Monday, July 19, 2004

The Gray Gog Has Moved

Please Visit The New Gray Dog Web Site


Please click on the link below to find me at 'The Gray Dog' website!!!



Hope we see you at the site.

The Gray Dog

Friday, July 16, 2004

And the Winner of This Year's MVP Award: John ???

And the Winner of This Year’s MVP Award:  John ???
by The Gray Dog
Stalled contract negotiations, open animosity toward management, threats of free agency and jumping leagues, have plagued the early months of this year’s season for John. It was sometime in early June, when only after threats of a new contract with the cross-town team seemed imminent, that management broke down and offered the kind of deal John had been waiting for.  Specifics of this multi-year pact have not yet been made public. However, it is rumored that much of the compensation package will be deferred until after the end of this current season when John is expected to retire from his playing career and move up to a position in the front office.  Despite his ineligibility for this year’s All-Star game, John had two strong appearances out of the bullpen going into the break.  As regular season play resumed today, John made his third consecutive strong appearance,  to up his record to three consecutive saves without yielding any earned runs.  John may have missed making the All-Star team this past week, but he may be on pace to become a serious contender for this year’s MVP Award.
This is only a scenario that could happen in the modern era of Major League Baseball or Major League Presidential Politics.  Of course I’m talking about John McCain, the darling of the early 2000 presidential primary season; the prodigal son that has rejoined his Republican team late in the season to perhaps make one of the most stunning comebacks, (or political reversals) in recent years. 
After several weeks of being courted by John Kerry to join the Democratic ticket, McCain in a series of highly public appearances has not only dashed the titillated excitement of Democratic dreamers, he has become a leading defender and spokesman for both George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. 
Save #1 – June 19, 2004, appearing with Bush in Fort Lewis, WA, McClain delivered a highly energetic and partisan introduction speech where he spoke of the President in glowing terms. Among McCain’s praiseful remarks were, “He heard the call to action on that terrible morning in September and summoned the rest of us to this long and difficult task. He has led this country with moral clarity about the stakes involved and with firm resolve to achieve unconditional victory." with the Senator concluding that it was, "a great privilege to introduce to you your commander-in-chief."  This is indeed high praise from a former presidential primary opponent and a Republican that hangs to the left of the party mainstream.  But it was with this strong outing that Senator McCain simultaneously ended the high hopes of a Democratic ‘Dream Ticket’ and prompted the rushed but predictable selection of John Edwards to be named as Kerry’s running mate. (For more on this topic, read my previous article “A Night at the Triple ‘L’: Kerry Picks Up a Mate”)
Save #2 – The use of McCain’s Fort Lewis speech in new Republican ads is not only a strong message to party faithful, it is also the ultimate shot across the bow at the Democrats.  It make’s it extremely difficult for the liberal talking heads to pick apart McCain’s remarks as partisan or pandering when he was their first choice just days before to shore up their ticket.
Save #3 – July 16, 2004.  McCain appeared with Dick Cheney in Lansing, MI today and delivered an introductory speech that rivaled a Kerry/Edwards love-fest.  In doing so, McCain not only continued to deliver high profile support of the Bush/Cheney team, but may also have finally squelched days of speculation that Cheney would soon be dumped from the ticket.  This has been an unnecessary distraction based on unfounded rumor, most of which has likely been instigated by the Democratic opposition.
So there’s the summary of Senator McCain’s extraordinary mid-season start.  If he continues to play team ball, play energetically and stays healthy, I believe John McCain may turn out to be the single greatest and unexpected factor in the race this year.  Also, I mentioned that we do not yet know the terms of any deal that must have been struck between McCain and the Bush/Cheney team.  If I were a betting man, my guess that the ex-Navy Pilot, Vietnam POW and war hero would become an obvious replacement for the aging and increasingly battle-weary Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense.
Conventional wisdom may believe that no one will be thinking of John McCain as they enter the voting booth this November and that may be true.  However, I feel that McCain in just a few short weeks has severely disrupted Kerry’s momentum by so publicly spurning his attentions, while cutting short a ‘Dump Cheney’ movement before any real momentum could gather.  It is said that politics makes strange bedfellows.  I suggest George and Dick should plump up a few more pillows and move aside a bit. To the right, maybe? 

Thursday, July 15, 2004

All Edwards All the Time

All Edwards, All The Time

by The Gray Dog

Coinciding almost instantaneously with George W. Bush’s announcement of Dick Cheney for his Vice Presidential running mate in 2000, the liberal media and Democratic talking heads began their assault on the Republican ticket. Declaring Cheney would become the de facto president, and that Cheney gave the ticket gravitas, as if Bush were somehow lacking this trait. I’m sure that James Carville and Terry McAuliffe were sitting around one evening researching through dusty high school Latin books to come up with that one.

Gravitas or not, President Bush has demonstrated quite effectively, that he has been in charge throughout his first term in office, and remains undeniably the top man on the Republican ticket in 2004. While the Vice President is a serious and capable leader in his own right, he continues to appropriately take the back seat, letting his boss be the face that appears in campaign advertisements.

Not so with the Kerry/Edwards ticket. In recent days since joining the ticket, Senator Edwards has become the face of the latest round of Democratic TV ads. And I do mean FACE. I’ve seen one ad that is so close up on his face, it would make even the most vain of Hollywood’s leading men blush with embarrassment. But, why not? Senator Edwards is many things that Kerry is not. Edwards is youthful and in possession of matinee idol good looks. He speaks eloquently with a master’s command of rhetoric. He can emotionally arouse his political followers utilizing the same skills honed by his many years of performing in front of juries. In recent television ads, Kerry by comparison is shown for the last few seconds of the ad espousing his approval. If the sound was down on your TV, you might think it’s an ‘Adams Family’ rerun with ‘Lurch’ growling, “You rang?”

The artisans of Madison Avenue have long known that Americans eagerly buy the ‘sizzle’ and not the ‘steak’. John Edwards is the sizzle on the Kerry/Edwards ticket and the Democrats are going to make the most of this. Senator Kerry seems amazingly comfortable with this. Again, why not? Kerry has amassed great personal wealth through his marriages to two wealthy heiresses. Why should he not be content to make a run at the White House, buoyed by the wealth of charisma and charm possessed by his newest mate?

The Democrats are smacking their lips with eager anticipation of this falls debates. Not so much between the two top candidates, but the one debate between the surrogates: Cheney vs. Edwards! They are longing to listen to Edwards as he poetically portrays himself as the voice for the ‘poor hungry children’ while extolling proudly that Senator Kerry will ‘leave no person behind’. Perhaps if Kerry’s other mate, Mrs. Heinz Kerry gave as freely to the starving children as she does to the notorious Tides Foundation (more on them in a coming article), fewer children would be going to bed hungry tonight. But, as usual, I digress.

Democrats, hungry to regain the White House, see this as a second round of Lloyd Bentsen vs. Dan Quayle, when the savvy Texas senator scored a knockout with his ‘You’re no John Kennedy’ line flush on the jaw of a reeling Quayle. One thing Democrats don’t realize is that Dick Cheney is no Dan Quayle. This Vice President is absolutely astonishing in his command of the facts and equally fleet of foot in not allowing his opponents to trap him in their corner. If there is anyone capable of spontaneously countering the rhetorical jabs of ‘Sugar’ John Edwards, with his own blistering combinations of facts and reality, it is Dick ‘Gravitas’ Cheney.

The other danger the Democrats are going to face, is that their new rush to have “All Edwards, All the Time” will serve to remind voters once again of the relationship between Lloyd Bentsen to that other Massachusetts Liberal, Michael Dukakis. Most Democrats lamented throughout the 1988 campaign that the wrong man was at the top of the Democratic ticket. Like Yogi Berra said, “It’s déjà vu, all over again”.

Conventional wisdom dictates that the electorate always vote for the top of the ticket. It appears the Democratic strategy this year is to confuse that electorate by having Edwards become the face and voice of the ‘Darling Democratic Duo’. Will this strategy succeed? It shouldn’t!

I agree with President Bush who when asked to compare Edwards to Cheney, responded, “Dick Cheney can be president!” If there ever was a year when consideration of the Vice Presidential candidates should be more seriously weighed at the voting booth, this is it. Sizzle or Steak? Rhetoric or Gravitas?

Just remember that if all you take home for dinner tonight is the sizzle instead of the steak, your children too will be going to bed hungry.

Wednesday, July 14, 2004

Decidedly Un-decided About the Undecided!

Decidedly Un-decided About the Undecided!

by The Gray Dog

My new morning ritual of late is to fill up my ‘’ coffee mug, sit down at my PC, read email, and scan the internet news sites to search for article ideas. I try to filter how I look at headlines by the mood I’m in. Do I feel hateful? No, I don’t want to write about Michael Moore again! Do I feel witty? No, I’m already tired of the Kerry/Edwards hair stories. No, this morning I’m just not quite sure how I feel, therefore with no small amount of indecision; I’ve decided to write about the ‘Undecided Voter’.

We all have our moments of indecision. I have watched my wife stand motionless in front of her closet like a ‘doe frozen in headlights’ while deciding her uniform of the day. When my children were young, they could agonize for what seemed like hours while pondering which combination of Mountain Dew, Jolt Cola, M&Ms and DOTS, would induce the greatest ‘sugar high’ (or diabetic coma).

My wife actually thinks I am the most indecisive person she knows. Whenever she asks, “What would you like for dinner?” or “What movie should we rent tonight?” I will typically respond first with “I don’t know.” or when pressed, “Whatever you want dear. You decide.” Of course I don’t see my answers as indecisive at all. I’ve just decided that I want her to make the dinner after she goes to the video store. Caution: This strategy should only be attempted by men who truly love re-heated tuna casseroles while watching Hugh Grant Chick Flicks.

As to undecided voters, I’ve read several recent polls attempting to identify just who this very important bloc of voters is. Usually, you see categorizations such as ‘White Women’, ‘Hispanics’, ‘X-Genners’ or ‘Unemployed Buggy Whip Makers’. My problem is that all of the people I know in these categories have already decided whom they plan to vote for this year. So this morning I have decided to conduct my own poll to determine the essence of the undecided voter. I spent several minutes formulating questions using highly scientific methods. After just a few more minutes I finished answering them. Although some of the questions were tricky, and I think purposely confusing, I now am prepared to share with you my results:

These are the individuals when asked ‘Who are you most likely to vote for this year?’ answered ‘Fantasia’. When we pointed out to these individuals that we were talking about for President, one respondent actually replied in shock “Hey, Reagan died last month, don’t we got nobody else in there yet?”

These are the respondents that typically said, “Why bother? They’re all crooks anyway.” Respondents in this category were evenly divided between Hollywood actors currently house hunting in France and those crawling frantically around the floor of their closets, searching for a tie to wear to court this afternoon.

This demographic group consisted mostly of women that weren’t paying attention before last week. Respondent Tiffany Charm of Yonkers can best sum up the consensus opinion from this group. Ms. Charm giggled, “I’m still not sure, but that John Edwards is just a dream. I could just eat him right up!”

13% - SMUG INTELLECTS (Independents)
These are the individuals who view themselves as ‘above the fray’. All respondents in this category proudly proclaimed to have no party affiliations and will reserve judgment until the very end. Only then will they look at the last polls and attempt to ‘pick the winner’. I’ve seen these same guys at the track.

Several other demographic groups that polled less than two percent each included surfer dudes, Prozac users, poets and Fantasia.

Of course my sampling group was smaller than many of the better-known polls. I had hoped to question a group of undecided voters known as the Just Kidding bloc. These are people who vote one way and then reverse directions and vote the other way. Unfortunately neither Senators Kerry nor Edwards would take my calls.

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

Friends, Family and Politics

Friends, Families and Politics

by The Gray Dog

I recently received an email from a gentleman that had just ended a very long friendship because of a political disagreement. It seems that his friend launched into a very familiar “I hate Bush” tirade that was the last of many straws piled upon this camel’s back. That seems to be just the way things are headed this year.

My first thought was perhaps this individual should choose his friends a little more wisely, but I realized what a foolish notion that is. The forming of friendships can occur almost instantaneously while the development of friendship is a much more complex and ongoing process. Who among us does not recall taking ‘an instant liking’ to someone? It may be nothing more than the way they look, something they said, a shared circumstance or some other deep innate sense that you are unable to verbalize without further contemplation.

If someone asked you five minutes after this occured, “What do you think of that guy (or gal)?” you probably would have said, “I like him/her.” But if the same questioner asked “Why?”, you might have been hard pressed to have an answer. You are not sure why, you just know that you like that new person!

The human mind being the marvelous instrument it is, will over time begin to attribute characteristics to this new ‘friend’ that you find to be admirable and positive. Likewise, it will often ignore this person’s traits that you normally find irksome in someone you don’t like. This is your logical mind at work, attempting to justify your initial emotional response.

This process is the same whether we are experiencing new friendships or new romances. While the initial emotions experienced when you first saw your wife/girlfriend or husband/boyfriend are decidedly different than the ones experienced when first meeting a friend (male or female), you still enter into the ‘honeymoon’ period. This wonderful new person can do no wrong. They are always fun to be with and your brain is working overtime reinforcing the emotional highs you experience when you are with them. Keep in mind that the same emotional/logical reactions are being experienced by your new friend toward you as well.

Then the honeymoon ends! It happens with your spouse and it happens with your friends. Sometimes it happens simultaneously due to some shared stressful event. More often it occurs at different times for each of you, for no particular reason at all. Of course your first thought is: Did something happen to make them change? Or, Why are they so different all of a sudden?

Usually, nothing has really changed about this person. It’s more likely your own brain experiencing ‘too much of a good thing’. It’s like that uncomfortable feeling you get after a third bowl of chocolate ice cream. You’re certain you still like ice cream but it’s not making you feel quite as good as when you began the first bowl.

After the honeymoon, you still like your spouse/friend but you’re not experiencing quite the same euphoria on a consistent basis. Their warts and flaws start to become visible. They’ve always been there; it’s just that you are now beginning to notice them.

Some marriages and friendships will endure this process. Hopefully through the passage of time the things you first loved, admired or liked about this friend or spouse will continue to outweigh the negatives that appear later. But when the scales tip in the wrong direction or when one tires of condoning or justifying the other’s negative traits, the relationship becomes flawed.

Some will attempt to maintain this friendship or marriage out of a sense of loyalty, convention or in the case of marriage for the sake of children or religious beliefs. But the heart and mind are working together now and there can be no happiness in being with this other person any longer.


I’m not sure, other than it made me think about the way I feel toward my own family and friends. I’ve argued and debated with many of them over the years about topics ranging from politics and religion, to subjects so ridiculous and petty I would be embarrassed to list them here.

Many of my family and some of my friends are liberal. They will vote the democratic ticket this year as they always have. Some of them I can debate. We each put on the sponge rubber boxing gloves and attempt to score points while not hurting the other. I respect them for that. It can actually be fun and strengthen our respect for each other.

Others although, recognize as I do, that this is a topic best left alone. We have chosen to place the value of our relationship above our political beliefs and we conscientiously avoid unnecessary conflict. I also respect that.

But for all of us, there is that one friend, that one family member that just can’t recognize the way this game should be played. They want to goad you, provoke you and impugn your intelligence. They want to demonstrate their own brilliance and wisdom by showing you just how ignorant you truly are. Their aim is not to persuade or enlighten. It is to demonstrate some moral superiority that you somehow lack.

While I use politics as an example of divisive issues, it could in reality be any topic of your choosing. The point being that at times in your life, someone you once held close as a dear friend is going to betray you in an unforgivable way. I said earlier that to suggest someone should choose their friends wisely was a foolish sentiment, because it is our friendships that often choose us. But I do think it would be wise to regularly take inventory of our friendships, deciding to keep safe those we still hold dear, while clearing those with questionable value from the shelves, making room for new stock.

Monday, July 12, 2004

The Two Americas

The Two Americas

by The Gray Dog

"John Edwards based his campaign on the fact that there are two Americas, one for the wealthy and one for everyone else. And after his speech, he thanked everyone else and went back to the America for the wealthy." —Jay Leno

"On the campaign trail today, John Edwards continued to talk about there being two Americas. Unfortunately, neither voted for him." —Conan O'Brien

The Kerry/Edwards ticket has resurrected John Edward’s primary campaign theme: “Two America’s.” Listening to either of the “Darling Democratic Duo” provide a self-portrayal as the next Average Joe, is as enlightening as receiving sex and marriage counseling from a catholic priest. But in fairness, I must admit that the wealthiest national ticket in history didn’t always have big bucks.

John Edwards earned his money by shaking down hospitals, doctors and insurance companies. Quoting from an article titled “Did ‘Junk Science’ Make John Edwards Rich?” written by Marc Morano for;

“ According to the Center for Public Integrity, Edwards was able to win "more than $152 million" based on his involvement in 63 lawsuits alone”

Mr. Morano’s article goes on to state;

"John Edwards' spin is always ‘I am helping the little guy’. But he screened his cases to the point that he only helped people that were going to make him richer," said the source with extensive knowledge of Edwards' legal career

But enough about Senator Edward’s legal ethics. Morano’s article provides the following financial recap of this most average American citizen;

“The judgments or settlements related to medical malpractice lawsuits that focused on brain-damaged infants with cerebral palsy helped Edwards amass a personal fortune estimated at between $12.8 and $60 million. He and his wife own three homes, each worth more than $1 million, according to Edwards' Senate financial disclosure forms.”

Well John, I can certainly feel your pain. You must be exhausted. Having to mow three yards, paint three fences and clean the leaves out of three sets of gutters, how do you find the time to campaign? How will you be able to be an effective Vice President when you already have ‘Honey-do’ lists posted on your each of your three refrigerators? Do you really want to move into the Vice President’s (a fourth) residence? I hear it needs new wallpaper in the bathrooms and kitchen. I’d say you are the right man for the job.

John Kerry on the other hand, earned his money the old fashioned way: He married it! Twice! Hey guys, just think of the kicks you and your buddies would get if you saw your name in an engagement announcement that used the word ‘heiress’ next to your fiancés’ name? The fun might not last very long if she lays a prenuptial on you. But what the heck, if after a few years of wedded bliss you need a change, she wasn’t the only heiress in town. Right?

Is this a cheap shot? Probably. But Kerry himself opened Pandora’s box this campaign season.

Yes John, and you too John, there are two America’s! Perhaps you can just divvy them up and then you can each be president of one of them. But the fact is that neither one of you has lived in my neighborhood for a long time, so don’t come back slummin’, trying to promote your newest version of ‘Roots’.

While I may question your methods, I don’t begrudge you your wealth. I do however rail against your new found noblesse oblige’ attitude that compels you to ride to the rescue of us poor common folk.

You say you want to provide so much to us, yet it is clear you don’t have a clue as to how to go about it. Let’s examine your confusing contradictions:

· You say you want to provide affordable healthcare to all Americans, yet you pursue outrageous jury awards against doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. Who really benefits? TRIAL ATTORNEYS?

· You say you want to provide affordable prescription drugs, yet you persecute and tax into oblivion the pharmaceutical companies. Who really benefits? NO ONE?

· You say you want better education for all students, yet you want Washington to control all of the education dollars and deny vouchers, forcing kids to stay in the same failed systems you decry. Who really benefits? The NEA?

· You want to impose gun control, yet you nominate liberal judges that keep criminals on the streets. Who really benefits? CRIMINALS?

· You say you will create jobs, yet you want to raise the minimum wage, raise corporate taxes, restrict trade, grant paid family leave and enforce costly mandates for employee benefits upon employers. Who really benefits? NO ONE?

· You propose energy independence, yet oppose oil exploration off our coasts and in ANWAR. Who really benefits? The CARIBOU?

· You claim to support family values, while in fact you want condoms in our children’s lunch boxes, support gay marriage and disallow nativity scene’s at Christmas. (Excuse me, ‘Winter Holiday’) Who really benefits? Promiscuous gay teen atheist?

· You state your support of our troops, but if you are elected, would they only be deployed at the discretion of the U.N., France and Russia? Who really benefits? Socialist/Dictatorial/ANTI-American leaders with real interests in Iraq’s oil?

· You decry the ‘attack ads’ of your opponents, while you bask in the vulgarities of supporters such as Whoopie Goldberg and Michael Moore. Who really benefits? HOLLYWOOD?

Go ahead and fill in your own answers. How many of their promises speak to you? How do you benefit with one handout extended to you, while the other one is reaching into your back pocket?

Yes, John/John, there are at least two Americas, and if you are elected we will need at least that many to sort out and implement your schizophrenic proposals that will go nowhere toward benefiting those of us that still reside in the original one.

Sunday, July 11, 2004

FOX NEWS ALERT: Fair and Balanced?

FOX NEWS ALERT: Fair and Balanced?

by The Gray Dog

I am the Gray Dog and I am a newsaholic! Fox Newsaholic to be precise. I eagerly begin each weekday inviting Steve, E.D. and Brian into my home for breakfast and go to bed each night with Greta Van Susteren. Did I really say that? Anyway, the point is that I am very political. Most of my friends consider me to be somewhere right of “Dirty Harry” and glad that I don’t own .357 Magnum. Actually I don’t own any guns so I can’t be that far over the edge. Yet!

It is because of my political beliefs that I found a haven of truth and righteousness in FOX News some six years ago. In fact when I moved to my new home four years ago, I was so distraught to learn that the local cable provider did not in fact provide FNC that I went right out and purchased a satellite dish with multiple receivers so that I could keep my favorite friends trumpeting throughout the house 24/7. Of course my liberal leaning, ex-Peace Corps wife thinks this is very unfair and that I am unbalanced. I’m not quite sure that she is convinced that my viewing is always politically motivated. My Kiran Chetry screensaver might have tipped her off. So what if FOX News is loaded up with hot babes? It’s like reading PLAYBOY. They really do publish interesting articles, don’t they?

So now comes the hard part. I really hate to criticize the people that have become like extended family to me, but the FOX News slogan “Fair and Balanced” is way off base. Just because I like FNC and agree with their particular way of reporting the news, are they really fair? Even if I believe that they make a sincere attempt to be accurate, thorough and honest, are they really balanced?

If CNN can fairly be referred to as the “Clinton News Network” then FNC must mean “For Newsaholic Conservatives”. FOX takes a point of view and it is definitely right of center. That’s great! Hell, that’s why I and millions of others are watching. But I cringe every time I hear “Fair and Balanced”, and shudder when Bill O’Reilly protests too often that he is an Independent. C’mon Bill, who’s spinning whom?

Why not “Honest and Accurate” or “Conservative and Right”?

Of course FOX does have their token liberals, but talk about stacking the deck. Have you ever watched a panel discussion when liberal NPR correspondent Juan Williams starts blabbering inanely, only to have Brit Hume chop him off in mid sentence? Brit then gives him a look like some village is missing its idiot, while poor Juan sits cowering like a chastised puppy about to be whacked by the newspaper again. Is this fair?

Then there is Alan Colmes, co-host of Hannity and Colmes. Colmes sits mute through most of the show while Sean Hannity filibusters. Poor Alan, he doesn’t say much, but when he does, he doesn’t say much! Hannity on the other hand is the energetic, animated co-host that manages to iterate his conservative talking points several times each broadcast, while challenging liberal guest with simple direct questions and gushing over conservative babe Ann Coulter all at the very same time. My wife likes this program. She thinks Hannity is hot. I guess maybe she and I have achieved some balance with FOX, but Hannity and Colmes still need to work on it.

Yes, there are more liberals. Susan Estrich, Geraldine Ferraro, Ellis Henican, Jane Skinner, etc., etc. These are the liberals known as “Fox News Contributors”. They get to appear on shows hosted by conservatives such as John Gibson, David Asman and Bill O’Reilly (No Bill!, You are not independent!) strictly for the purpose of providing easy targets. They are window dressing. Like ducks in a row at the shooting gallery, easily knocked down and then a new group is set up. Personally I often find this great entertainment but not necessarily fair or balanced.

So, how is FOX News ‘Fair and Balanced’?

Truth challenged liberals will disagree with what has been well documented over the past several decades: Network news programming is skewed heavily to the left. Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Peter Jennings lean so far to the left, it’s a wonder they’re able to stay seated in their anchor chairs. The countries largest newspapers, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post have historically been considered bastions of liberal thought.

One telling example of how a network dishonestly slants left, is the fact that several times this past year, when a CBS Presidential Poll had Bush leading Kerry, CBS didn’t report it. But let Kerry slide to the top and it becomes Dan Rather’s lead story for nightly news.

That conservatives at long last have a fresh new source of news reporting that provides a positive, uplifting and yes, conservative point of view, seems very ‘fair’ to me. The fact that they continue to gain audience share at the expense of CNN and the other networks, gives hope that they may obtain a ‘balance’ to the bilge being spewed by their competition.

Yes, indeed FOX News is earning the right to say ‘Fair and Balanced’. Keep it up gang. I plan to be more fair and balanced myself. I’m going to add Martha MacCallum to my screensaver.

Saturday, July 10, 2004

The Vietnam Veteran – I’m in Awe

The Vietnam Veteran – I’m in Awe

by The Gray Dog

I am in awe of the number of Vietnam Veterans that have come out against the presumed democratic presidential candidate this year. I am in awe of both their collective and individual efforts to speak out and expose the true circumstances surrounding the service of the Senator from Massachusetts. But mostly, I am just in awe of the Vietnam Vets themselves.

If there was ever a group of men and women asked to serve and sacrifice for what undoubtedly has been America’s most politically driven conflict, it is our Vietnam Veterans. For the conditions they struggled and fought through in Southeast Asia and the subsequent castigation and outright abuse many received upon returning home, one might think they would and perhaps should be united in singular support for one of their own. In fact there are a fair number of vets of that era that are in support of Kerry and I for one will never question their motivation. But, I get the growing sense from the number of web sites, letters to editors, newspaper accounts and even bumper stickers that the loudest voice emerging from this ‘band of brothers’ is definitely opposed to Senator Kerry.

This isn’t to say that they are all conservatives, support the war in Iraq, or are pro-Bush. In fact I have read a number of veteran’s anti-Kerry sentiments that begin with lines such as, “Although I’m a democrat”, or “Even though I don’t agree with President Bush.” So, what is it about Kerry that has caused such a deafening roar from vets thirty years after the conflict’s end?

I will not purport to speak for them. I didn’t earn the right. Although I served actively in the military for four years (1970-1974), I was never ‘in country’. I am what is known as a Vietnam-Era Veteran. It’s a little like being a bench warmer on your high school football team, you show up everyday, wear the uniform, suit-up for practices, but you never really played in the game. As such, I will not question those that were there, no matter what position they take. It is also for this reason that I, personally, will keep my critical remarks of the senator restricted to issues unrelated to his military service.

Besides, there are so many that were there, who speak from the heart, with a passion, eloquence and above all an eye-witness perspective regarding the former lieutenant and his suspect record while in Nam, as well as is behavior afterward, that no one else’s view of this matter is required.

Yes, I am in awe of the Vietnam Veterans. Let their voice be heard at this critical time. They are a group uniquely qualified to see the difference between a politically motivated conflict and a truly ominous threat to America. They are the one’s who can intuitively sense when a politician is currying favor at the expense of blood spilt by their fallen comrades. They are the ones that feel the betrayal of an ex-Naval Lieutenant that once disavowed them, who now as a presidential candidate wears his service on his sleeve like a ‘Red Badge of Courage’. These are the individuals that gave much, received little and are still willing to defend a nation that didn’t always do it’s best by them. But don’t take my word for it. Read theirs!

Visit: Vet’s Truth, Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry, POW/MIA Family Members Against John Kerry, Bartimus, One Vietnam Vet Against Kerry, Viperash: Another Vietnam Vet and many more. You can find all of these sites and many more on the links page at This informative site

Friday, July 09, 2004

More on Moore

More on Moore

by The Gray Dog

I was surfing the web looking for items of interest that might evoke a growl from the ol’ gray dog this morning. It didn’t take more than a few clicks before I happened upon the actual web site of one Michael Moore. I’m glad I hadn’t had breakfast yet. Moore’s first article (no link provided, find it on your own) was a rather self aggrandizing assessment of the impact his recent rant is having, the records it is breaking, but above all that the ‘facts’ in his movie are irrefutable and have been vetted by no less than a dozen individuals and three teams of lawyers.

Mr. Moore goes to great lengths to establish a connection between the Bush family and the bin Laden family. He does this with the startling revelation that former President Bush sat on the Board of the Carlyle Group in which the bin Laden family invested. That George H. W. Bush was attending the same investors meeting that included Shafiq bin Laden, Osama’s estranged half brother, on September 10-11, 2001. He further goes on to establish a friendship between the current President Bush and James Bath, an individual that had financial relationships with many wealthy Saudi businessmen and included the bin Laden family among his clients.

My response to all of your ranting Mr. Moore is: So What? I’m sure you know that Richard Nixon was in Dallas the night before the Kennedy assassination. That’s a fact. But even Oliver Stone didn’t try to link him to JFK’s death.

Allow me to quote from Mr. Moore’s article: “Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them”

But what is a ‘fact’? The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides this definition: fact: ‘a piece of information presented as having objective reality’.

But now that I have this ‘piece of information’, this shiny little pearl of ‘objective reality’, this fact: What can I do with it? If I am Michael Moore, I can word my fact carefully with my own slanted inference which will provoke the desired result from my audience. Then I can take this fact and sandwich it between my opinion on one side and a leading question on the other and before too long I will have created an illusion that would make Harry Houdini turn in his watery grave. Let’s see how this works.

Fact: Michael Moore is grossly obese!

The fact is simply that ‘Mr. Moore is obese’. Let’s allow it to just hang out there by itself for a while. Draw your own inference. I’m sure this fact can be shown to be objective and irrefutable by a quick glance at the height/weight chart in your doctor’s office. Of course I slant the fact slightly by using the adverb grossly. By adding that one word, I have created the image of gluttonous behavior and started to eliminate any possible interpretation that might allow one to think Mr. Moore’s obesity is the result of a medical condition. What do I know? Perhaps it is. But, I’m just giving you the fact. You can draw your own conclusion.

Now let’s put two fact’s together.

Fact 1: Michael Moore is grossly obese!
Fact 2: Thousands of American children will go to bed hungry tonight. (Qualification for Fact 2 can be found in many of Mr. Moore’s own work)

There you have it. Two irrefutable facts. Are there any inferences to be made? Are the two facts related? Is Michael Moore responsible for the plight of hungry children? I doubt any of these inferences are true: But who cares? I’m just giving you the facts.

Finally let’s put this together with an opinion and a couple of follow-up questions.

Opinion: Gluttony, is justifiably considered one of the ‘seven deadly sins’.
Fact 1: Michael Moore is grossly obese!
Fact 2: Thousands of American children will go to bed hungry tonight.
Question 1: How can Hollywood honor Mr. Moore given his obvious disregard for hungry children?
Question 2: Are you proud of the dollars you send to Hollywood to see films produced by such morally bankrupt studio tycoons?

Now the illusion is complete. One opinion, two facts and two questions. This paints a pretty ugly picture that, in it’s progression implies that Mr. Moore is a gluttonous sinner whose over-eating contributes to the plight of hungry children and that his Oscar award demonstrates implicit approval of his immoral activities by the entire Hollywood movie industry, and your box office purchase to view any of Hollywood’s offerings should be a source of personal shame and guilt. And notice that I didn’t have to use special effects, dramatic music or slick editing.

This is ridiculous! But by Moore’s own standard of truth it is perfectly acceptable. In my previous article I stated the old adage “statistics always lie and liars always use statistics”. Now we see what can be done with facts in the hands of clever charlatans and illusionists such as Michael Moore. In fact, Mr. Moore’s ability to hoodwink the public through the misuse, nay, abuse of facts, his mastery of hateful rhetoric and emotional appeals is comparable to the skills so monstrously exhibited by a pathetic little mustachioed Austrian we should all be familiar with. Seig Heil! Michael!

Wait, did I say “Moore’s own standard of truth?” I apologize for that. That is my factual error. Mr. Moore only stands behind his “irrefutable facts”. There isn’t enough truth in his work to hide his lean-cuisine challenged backside.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

The Gray Dog Rules

The Gray Dog Rules
Variations on Pareto’s Principle (80/20 Rule)

by The Gray Dog

Almost 100 years ago, when an Italian economist created a mathematical formula to describe the disproportionate distribution of wealth in his country, little did he know how his theory’s application would be adapted and often co-opted in an attempt to explain most foibles of human nature.

Italian Vilfredo Pareto’s 80/20 rule was an observation made in 1906, that in his country, twenty percent of the people owned eighty percent of the wealth. This statement in and of itself means nothing. A liberal might view this as an obvious example of unfair distribution of wealth. The conservative viewpoint will state that the twenty percent produced eighty percent of the goods and services. Paretos’s Principle has been redefined throughout the years to apply to a variety of applications. Among them are management, engineering and even my own particular field, software development (80% of the code is written to support 20% of the functionality, or 20% of the code will generate 80% of the bugs). Perhaps Quality Management pioneer, Dr. Joseph Juran, developed one sweeping generalization that best exemplifies this phenomenon. Juran, in the 1930’s and 40’s observed Pareto’s Principle in the distribution of workplace productivity and coined the apt description “vital few and trivial many”. Juran’s observation concluded that twenty percent of the workforce was responsible for eighty percent of the productivity

Wait! Let’s go back over that again. The “vital few and trivial many.” This sounds suspiciously like a description of the “vast right wing conspiracy.” A cabal of powerful moguls intent in their desire to obtain power and resources while standing upon the backs of the poor huddled masses.

