What Energy Policy?

Hello again reader. I trust everyone is slowly going bankrupt buying gas for your SUV.
Today's post concerns the current spike in US gas prices and a report published today by Reuters.
I have been reading the news again (always a bad sign) and came across a report published by Reuters entitled "Americans at 'tipping point' about energy-poll". The report, written by Lisa Lambert, states that in a poll of 1000 Americans conducted by Public Agenda Confidence, nearly half of those surveyed gave the government a failing grade when it comes to weaning the US off of foreign oil. It also stated that 90% of those surveyed thought that US foreign oil dependence was a threat to national security. The poll also found that 85% believe that the government could do something about foreign oil dependence if they (the gov't) really wanted to. It also found that those worried that foreign conflict could cut off the supply of oil to the US rose from 42% in August 2005 to 55% currently. The report goes on to say that Americans are now as concerned about the issue of foreign oil dependency as they are about the war in Iraq. The report defines the "tipping point" as being when the public is "...gravely concerned about an issue and believes the government has the ability to change matters."
So, what does all this mean? What it means is that the American public is finally getting pissed off enough to start demanding action on the issue from the government. It also means that the current US energy policy is a miserable failure.
The energy policy, combined with the hurricane-related production problems, and the White House's inability to figure out that if you piss off all of the Arabs they might stop sending us oil (or at least may raise the price), has lead to a current (as of today) pump price of $2.51 for regular unleaded (Nat'l Avg., Source: AAA). When you combine all of that with the fact that the government's inaction on the problem has allowed the oil companies, through a program of flimsy excuses and price gouging, to make record profits, you begin to see why the public is regarding this as a problem worth getting angry about.
Will this public outcry cause the government to do anything about oil? No, absolutely not. The Bush Energy Policy, designed specifically to enrich Bush and Cheney's oil buddies and impoverish the American public, does not begin do enough to encourage domestic exploration for oil, let alone encourage the development of viable oil alternatives. In short, Bush's Energy Policy is one of retaining the status quo at the expense of destroying the economy and impoverishing the average American.
Can the US break free of foreign oil dependence? The answer is a resounding "yes". However, the solution to breaking free of foreign oil will take a somewhat radical change in governmental policy and the public's attitudes regarding conservation. First, the government would need to stop being big oil's "bitch" and start enforcing existing laws regarding deceptive business practices and price gouging. Once that is done, then the government would need to start encouraging or "incentivising" the development of alternative fuels. From there, the government would need to encourage the American public to change their attitude when it comes to things like conservation and hybrid vehicles. Without a change of attitude on the part of the American public, all the governmental policies in the world will not change the current situation. However, without the government encouraging that change of attitude, the American public will continue to drive SUVs and complain about oil prices rising and then wonder why. Finally, we all need to realize that as long as big oil continues to control its puppet in the White House, NONE of these changes will take place.
So, how do we change? 1. Get rid of Bush and his big oil friendly policies. 2. Call your Senator and Representative and demand to talk to him or her directly (remember, they work for you, and you can demand to talk to them) and tell them to promote a consumer friendly energy policy (as opposed to the current policy). 3. Trade in the Escalade or Navigator and get a hybrid (Lexus even has a hybrid SUV now!). And 4. Start to practice good oil conserving techniques (you can find these by Googling "Conserving oil" or similar)
If you start doing these things, not only will oil prices begin to come down, but you may also start to see side benefits such as cleaner air (eliminating the need for emissions testing in your area), and more spending money in your pocket!
I am Chuck and if you don't want to change your attitude toward oil conservation, then don't bitch about the price at the pump!

Where's The Savings?

