy didn't make the mix,  refer to Mike Huckabee.  He's the  representative of all the players who are more likely to shave their heads and go into rehab than be nominated for president.

You probably wish there was a real live person who has all of the above traits.  Someone you could really get behind and support with all your heart.  Well, there is.  But since I'm a semi-professional recluse, I'm not available.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Libby vs. Machiavelli

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Friday, March 09, 2007 5:02:52 PM
Every group having a chain of command or a perceived authority structure has a Machiavellian political component.  This is true of government offices, military commands, businesses or even a high school boosters' club.

The group may have a written mission statement or goals that are assumed without being formally addressed.  But the Machiavellian political component is always running just below the surface - and it is never talked about.  The prime objective of the political component is the perpetuation of the group and the people in the group.  If mission statements or other goals are achieved, terrific, but such things are secondary to any other aim.

Protecting your heinie from danger up the food chain, down the food chain and from outside dangers is paramount.  Protecting the heinies of those up the food chain is a close second - after all they are the people who can best protect you.  Plausible deniability works well here.  Next comes making yourself look good, mainly to those up the food chain, but also to outsiders.  You never know when an outsider may be able to help you.  And those residing in the hierarchy must also be made to look good.  They control your ability to gain wealth and power, and can provide access to wealth and power.

Of course the Machiavellian political component of any group has a corrupting influence:  policies may be bent or even spindled and mutilated; backs may be stabbed; laws may be broken.  But as the political component of the group grows, the mission of the group fades.

In business groups, the free market tends to keep the political component held in check.  If corruption pressures on the trinity of service, quality and price go too far and disturbs the delicate balance, the business will fail.

But such corruption in government at any level is calamitous.  Without free market competition to harness a runaway political component, the stated goals become secondary, even inconsequential.  Machiavelli is in his glory.

And so we come to Scooter Libby who was convicted of lying when he had no reason to lie about a crime that didn't happen.  Did he lie, or did he simply mislead, or was he just forgetful about some dates and conversations?  I don't know.  But I an certain Machiavelli was at work.  I've seen it too many times not to recognize it.  Follow the prime directive.  Protect the group.  Protect those up the food chain.  Make the group look good at any cost.  Attack those who would harm the group.  Policies, ethics or the law be damned - the prime directive is all that is important.

It's all instinct.  No orders are given.  None are needed.  Fix the problem, whether real or perceived. 

Scooter Libby was caught in one Machiavellian political component while being attacked by another.  Is he guilty of anything worth prosecuting?  Probably not.  Nevertheless he faces years in jail for playing the game that has been second nature to him for decades.  Millions of dollars were spent to catch Scooter zigging when he ought to have been zagging.

The republic is safe.  Everyone can rejoice.  Scooter Libby has been found guilty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Conservative vs. Republican

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Thursday, March 08, 2007 7:39:45 PM
The words "conservative" and "Republican" are not interchangeable.  Conservative denotes a philosophy, while Republican identifies an individual's approach to managing the affairs of government.

Philosophies such as conservative or liberal cannot be corrupt - bankrupt, as in the case of the liberal philosophy, but not corrupt.  A Republican (or Democrat) is perfectly capable of being corrupt.

A practicing conservative is one who believes in limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense, property rights and personal responsibility (not necessarily in the order).  A conservative believes that the U. S. Constitution is, to date, the best framework for delivering a government that will meet these goals - best, that is with the possible exceptions of the sixteenth, seventeenth and twenty-second amendments.  (You can look them up yourself.)

A practicing liberal is one who believes that government is the best answer to most problems, income redistribution and that the group - any group - takes precedence over the individual.

Today people identify themselves as some sort of hyphenated conservative.  They claim to be a fiscal-conservative, a social-conservative , a neo-conservative, etc., etc., etc.  Bull.  You are either conservative or you aren't.  And the hyphenated conservatives are muddying the definition of the philosophy.

I refer you to Barry Goldwater.  What did they call him again?  Oh, yes, it was Mr. Conservative.  And Mr. Conservative said he couldn't for the life of him see what abortion had to do with conservatism.  Praise be Mr. Conservative.

You see, abortion is a moral issue.  And the approach to moral issues can be broken down to these: Traditional and Progressive.  For the most part, and with few exceptions, moral issues are not the proper function of government.  Which is not to say that most people with traditional moral values are not conservative, they are.  And for the most part, I'm right there with them, but traditional values are not part of conservatism.

But Republicans will pander to conservatives and traditionalists; and Democrats will pander to liberals and progressives progressives for the purpose of keeping themselves in power.  Democrats want to control you by controlling your income - either by limiting your earnings through taxes or by increasing your income through some from of handouts.  Republicans, on the other hand choose to control you by controlling your behavior.  But the key is keeping themselves in power by somehow controlling you.

So I'm calling myself a conservative and promptly go about alienating Republicans and traditionalists.  Yep, afraid so.

And then I go about alienating liberals, Democrats and progressives.  Yep, hope so.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Coulter vs. Maher

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, March 05, 2007 7:56:05 PM
On my way out of Sam's Club this morning, I was given at no charge a free gift that didn't cost me a thing.  It was a roll of toilet paper.  I asked the young lady, I'm paraphrasing now, if it was an editorial comment concerning the perceived overflow status of my colorectal tract.  If so, it was not an original thought.

Surly Ann Coulter and Bill Maher have been accused of having the same condition from time to time.  Over the weekend both made headlines, although the Coulter headlines had been louder than the Maher headlines.

Ann Coulter said that, I'm paraphrasing now, she wouldn't talk about John Edwards because she would have to go into rehab if she said the f-word.  She actually used the f-word but I'm trying not to offend anybody.  However, so you know what it is that you're not being offended about - after all it could be f**, f***, f**** or f***** - I will clarify by telling you that she said f*****.  You could call John Edwards a slimy, ambulance-chasing candy-butt, however, technically, f***** does not apply.  Still, you ought to think about showering after seeing or hearing him.

Bill Maher said that, I'm paraphrasing now, the world would be safer and more people would be alive in the future if Vice President Cheney had been killed by the bomb in Afghanistan recently.  He said it was a fact.  That previous part about showering?  You might oughta try it when exposed to Mr. Maher, too.

Did they both have a right to say what they said.  Absolutely.  Please refer to the first amendment to the United States Constitution.  Were their remarks meant as jokes?  Coulter, yes; Maher, no.  Do they both need a regulator of some kind installed in their noggins to allow them time to analyze the consequences before they open their yaps?  Yep.  Will their individual constituencies react the same way towards each of them?  Oh my. no.

Conservatives have already  jumped on  Ann Coulter like she was a tackling dummy.  They were embarrassed; they thought she perpetuated the myth that conservatives are a hate-filled, mean-spirited bunch.  Some suggesting she apologize; others that she not be invited to speak at conservative functions in the future.  Actually, she has apologized - sort of.  She said that she would never insult gays by saying that they are like John Edwards.  That, she said, would be mean.

On the other hand, I've heard not one rebuff of Bill Maher by any liberal politician or news outlet.  Except for conservative outlets, I wouldn't have heard about it at all.

Don't tell me there aren't different standards of judgment by the lefties.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »