Here's a letter I would love to get my hands on

Apparently, Republicans in the House of Representatives have shopper's fatigue. It seems they sent their counterparts a letter urging them to "join a bipartisan effort to overhaul earmarks."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/28/sotu.main/index.html

What could this letter have possibly said?

"Dear Democratic Fools: Now that we've spent the last six years spending our money, your money, our citizens' money, China's money, Saudi Arabia's money, and everybody else on this planet's money in an effort to please the constituency whose votes we more-or-less leased the last twelve years, we believe that the time is right to explore more responsible ways of spending other people's money - and, conveniently, blame you for the fraternity house-like condition the United States Congress currently finds itself. Seeing as you've capitulated on every other ridiculous, un-American and self-defeating piece of legislation we've proposed the last seven years, we feel you would be making a humongous mistake by not joining us in our new effort to restrict government spending while blaming the reckless financial behavior of the past seven years on yourselves. Really, it's a win-win situation: we win the 2008 elections by blaming you guys for every irresponsible thing we've done, and then we win again by enslaving you and the American people to do our bidding for at least another two years! Isn't this a great idea? Get back to us as soon as your spine finishes completely disappearing. Sincerely, The Republican Party ps - see you at the telecom retroactive immunity party next week!!!"

But, seriously, people - check out that article at cnn.com. Not once does CNN point out the irony of these efforts by House Republicans and President Bush to initiate spending restrictions in an election year after having spent five years in control of both houses of congress and driving the national debt to record highs in the process. And for President Bush - the most most free-spending, intoxicated sailor ever to hold office - to call for "unprecedented changes" to the way money is directed to legislators' districts and campaign donors is enough to leave even Al Sharpton speechless. The hypocritical irony of demanding such change from somebody who owes his entire freaking life to the charity of his family, friends and donors is so enormous one must wonder whether or not this irony could get lost even on the feeble wit that is George W. Bush.

If you've ever wanted to see a man out-run a sonic boom -

then it looks like Rambo is the movie for you! In addition to Sly Stallone's fleet-footed achievement, the movie also includes the same reaction shot about seven times in a span of five minutes, which might be a new cinema record. Needless to say, I highly recommend this film.

Prompted by a birthday gift -

Duke Ellington's Blues in Orbit - I began to wonder: is there ever a bad time for the music of Duke Ellington? At work or on vacation, elated or despondent, exhausted or just getting started - is there ever a time or place the man's music is not appropriate?

OK, lemme get this straight:

The Republican Party, since as far back as Father Time can remember, has campaigned on the basis of being the "fiscally responsible" party that doesn't waste taxpayer money. Then, in 2003, when the Republicans finally acquired the kind of power for which they had thirsted since Reconstruction, they proceeded to spend taxpayer money like a bunch of coked-up heiresses on Rodeo Drive. Now, with the rival Democrats having taken back control of both houses of congress from the free-spending (but somehow "fiscally responsible") Republicans, what are the Republican presidential candidates touting as the main reason to elect them? Of course -- responsible spending and budget cuts!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22202301/

I guess it's not a completely unfair platform on which to run; after all, any Republican candidate who happens to win the 2008 election would have to work with a Democratically controlled congress, which, by nature, means vetoing any kind of legislation that does not directly assist the wealthiest 1% of the nation, which in turn allows Republicans to call themselves "fiscally responsible." That said, how could any voter who paid any attention to the way a fully empowered Republican Party spent money from 2003-2007 ever take anything a Republican candidate who talks about "fiscal responsibility" seriously ever again?!!? The evidence is in for all the dumb-fucks to see; choosing to believe that evidence is up to them - which can only mean we're all fucked again. Have a nice day!

Bait & Switch, the Bush Way

Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey, who was once considered a sure thing by many politicians and analysts, could be heading for the exit soon because of one small matter: torture. Simply put, Mukasey refuses to state whether or not he believes waterboarding is a form of torture. Granted, if I were in Mukasey's shoes, I might be a bit hesitant to answer the question as well. By officially pronouncing his belief that waterboarding is torture and, thus, violates the Geneva Conventions as well as the McCain Anti-Torture law, Mukasey might well be obligating himself to prosecute anyone known to have ordered the use of or partcipated in waterboarding, including a couple of guys named George and Dick.

It comes as no surprise, then, that President George W. Bush decided to publicly defend Mukasey's stance on torture as presented at his confirmation hearings. And it comes as even less of a surprise that the President defended his appointee with the logic of a brain-damaged chihuahua as well:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307241,00.html

So that was Bush's best defense? "He doesn't know whether we use that technique or not!" Come again? I thought the question was whether or not Mr. Mukasey believes waterboarding is torture, not whether or not he believes the United States uses the technique in its interrogation process. Besides, I thought just about everybody assumed we use waterboarding by now, so what does that question matter, anyway?!!? I also appreciate the additional "it doesn't make any sense to tell the enemy whether we use those techniques or not" argument. Really? Me thinks it's a safe bet that our enemies aren't expecting their jail cells to come with a box of chocolate and a mini-bar. Oh, yeah - and if they're willing to die for their cause (as many of these extremists are), I don't think an extended holiday at the waterboarding park is going to be useful in getting any information out of them anyway. It is fairly accepted psychology that the two common reactions to being tortured are for the strong to resist completely and for the weak to say anything to stop the pain. Under those conditions, it's probably just as practical to ask these suspected terrorists if they know who the last National League player to hit .400 was (Giants first baseman Bill Terry is the answer, by the way - he hit .401 in 1930). In no universe with which I am familiar does the President's "defense" of Mukasey's torture stance make any sense whatsoever. Unfortunately for all of us, we're stuck in the only known universe in which this complete idiot could ever have become President of, well, anything.

On a side note, the President's refusal to address the true issue at hand here reminds me of something amusing. Follow the link and see if you agree:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BklT7Qy07Is

If you enjoyed that clip, check out this link; it contains the same clip preceeded by four similar clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo7qbzEX3c

What's that? Another Iraq mission fucked up by Bush & Co?

Only this one has the potential to kill 500,000 Iraqis. And you thought Bush didn't care about black people!

Apparently an American mission in Iraq to repair severe damages to the Mosul Dam has been "marred by incompetence and mismanagement." Come again? Something in the Bush administration has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement? If this incompetence and mismanagement didn't have the potential to kill half a million people, I would have to say that it's old news because everything in the Bush administration has been marred by incompetence and mismanagement. Unfortunately, this kind of fuck-up could lead to 65 feet of water pouring into Mosul and 15 feet of water pouring into Baghdad. It would be the perfect icing on the Bush cake of achievement: combining the two biggest blunders of his eight years in office - the killing of thousands of Iraq civilians and the neglect of Hurricane Katrina flood victims in New Orleans - into one gigantic catastrophe!

I don't know about you - and when I say "you" I guess I'm referring to the two or three people who still read this blog and who already think Bush is a complete asshole - but I have to wonder: how can anyone still think Bush is good for anything? Everything he touches - and this is not an exaggeration when I say everything - turns to shit. Everything! Name one exception - I dare you.

The best thing that could happen to George W. Bush is death. A very sudden death. Seriously. And I'm not advocating his murder by any means - the last thing I want him to become is a martyr in anybody's eyes (technically speaking, he couldn't be a martyr because he's never sacrificed anything or endured extreme suffering for any cause, good or bad, a day in his life). No, when I say death is the best thing for George W. Bush I mean this: despite what he says, George W. Bush does care about what people think of him, and the only way people will ever be able to think good of him as he gets older is if he dies in the kind of horrible accident that one wouldn't wish even on his worst enemies. Personally, I hope he lives until the last trickle-down affects of his lies and blunders run their course. It's a nice, comforting thought; unfortunately, nobody lives forever.

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21536128/)

Eureka!

Terry Francona isn't brain-dead, after all. Back in Boston after staying alive by winning the last game in Cleveland, the sometimes clueless Red Sox manager replaced Human Rally Killer Coco Crisp with rookie Jacoby Ellsbury, who paid quick dividends with an RBI single in the third inning. Overall the rookie outfielder went 1-5 with one RBI and one run scored, though he was robbed of a base hit at the end of the fourth inning by Indians centerfielder Grady Sizemore. The important thing is that with two on and one out, Ellsbury did not kill the rally by failing to at least advance the runners in the Red Sox' six-run third inning. Better late than never, Tito!

Just as importantly, old man Schilling reverted back to his old October self, holding the potent Cleveland lineup to two runs over seven innings for the win. The performance improved Schilling's career playoff record to an absurd 10-2 with a 2.23 ERA. And some still aren't convinced he's worthy of the Hall of Fame, which is at least comforting reassurance that the Red Sox are not being managed by the absolute stupidest guy in the world.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!!!

The Boston Red Sox stayed alive in the ALCS earlier tonight by beating the Cleveland Indians 7-1 behind uber-ace Josh Beckett's 5-hit, 11-strikeout masterpiece. When it comes to the task of managing a Beckett-started playoff game, one doesn't exactly have to be rich in the brains department to succeed: in eight career postseason starts (and one relief appearance), Beckett is 5-2 with a 1.79 ERA and three shutouts. It appears even poor Gene Mauch could have won a pennant if he had had the good fortune of managing Josh Beckett.

Red Sox manager Terry Francona, however, did just about everything in his power to screw up what is the easiest managing job in the majors outside of the New York Yankees (sorry, Yanks fans and Joe Torre lovers - if you can't guide a talent-rich, 200 million-dollar payrolled team to at least the ALCS every season, you're doing something dreadfully wrong). Actually, when I say Francona did "everything" to lose the game, I really mean one simple migraine-inducing decision of incredible stupidity: the name he wrote in as his centerfielder on the lineup card before handing it off to the umpire. In short, Francona's insistence on starting Coco Crisp in centerfield tonight - or any night - over rookie Jacoby Ellsbury is so wrong a decision that it could end up costing the Red Sox the pennant. Crisp's one and only function in the Boston lineup is killing potential rallies. Knowing this (assuming he does know this), Francona is displaying the same kind of faith in Coco Crisp - described more accurately this time as loyalty and stubborness - that he displayed in second baseman Mark Bellhorn back in the 2004 playoffs. The only difference - and it is a huge difference - is that Crisp has almost none of the game-breaking potential to reward Francona's faith as Bellhorn did with his erratic but powerful bat. (Francona is displaying this same stubborness and loyalty to some extent with shortstop Julio Lugo, though the alternative there, Alex Cora, isn't nearly as positive as it is in centerfield.) The point is simple: it is time for Francona to ingest some caffeine and wake up to the realization that Crisp is crippling Boston's offense and needs to be removed. Can rookie Jacoby Ellsbury be any worse than Crisp at this point? He hit .353 and stole 9 bases in one month of major league action (prorating at approximately 54 for a full season) and is nearly Crisp's equal as an outfielder. Furthermore, the youngster has shown no problems with pressure situations: the Sox faced the mighty Yankees in the second week of Ellsbury's September call-up, and the kid went 4 of 11 with 4 RBI, 2 SB and a .417 OBP. Again, could he be any worse than Crisp? The evidence says no.

Obviously, taking a veteran outfielder out of the lineup at this stage of the season - even one as young as Crisp - in favor of a rookie is never a comfortable decision for anybody involved. And I almost feel bad for poor Coco - the guy looks absolutely lost at the plate. Unfortunately, this series is not about pitying Coco or any other impotent Boston hitter - it's about winning four games before your opponent does, and it's abundantly clear to everybody on planet Earth except one - the guy who just happens to fill out the lineup card every freakin' day - that Jacoby Ellsbury gives Boston a better chance to win their fourth game before Cleveland does. How much longer do we have to wait, Tito?

BREAKING NEWS: Texas Governor Rick Perry endorses Guiliani for President!

Oh, wait - does anybody really give a shit whom Rick Perry endorses? Come on - he's Rick Perry, Governor of Texas - it's already been proven that anybody can become Governor of Texas, for fuck's sake! Does this mean I should be anxiously awaiting David Lee Roth's endorsement next? Come on, seriously, who really gives a shit - it's Rick Fuckin' Perry, man!!!

So, are we to assume that the 29 previous disasters had no effect whatsoever on your decision here?

Being a baseball fan during the playoffs can be exciting and entertaining; being a Red Sox fan can be as well, though usually the excitement and entertaininment quickly turn to anxiety and despair. And so it went last night at the end of Game 2 of the American League Championship Series in Boston, where the Cleveland Indians went into the top of the eleventh inning tied 6-6 with my *cough* beloved Red Sox. It was at this point that Red Sox manager Terry "Tito" Francona decided do to his best impersonation of former Red Sox manager Grady Little and make a doomed decision so head-explodingly stupid I had to walk out of the house and refuse to watch the rest of the game in protest (and thank goodness I did - but more on that later)

Grady Little, of course, is the manager of the 2003 Boston Red Sox whose decision to leave in an obviously out-of-gas Pedro Martinez is credited with Little's having lost both the series to the Yankees and his own job. I do believe the former charge is true (since the Boston bullpen had been lights-out most of that series), but the latter charge is total crap: Little had mismanaged his pitchers all year long up to and including that infamous Game 7 blunder. Up until Game 7, no Grady Little screw-up had induced more frustration and rage from yours truly than his decision to bring in "closer" Scott Williamson for a fourth straight day to pitch to Oakland in the bottom of the last inning of the decisive Game 5 of the 2003 ALDS. Little's decision was so outrageously moronic that I walked out of the house in protest. My reason was simple: I knew for a fact that Little's decision was doomed to fail, and I refused to watch a good bunch of ball players lose because of one freakin' idiot manager. Sure enough, the exhausted Williamson proceeded to walk the first two batters on eight pitches, thus prompting the slow-learning Little to realize what I had already known since the end of Game 4: that Williamson had been overworked and would be completely ineffective if called upon to pitch in Game 5. The fact that the Sox ended up winning Game 5 after Little brought in habitual miracle worker Derek Lowe is moot; the important point is that Grady Little had committed a strategic baseball sin by bringing in a pitcher that everybody on earth except Grady Little knew was doomed to fail. Which brings us to current Red Sox manager Terry Francona's bone-headed decision in last night's ALCS Game 2.