Hello again readers. I hope everyone is doing well.
Today's post concerns the debate on illegal immigration currently going on in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The title of the post is a play on an old telephone commercial tagline.
As you may or may not know, there is currently a new immigration bill before both the House and Senate. The House version of the bill would make being in the US as an illegal immigrant a felony, would impose stiff penalties on companies who hire illegal immigrants, and would fence 1/3rd of the US-Mexican border. The Senate version is a little softer, decreasing the penalties for being in this country illegally (vs the House vers.), offering a way for illegals to become US citizens, and, essentially, creating a "guest worker" program. It also contains the provision for fencing the border.
The House version of the bill was passed ostensibly to aid the government in addressing the drain on limited social welfare resources. It is said by some House version proponents that, eventhough a great number of illegals work and pay their taxes, the illegals are a massive drain on social programs such as Medicaid. Ok, fine, if that is the case, then why not just send every illegal immigrant you catch back to his or her country of origin? Why make it a felony to be in the US illegally? Is it that much cheaper to take a productive (meaning employed and taxpaying) illegal off the streets and house him in a federal penitentiary? If these people are an economic drain by utilizing programs such as Medicaid while working, won't they be a greater economic drain if they are locked up and not working?
The penalties for hiring illegal immigrants are a bit unrealistic also. Right now, the going price for a head of lettuce in my area is $1-$2 depending upon the store. If these penalties are enforced, the illegals ejected or imprisoned, and the agriculture industry forced to hire American workers, the low prices on produce that we have come to expect will be a thing of the past. Like most industries, the agriculture industry will be forced to pass along the increased production costs to the consumer. Do you really want to pay $4-$5 a head for lettuce? And it won't just affect supermarket prices, this will have a ripple effect that will spread to other industries such as fast food and the restaurant industries. If the aim of this provision of the House bill is to cause the economy to come to a grinding halt, then I suppose they have made a good start. I mean it is bad enough that rising energy prices have cause food prices to increase, do we need another government action to squeeze the already limited resources of the average American even harder?
Also, do we really need another bill to address the problem of illegal immigration? What I mean is that if the immigration was illegal to begin with, then why do we need another government action to address the issue. What are they going to do, make it more illegal? I wasn't aware that something that was outside the law in the first place could be made to be even further outside of it. I guess I was wrong. Then again, maybe I was right. I was always taught that if something was illegal, it was illegal period, not a little illegal or a lot illegal. I was taught that the law didn't recognize varying degrees of illegality, that if you were charged with a felony it was a felony, not a small, medium, or large felony. In light of that, how can illegal immigration be made anymore illegal? This is the House saying, "We don't have a clue how to fix the problem." Folks, this bill (the House vers.) is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors solution to the problem. The problem with the bill is that, while it is smoke and mirrors, it will affect and penalize one large key group...the average American! It will penalize the average person by raising food prices, thus shrinking the average person's ever diminishing resources even further. And it will penalize the average person by shrinking the available tax base and increasing government expeditures (a brilliant maneuver in this era of record deficits).
With this bill, once again the government has proven that it doesn't care a bit about the effects of legislation upon the average person. So long as you continue to vote for the person they tell you to vote for, they (legislators) could care less about you and your concerns. Is this (illegal immigration) a real problem? No, it is nothing more than a bunch of Representatives and Senators wanting to appear to be doing something (in an election year) about a problem as real as "Harvey" the giant rabbit in the old Jimmy Stewart movie. Gee guys, why not try something novel, like solving real problems. You know, the kind of problems that real Americans struggle with everyday. Things like the rising cost of energy, or the rising cost of education, or the erosion of rights brought on by poorly crafted legislation. What about these things? Or are you, our Representatives and Senators, finally conceding that you don't have a clue about how to fix the REAL problems that affect this country? I guess it was probably wrong of me to expect so much out of our elected officials, you know, things like simple competency and the like. Find a solution to a real problem? Hell, these guys couldn't find their asses with both hands and a flashlight!
I am Chuck, and this has been my rant.

Why The Stupid Should Not Become Criminals.

Hello again readers. I hope everyone out there is doing well.
Today's post concerns an email I recently received from a person calling himself "Mr. George Adam". The contents of Mr Adam's email (the quotes are mine):
"I am Mr. George Adam, Manager of Cent Royal Hotel, Lagos Nigeria.

We are on the second phase of recruiting workers. We are currently looking for 10 to 20 energetic young individuals to join our working team under their following positions:

1 Manager
2 Assistant manager
3 Secretary and assistant
4 Hotel Attendant
5 Chef with not less than 2 years cooking experience
6 Men/women who can host people on stage
7 Security men


8 And other

Our salary is very attractive as we pay what is obtainable in our hotels here in Nigeria and other developed countries. If you are interested to work for us.

Application is now online >> http://centroyalhotel.tripod.com/

Tel/Fax: (+234)-8064218261 or +447031817587

We shall help you to process your document and pay for your flight ticket with your one-month visa as a tourist to enter here in Nigeria and work with us.

N/B: all expenses incured to bring you to Nigeria must be dully deducted from your monthly salary while working for us here.


Mr. George."
(Note, the spelling errors are his not mine, the letter is copied from my email exactly as I received it.)
Please note the supposed location of the hotel in question (Lagos, Nigeria).
Now, if you want a good laugh, go to the website for the hotel (here)and check out the "About Us" page. Go ahead, I'll wait...
Notice anything unusual about the description of the area surrounding the luxurious "Cent Royal Hotel" in Lagos, Nigeria? I wasn't aware that Lagos, Nigeria was the home of Niagara Falls or Fort Erie! I'll bet the nice folks who call Fort Erie, Ontario, Canada home weren't aware that they actually lived in Nigeria (not Canada)! I also like how the nearest listed airport on the page is Buffalo. While that may be true for Niagara Falls, flying into Buffalo to go to a hotel in Nigeria could make for a bit of a long cab ride. (Not to mention that I don't think that the bridge to western Africa is done yet.)
As far as the letter goes, I like how the main hotel number is a Nigerian number, but the fax number goes to the UK. (Nigeria's calling code is 234, the UK's is 44). Doesn't that make picking up your faxes a bit inconvenient?!!?
I know that I probably shouldn't have published this letter here as it is an obvious scam, but I just couldn't resist exposing this guy's stupidity.
So, Mr George Adam, for trying to convince people that your non-existent hotel is in Lagos, Nigeria while listing Niagara Falls/Fort Erie area attractions on the "About Us" page, for including a map to your hotel that clearly shows the Niagara Falls area and not the Lagos area, and for listing a main hotel number that is in Nigeria but having a fax number that is in the UK, I hereby award you the first ever "Chuck's Occasional Rants Dumbass Of The Week Award." The award includes an all expense paid vacation to the federal correctional facility of your choice, three meals a day, and a lovely view of the prison yard. Enjoy it, Mr Adam, after all you've earned it by being dumber than a brick and, then, writing emails to others proving that rocks can outsmart you. Mr Adam, perhaps you should have taken the advice of the famous author Mark Twain when he said, "It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
I am Chuck, and this has been my rant.

Spyware? We Don't Want No Stinking Spyware!

Hello again reader. Everyone doing ok?
The title of today's post is a takeoff on a line from the old Mel Brooks film "Blazing Saddles" (one of the funniest, and definitely not politically correct, movies ever made imho). I won't go into detail, but the actual line is "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!"
The subject of today's rant is a new and disturbing trend in the world of antispyware, the rogue antispyware program. I know this has nothing to do with politics, but I thought I would write about this as kind of a public service.
Up until yesterday, I was unaware that the so-called rogue antispyware problem existed. An article in the PCMag Security Watch newsletter I receive alerted me to this developing problem. I did a little reading on the subject and found out that the trend has existed for a little while and has been, seemingly, gathering momentum.
What the problem exactly is, is this...
As everyone with a computer knows, spyware and adware are a constant threat to the average 'Net surfer. Not only do they seem to be omnipresent, but they are almost never innocuous. Aside from the more malicious aspects of spyware, such as stealing your identity, personal info, or other sensitive info, they are annoying in the extreme. I put the distributors of spyware and adware in the same category as spammers, they are the scum of the internet. My personal solution to the whole spyware/adware/spam problem would involve a red-hot poker and a reference to King Edward II of England, but that is another story.
The way to rid yourself of spyware and adware to this point has been to get yourself a good antispyware program such as Spyware Search and Destroy, Ad-Aware, Spyware Blaster, or the like.
Heretofore, spyware distributors have pretty much left the antispyware programs alone. But lately, it would seem that these malicious individuals and companies have decided that the best defense is a good offense through deception. It would seem that, now, the companies and individuals distributing spyware and adware have gotten into the antispyware game by attempting to distribute rogue antispyware. These rogue programs do nothing to eliminate spyware on your system. In fact, they may, and usually do, install more spyware and adware than you may have originally had. These rogue programs do not solve your spyware problems, they only add to it.
The way these guys get you to install one of their junk programs is simply by deceiving you. They will try to lure or convince you with an ad or popup that claims you have spyware on your system, or they will run a banner ad with the name of a real antispyware program. The banner ad will, when clicked on, redirect you, not to the advertised program's site, but to the rogue program's page. Then if you click on the "download" button, what you get isn't an antispyware program, but a program that installs tons of spyware and adware and pretends to do a scan of your system.
In the course of my reading, I came across an excellent page that lists not only the good/trusted antispyware programs, but also the rogue antispyware. This allows you to determine whether your antispyware program is actually doing its job or is one of these bogus programs. The page also gives a ton of information concerning just about anything having to do with spyware/antispyware. The author of the page is a woman who calls herself "The Spyware Warrior". If you are at all concerned about spyware or adware, I highly recommend this page.
Here is the link:
The Spyware Warrior List of
Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware Products & Web Sites

I hope your program isn't listed in the rogue section.
I am Chuck and this has been a public service announcement brought to you as a public service of Chuck's Occasional Rants. We now return you to your regularly schedule lives.

Feingold's Fine Idea

Hello again readers. I trust that everyone is doing well.
Today's rant concerns an article I read last night.
It would seem that Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is proposing a bill in the Senate that would censure George W Bush for misleading Americans about the legality of his NSA wiretapping program. According to the AP version of the story, censure is, essentially a scolding, and it has been used against a president in the past. Specifically, it was used in 1834 to reprimand Andrew Jackson for a dust up concerning the (non) withdrawal of federal monies from the Bank of The United States. (See this link for the complete Jackson story).
Now, I like the idea of telling Bush that he has done something wrong, but I don't think that censure goes far enough. After all, this is a "president" that has repeatedly ignored laws that he doesn't agree with, what makes anyone think that a censure will affect him? I would rather see something like Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is working on.
Conyers is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee and is pushing for legislation that would determine if grounds for the impeachment of Bush exist. I don't think that Conyers will have much trouble finding those grounds.
Out of the whole AP article, the two quotes I like the most belong to Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN). The first calls the censure idea "a crazy political move that would weaken the US during wartime." The second comes from an interview Frist did on ABC's "This Week" news program. During the interview he said that he hoped that Al Qaida was not listening to the political fighting and also said "The signal that it sends, that there is in any way a lack of support for our commander in chief who is leading us with a bold vision in a way that is making our homeland safer, is wrong."
Been drinking the Kool Aid again Bill? I have a few questions for the clueless senator from Tennessee. First, "When did the US declare war?" We have a military action going in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there has been no declaration of war by Congress, so how can this be "wartime"? I would think that as a senator, and the Senate Majority Leader at that, you would know that an authorization to use military force is NOT the same as a declaration of war (legally, politically, or semantically), and the Congress has not considered, nor passed, any articles of war. Second, "Why is it 'crazy political move' to propose that someone who has committed a crime be punished for it?" Why are you considering this a political move at all? George W Bush violated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution with the NSA eavesdropping program. He has already publicly admitted to bypassing the FISC and authorizing the wiretapping without warrants. That means that he violated the FISA and the 4th Amendment. Senator, those things are called "criminal acts" and, generally, they are dealt with by giving the offender some sort of punishment. No amount of political wrangling, no amount of disingenuous arguments concerning George Washington's electronic surveillance and a twisted interpretation of Article 2 will change the fact that what George W Bush did was patently illegal. Or are you proposing that the president is now, somehow, above the law? Are you now saying that conservative Republicans, who for years have supported the ideas of "law and order", are now abandoning those principals? It looks to me, Senator, that what you are truly saying is that everyone is subject to the law except for the politically powerful, the rich, and those with connections to the politically powerful. That type of thinking is what leads to dictatorships and oligarchical regimes. Or could it be, Senator, that you are nothing more that George Bush's clueless lap dog, mindlessly repeating whatever the Administration tells you to say? So, Senator, what are you willing to admit to, being a mindless follower of Bush, unable to think for yourself and acting as his Senatorial puppet, or being a legal elitist advocating a system of laws and harsh punishments for the common folk, but placing yourself (and your master, Bush) above those laws? So which is it?
As for your second quote, the infighting tells everyone exactly what you fear it tells them, that, indeed, there is no support for the commander in chief. Commander in chief, hmmmm. That's the problem! I get it now, I get why the Republicans react to criticism of Bush the way they do! If you call Bush the "president" it makes him look like just another political figure. As such he is subject to the faults of any other political leader. It also makes him subject to being questioned by the people who pay his checks. However, if you call Bush the "Commander In Chief", it makes him look strong and manly. His decisions then become orders, and as such, they are not to be questioned. Calling him the commander in chief also makes it look like anyone who tries to hold him accountable for his actions is insubordinate, one of those "How dare you question the glorious Commander!" type of things. Senator, I must congratulate you on your choice of words, "commander in chief" and "bold vision". They paint a picture of a strong decisive leader. Senator, you've studied your Goebbels! The unfortunate part of this is that, despite your best efforts to paint him a strong decisive leader, George W Bush boils down to nothing but a bumbling, tongue-tied criminal. His efforts to change this country from a democratic republic to an oligarchical dictatorship are neither "bold" nor visionary, but they are criminal. Mark my words Senator, the time is coming for you and your fellow Republicans when all of your verbiage, all of your demonization of the opposition, all of your questioning of the patriotism and loyalty of people like me, and all of your corruption will end. Then it will be time to pay the judicial piper and answer to the people for you felonious ways. I just can't wait until it does!
I am Chuck and I would compare Bush to Hitler, but as someone on the Yahoo Message Boards pointed out, it is an unfair comparison...Hitler was more militarily astute and had better oratory skills than Bush!


note: edited for typos, 14MAR06 @0255 EST

Come And See The Corruption Inherent In The System!

Hello again readers. I hope everyone is well.
The subject line of today's post is a play on a line from "Monty Python And The Holy Grail". It comes from the scene where Arthur is talking to the people digging up mud in a field. After a bit of conversation, Arthur grabs one of the characters and starts bouncing him up and down and the character shouts "Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Well, after much criticism of Bush and the Republicans, I have decided to criticize the Democrats and thus prove that I am a fair guy. The inspiration for today's rant comes from an article I read in the Washington Post entitled "Democrats Struggle To Seize Opportunity". The article explains how the Democrats are having a tough time coming up with a coherent platform in the face of the problems that the Republicans are having.
My question to the Democrats is "What is the problem?!!?" The Republicans are self-destructing and you guys can't come up with a coherent platform to take advantage of their screw ups? Are you really as braindead as the Republicans say you are? Look, the Republicans have botched everything from A to Z and you still can't come up with something! This should be easy, unless...you are just as guilty of screwing things up as the Republicans. Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that you are truly not an alternative to the Republicans, but merely a slightly different shade of the same party? Are you saying that you are just as guilty of corruption, screwing up the Katrina response, letting Iraq become a fiasco, and depriving Americans of their civil rights in the name of security as the Republicans? I hope not, because it sure looks like that is what you are saying.
Since you boobs in the DNC can't come up with a platform on your own, how about letting me help you.
Ok, DNC, listen up because here's your November platform.
1. We oppose corruption in government in all forms and vow to eliminate it via legislation and criminal prosecution. We further vow to restrict all forms of undue influence that special interests and lobbyists may have now, or in the future, by authoring and passing new ethics legislation.
2. We propose a full investigation into the botched Hurricane Katrina response. If the findings of that investigation warrant such, we propose that those officials guilty of criminally negligent actions in the response be prosecuted for such.
3. We believe that the Constitution of the United States is a sacred and inviolable document. Pursuant to our belief, we propose that any legislation, such as the USA Patriot Act, which contains clear violations of a citizen's civil liberties be repealed or amended to better protect those civil liberties.
4. Consistent with our belief in the Constitution, we believe that the President's NSA Wiretapping is a clear violation of a citizen's Fourth Amendment rights. Therefore, we propose an end to the program, followed by hearings into the program, and, if warranted by the findings of the hearings, criminal prosecutions on federal civil rights charges for any parties guilty of such offenses up to and including the President.
5. We believe that the situation in Iraq has become untenable in its current form. We believe that a new solution to the situation must be found before more servicemen and women are killed. Therefore, we propose new hearings into the matter. We also propose that new legislation be enacted to rectify the situation at once. Furthermore, if the proposed hearings should yield evidence that the war in Iraq was precipitated based upon false or misleading information, and in violation of US principals or laws, we propose criminal prosecution for those guilty of abuse of power.
Gee, there are five planks for you November platform. Now what was so hard about that. It took me roughly 45 minutes to come up with and type these planks. Most of that time was spent trying to word them correctly. The actual time to create the concepts behind them took about 15 minutes. 45 minutes for me, since before November 2005 for you. Your problem Democrats isn't that I am some political supergenius (I'm not), your problem is that you try to do too much "by committee". What I mean is that whenever Democrats try to do something, they don't just do it. First they form a committee, then they debate it, then they think about it some more, then they act. Being circumspect is fine, but sometimes you just need to do it. I used to have a teacher who always said, "Gee, let's rule by committee and get nothing done!" So, quit thinking about it, and as Nike used to say, "Just Do It"!! Unless, of course, you would like to admit that you are as guilty of corruption, incompetence, and abrogation of your responsibilities to the citizens of this country as the Republicans. If that is the case, just let the American people know in advance so that we may vote for someone who will truly bring change to the government as opposed to you or the Republicans (seeing as how both of you are, seemingly, for more of the status quo rather than true change.)
I am Chuck and the DNC may use the above planks as long as they send me a bumper sticker for the most obscure candidate they have running.

Where To Now?

Hello again readers, loyal or otherwise. I hope everyone is feeling good and doing well.
Today's post is a bit of a play on the old Disneyworld commercials. You know, the ones that had a sports star winning a championship and being posed the question, "Joe Schmo, you just won the World Tiddlywinks Championship, now where are you going?" And the guy would always reply, "I'm going to Disneyworld!"
Well, my question is for George W. Bush. And it goes like this, "Gee George, now that you've betrayed the conservative ideals of smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and more personal freedom, where are you going to?"
Apparently, according to a report put out by Reuters, most Americans believe that where Bush is going is towards a civil war in Iraq. According to the report, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 80% of Americans now believe that a civil war in Iraq is now imminent. The story went on to breakdown the numbers a bit, saying that 7 in 10 Republicans and 8 in 10 Democrats and Independents now believe that an Iraqi civil war is likely.
What that means to GW is that 70% of his own party now regard him as being incompetent on the subject of Iraq. All I can say to the 70% is "Welcome to the fold." We Independents knew he was incompetent a long time ago. Oh well, Republicans always have been a little slow when it comes to accepting change.
What the results also mean, is that, if founded (meaning an Iraqi civil war does happen), our military will be caught in the middle and, possibly, fighting against both sides. If a civil war in Iraq does come about, the only one to blame for it will be George W. Bush. Why Bush? Well, let's see...Iraq before the US invasion was stable. Sure Saddam was a petty dictator, but at least the country was relatively calm meaning that the Sunnis and Shiites weren't at each other's throats. Yes, from time to time Saddam needed slapped down, but at least Iraq wasn't a terrorist breeding ground like it is today. And, Iraq, while being somewhat of a danger to Kuwait and Iran, was a secular counterbalance to Iran's Islamic fundamentalist regime, meaning that it played the role of regional stabilizer in a area of the world sorely lacking in stability. Since the ill-conceived invasion, Iraq has deteriorated into a quagmire of daily terrorist attacks, has become the largest breeding and training center of terrorists in the world, and now stands at the brink of a civil war which may bring about the thing that we least needed in the Middle East, another fundamentalist Islamic state!
Yeah, George, you screwed up good. All of this just to impress your daddy. I am sure that if you wanted to impress daddy, he'd have much preferred you to actually learn a little history before attempting to invade a country. You might well have learned what happens when the US gets caught in the middle of a foreign civil war. If you hadn't been so coked out, you might have figured out that Vietnam was one of those places where the US did become involved with a foreign civil war. And how did that war turn out George? Now, given that lesson, how do you think that this situation will turn out, eh?
Ok, George, since you are too stupid or incompetent to come up with your own solution to the problems in Iraq, I'll give you one. First, withdrawal all US personnel and equipment back to a position in Kuwait and/or Saudi Arabia. Second, let the Iraqis have their civil war. Third, see who wins the war. Fourth, if the people we want to win have actually won, establish diplomatic relations with them. If they haven't, meaning that the terrorists have seized power, at least we will know where to find them, and can, subsequently, eliminate them at our leisure.
See, George, that is called a "strategy". You may have wanted to consider making one before invading Iraq. It would have helped greatly. See George, the advantage of a plan or strategy is that it allows everyone on the team, from you and Rumsfeld to the field commanders actually on the ground in Iraq, to know exactly what is expected and what is to be done. Of course, I realize that the dissemination of so much information would have run counter to your program of total governmental secrecy, but sometimes it has to be done.
So now, what have we learned George? Besides the fact that you are an incompetent, we've learned that you know nothing about conducting strategic or tactical military operations. We've learned that you are an inveterate liar, and that, due to your lies, you are going to get our military involved in the middle of a foreign civil war. We've also learned that you obviously paid no attention in History class.
"Gee George, now that you've destroyed your own party's ideals, gutted the US Constitution, destroyed the military, and made the world safe for terrorism, what are you going to do next?"
"I'm going to Texas, where Dick and I can shoot anyone who criticizes us!"
I am Chuck and this has been my rant.

Who's Left To Investigate Things?

Hello again loyal readers and welcome to passers-by. I hope everyone is feeling good and doing well.
Today's post delves into a subject that I don't often visit, entertainment. I usually ignore the entertainment industry because I generally don't care about things like who is dating who and who wore the worst outfit at the Oscars. However, today I will touch on the entertainment industry because one of my favorite genres took a heavy hit this past week. The genre is speak of is crime dramas.
The crime drama genre is currently doing well with shows like "CSI" and "Law And Order" (and their attendant spinoffs) being very popular. However, this past week the genre lost one big named detective, one funny cop, and one lesser-known, cult classic detective.
The big named detective was Dennis Weaver. Weaver is best known for his portrayal of "Gunsmoke" deputy Chester and his role as Sam McCloud in the show "McCloud". He died Monday at the age of 81.
The funny cop was Don Knotts. While he is remembered for a number of rolls, the one I refer to is his portrayal of the shakiest cop in all of Mayberry, Barney Fife. Knotts died Friday at the age of 81.
The lesser-known, cult classic detective was Darren McGavin. Who, you may ask. McGavin played "Mike Hammer" back in the 50's (long before Stacey Keach), and was the lead in the cult favorite "Kolchak: The Night Stalker", in which he played an investigative reporter who hunted various monsters (an investigative reporter kinda counts as a detective, right?). Most people will remember McGavin not from the aforementioned roles, but for his role as the dad in the holiday classic "A Christmas Story". McGavin died Saturday at the age of 83.
They say the true measure of an actor's success is in how many people remember him for a certain role. By that yardstick, all three of these men were quite successful. I don't think anyone will forget Weaver's "McCloud" riding his horse down a New York City street as the credits rolled. And who hasn't called a somewhat nervous local cop "One-bullet-Barney Fife", recalling Knotts' classic portrayal of that character. And, at least for me, McGavin will always be remembered not only as the reporter/investigator chasing strange monster stories, but also every Christmas when TNT shows 24 hours of "A Christmas Story" ("You'll shoot your eye out, kid!).
I am Chuck, and I remind everyone that death's scythe eventually reaps us all...even the one's who can solve crimes in 30 minutes or less.