Personally, I prefer the version that supports the idea that the few (twenty percent) are being saddled with the bill (taxes) while the many (eighty percent) receive a disproportionate level of the benefits while paying little or no taxes at all.

Now you see that the 80/20 rule can be used by everyone to support anything. This just goes to show that another well used axiom “statistics always lie and liars always use statistics,” continues to ring true. It is with that caveat that I now present “The Gray Dog Rules” for this year’s presidential race. It’s up to you to determine which is vital or trivial, the many or the few.

TGDR #1 – 98/2 Rule of Hair. This is the unfair and disproportionate distribution of senators with exceptional hair. Is it any wonder that two such finely coifed senators are at the head of the democratic ticket? Apologies to Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. Sorry girls, but these boys are bitchin’. (Hint to my rich conservative friends. Buy stock in Vidal Sassoon!)

TGDR #2 – 95/5 Rule of Celebrity Endorsements. This deals with the overwhelming proportion of bored, rich, Hollywood elitists that take their own press kits too seriously and will add their voices in support of the “Darling Democratic Duo”. But this may backfire. Who’s face do you want on your ads? Michael Moore? Howard Stern? Barbara Streisand? Or my suggestion for the new face of conservatism, Bo Derek!

TGDR #3 – 80/20 Rule of Undecided Voters. This represents the disparity between Americans with a clue compared to the trivial few who claim to be waiting for some epiphany to occur before they can select a candidate. I say, what are you waiting for? At least the ‘decided’ liberals are already in uniform, doing a weapons check and providing the rest of us a target, while you self-important neutrals aren’t quite ready to soil your shoes. The choice couldn’t be any clearer this year!

TGDR #4 – 80/20 Rule of Campaign Expenditures. This relates directly to TGDR #3. At least eighty percent of campaign expenditures will be wasted on television ads attempting to wake up the morons that have been either asleep or watching ‘Seinfeld’ and ‘Friends’ reruns for the past six months. If more of you would get off the fence and stake a position, all of us would not have to endure thousands of campaign ads, political conventions and debates. Instead we could all watch reruns of ‘Star Trek TNG’

TGDR #5 – 50/50 Rule of Statistics. I’ve already said it. If statistics always lie, liars always use statistics. 50/50 is the ratio of correct vs. wrong, right vs. left and fact vs. fiction.

It pains me to end with TGDR #5. I love numbers and have always found a certain comfort in my ability to use them quantitatively to support my arguments. But there are those far more clever than I, that come armed with percentages, ratios and complex calculus that cause my eyes to roll to the back of my head. The sad truth is that much of the fall debate will point toward such innocuous terms as misery index, GNP, inflation and unemployment rates, job growth, Consumer Confidence Index, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Lay some of those on the kid trying to make change at your next visit to McDonald’s.

So I end with the following:

TGDR #6 – 100/100 Rule of Civil Honest Debate. This is the ratio of Americans that will benefit from a debate that focuses on basic truth (simple declarative statements), providing a statement of who we are, what we want and a vision of where we want to be in the future.

Believe it or not, I want many of the same things that the liberals want. Who doesn’t want clean air and water, full employment, cheap energy, social justice and above all a world at peace? I just don’t believe in their vision of how to attain these illusive goals.

We might not all agree 100% with any of the visions offered, but we should know with 100% certainty which one we are signing up for.

I would like to cite the following article written by F. John Reh at Read Pareto's Principle by F. John Reh
as a resource of background material for this essay.

Tuesday, July 06, 2004

A Night at the Triple 'L' or John Kerry Picks Up a Mate

A Night at the Triple ‘L’

by The Gray Dog

The word is out. The selection made. John Kerry has dubbed John Edwards as his democratic running mate. Mr. Kerry’s selection process had all of the subtlety of a late night drunk trolling the local bars for a willing partner. Let’s set the scene for how this all came about.

After months out on the trail alone, a tired, dusty, road weary John Kerry returns home with only two things on his mind. A mighty thirst and the need to pick up a running mate. Our hero knows just where to go. It is the most rockin’, happenin’ joint in town: Liberal Louie’s Lounge. As Kerry arrives in front of the Triple ‘L’ , the sounds of the music and laughter mixed with the scent of cigars and stale ale send shivers of excited anticipation through every fiber of his body. Stepping out from the Limo, JFK brushes off the dust, adjusts his kerchief and smugly smiles at he thinks, Yes John, you’re going to get lucky tonight! Pushing through the double swinging doors, he strides purposely toward an open seat at the bar.

While discreetly eyeing the room through the reflection of the large mirror behind the bar, Louie arrives with the senator’s favorite cocktail, a Bloody Mary prepared with Heinz tomato juice and garnished with two Heinz Olives.

“Not much a crowd here tonight Louie”, Kerry remarked.

“Business has been pretty slow since the end of the primary season senator. But hey, the night’s young. Maybe things will pick up later”.

As Kerry delicately sips his Heinz Cocktail he turns in his seat for a better view of the room. Recognizing some of the regulars he sends a perfunctory wave to Joe Biden, a respectful nod to Hillary Clinton and exchanges a knowing smile with Ted Kennedy as they each raise their glass in the air. As Kerry begins to turn back toward the bar he spots a new face across the room. Vaguely familiar yet strangely exotic, Kerry is certain he’s seen this face before, just not here at Liberal Louie’s.

The stranger, sensing that Kerry is looking his way, coyly smiles. Sensing the opportunity, the senator wastes no time in crossing the bar and takes a seat next to this exciting newcomer.