Here's the situation: it's Game 2 of the ALCS, and Boston has a 1-0 lead in the series. The Red Sox batters roughed up Cleveland ace Fausto Carmona (how can you not love that guy's name, by the way?), but the Cleveland batters did even more damage to Boston's post-season stalwart Curt Schilling. The teams traded leads three or four times and eventually found themselves in a 6-6 tie and completely unable to score off each other's relief pitchers. After receiving two scoreless innings from his best reliever, Jonathan Pappelbon, Boston manager Terry Francona was faced with a critical decision: what pitcher do I send to the mound for the top of the eleventh inning in a best of seven playoff series game? Hmm . . . I imagine this is what was running through his mind:

• I have Javier Lopez, the left-hander who actually pitches better against right-handed hitters and who can go at least two innings.

• Then there's the talented but inconsistent young lefty Jon Lester, who can give me plenty of innings just in case this game goes into a worst-case scenario eighteen innings.

• There's also the sure-to-be controversial choice of the aching, aging knuckleballer Tim Wakefield, who's insertion here would probably force Game 1 starter Josh Beckett to start Game 4 on only three days of rest instead of the customary four days. Then again, the last time Beckett went on three days of rest in the playoffs was with the Florida Marlins in Game 6 of the 2003 World Series, a start that resulted in Beckett's Series-clinching shutout victory and ensuing MVP award!

"Hep me! Hep me!" I just don't know what to do!

Oh, wait, silly me! There's a fourth option:

• Bring in former Dodgers & Rangers closer Erc Gagne (whom the Red Sox acquired in a trade on July 31 - see blog entry from August 30) for his one inning maximum and watch the entire previous ten innings of effort explode in my face! Hey -- this doesn't sound half-bad!!!

Somewhere in America Grady Little had to have been smiling because Francona - defying all logic with his middle finger pointing straight in the face of Red Sox fans everywhere - went with option number four. Upon hearing Gagne's name (as in, "Boston's now got Eric Gagne and Javier Lopez throwing in the bullpen"), I turned to a friend and declared, "Oh, so now the objective is to lose in the playoffs?!!? Putting in Gagne is as good as saying, 'Here, take Game 2. We would rather lose this game immediately than have to play anywhere past the eleventh inning!'" And I said this not because I hate bearded French Canadian relief pitchers with overly stylish eyewear, but because Gagne's previous twenty-nine appearances with the Red Sox did everything but guarantee a Red Sox loss in this situation. Since arriving in Boston, Gagne has been stupifyingly ineffective. He came to the Red Sox with a 2-0 record and 2.16 ERA; since arriving he has gone 2-2 with a 6.75 ERA in twenty-nine appearances. So the question must be asked: did these previous twenty-nine disasters have any effect whatsoever in Francona's decsion to put in a guy who could give him only one inning in the first place? Did Francona look at the numbers for even a split-second before he put in a guy who had loaded the bases in a 10-3 Boston victory one night earlier?!!? Come on, Tito - Charlie Brown couldn't have managed this situation as ineptly as you did! Gagne's brief but horrendous track record in Boston aside, the situation itself calls for a reliever - any reliever - who can give you at least two to three innings just in case the game goes beyond the eleventh inning. Putting in Gagne is the equivalent of telling Indians manager Eric Wedge, "We're ending this game right here, right now" - and then putting a gun to the heads of his hitters and saying, "All right, guys - let's go out there and score three runs or more or we lose the game!" Thanks for the options, Tito.

Well, even I couldn't have foreseen just how disastrous Francona's decision would be. By the time I returned from a lovely Iate-night stroll the Indians had, just as I predicted, won the game - by a final score of 13-6. 13-6!!!!! The final line on the absolutely ineffective Gagne was 0.1IP, 1H, 1 BB, 2 ER. Actually, Javier Lopez entered the game after Gagne and proved to be even less effective than Gagne by allowing three runs while getting nobody out (0IP, 2H, 1BB, 3ER). Lopez' performance is moot, however, because he was, based on both pitchers' performances leading up to this game, still the more logical choice. The most important part of this gigantic implosion - no, make that the only important part of this gigantic implosion - is Terry Francona's inexplicable decision to bring in his absolute worst pitcher in a situation as critical as the eleventh inning of a tie game in the playoffs. It simply amazes me how some managers seem to learn absolutely nothing from experience and, thus, proceed to make the same mistakes time after time after time after time after time after time after time . . .

Yes, somewhere in America Grady Little is smiling.