“Hi, my name’s John. You look familiar but I don’t think I’ve seen you here before”.

“Hi, John. That’s my name too. You’re right, I only come here when I want to get away from people that might recognize me”.

“Wait a minute!” Kerry blurts. “You’re that senator from Arizona aren’t you? McCain, right?”

McCain smiles. “Well, I guess I wasn’t very successful tonight, was I?”

“Hey, let me buy you a drink” Kerry offers. “You’ve probably heard that I’m the presumed democratic presidential candidate and that I’m currently looking for a partner. Perhaps you might be interested?”

“Why John, you hardly know me. Don’t think because you buy me a drink I’m like all the other senators in this room!”

Kerry feigns shock. “No, no John. It’s your differences that attracted me. C’mon, it might be fun. Besides, you must be trying to get away from your old friends if you’re hangin’ out here. Let’s have another drink and talk about this “.

McCain continues to smile, while accepting the next drink. Kerry, beginning to get flustered starts pressing harder.

“Alright, what’s it going to take to get you to be my running mate? If, you’re not going to run with me, why did you show up at Louie’s?”

“Well Senator Kerry, if I didn’t show up at Louie’s once in a while, nobody back at Middle Ova’s Roadhouse would pay any attention to me. But right now I have to leave. I promised to meet my old buddy George there in a few minutes”.

As McCain stands and walks toward the door, Kerry watches dejectedly until McCain stops at the door and turns, “Thanks for the drinks”.

With hope fleeting, Kerry whimpers, “Call me?” Bitch!

McCain smiles, turns away and walks out.

Disheartened, Kerry now re-survey’s the room. Hillary has long since left, and Joe Biden has moved over to sit with Ted Kennedy who is now face down on the bar. Dick Gephardt had come in but purposely avoids eye contact with our hero. Kerry for his part, had already hit on him before and he just wasn’t in the mood to smooth the congressman’s ruffled feathers at this moment.

Returning to his seat at the bar, the senator orders up another cocktail. “And put a few dashes of Heinz Hot Sauce in this one Louie”.

As closing time approaches, an attractive newcomer appears through the doors. A dashing young man, with flashing white teeth, and a coif that rivaled Kerry’s own. He was right off the cover of GQ. Kerry’s heartbeat quickened as he thought, Could he be the one?

“Hey Louie, that’s Senator Edwards over there. He’s a little innocent and naïve. Do you think I’d have a shot with him?”

“I’d say it’s a sure thing Senator Kerry. He’s been in here every night the last two months askin’ about ya”.

Edwards strolls toward Kerry at the bar. “Hi, my name’s John.”

Kerry smiles back, “Hi, my name’s John too.”

Monday, July 05, 2004

The Reality Debates: Authors first draft.

The Reality Debates

by The Gray Dog

Sometime this fall, after the last red, white and blue balloons burst amidst thousands of drunken marionettes spirited delegates waving their red, white and blue banners while wallowing parading through waves of red, white and blue streamers, couch potatoes Americans at home will be anxiously awaiting the most dreaded anticipated television bomb extravaganza of the season. No, I’m not talking about Season Four of ‘American Idol’. I’m talking about the really big quadrennial event that the major networks wish they could ignore compete for. No, not the Summer Olympics. I’m talking about a series of televised events so mind-numbing and pathetic riveting and spellbinding that no red (or white and blue) blooded American will leave their seats for: The Presidential Debates.

All right, so perhaps you don’t think it’s that exciting. But I am in total awe of the hundreds of hours of dedicated preparation the participants must endure. Reading position papers by the dozens, crafting thoughtful policy statements, planning ‘spontaneous’ and humorous replies, rehearsing elocution and delivery, choosing just the right color tie and getting a $200 haircut with tint. And that’s just Peter Jennings.

I understand that the debates are not necessarily ‘Must See TV’ for everyone. But many of us wish we could will never forget four years ago as Al Gore posed with hand on hip, huffing and puffing, looking as if he might break into a rendition of “I’m a Little Tea Pot”. I’ll bet this performance even produced some sympathy votes from elderly Floridians who thought he looked constipated. Not that ‘W’ was perfect. He stumbled over thousands of a couple of words himself. OK, a lot of words. But I still voted for him.

That’s the problem. I know who I am voting for, regardless of what is said during the debates. I expect the the two or three Kerry supporters will do the same. I will watch them just so I can be prepared at work the next day for the inevitable idiot co-worker that lets me know Bush can’t pronounce ‘nuclear’. I will also arm myself with witticisms that ridicule Kerry’s looks performance as well. It truly is great sport. I’m quite certain the debates around the nation’s water coolers will be far more entertaining than the televised events, but will sadly will have the same impact: Very little.

The very people each candidate hopes to con impress, the ‘Undecided Voters’, will probably not be tuned in, opting instead to watch Paris Hilton milk a cow while Nicole Richie lovingly snorts like a little piglet. In fact the only vote cast this year by most of these folks will have been for Fantasia.

I’ll bet by now you’re getting the same idea I have. Reality Debates. I know, the debates are supposed to be reality already. But let’s face it. The League of Women Voters is in the minors when it comes to drawing an audience. It’s the same boring format every election and they don’t even have a catchy theme song. So here are some of my ideas for this year's Reality Debates.

First of all, only one debate. The preliminaries primaries were over this past winter and no one remembers the other contestants candidates any longer. We’re down to the finals, so on with the show debate. Next comes the theme song. It’s difficult to think of a single song that captures the essence of both contestants candidates. Perhaps a song and dance duet with ‘W’ and Kerry singing “I Can Do Anything Better Than You”. Or each contestant candidate could have their own theme music while being introduced. President Bush’s theme of course would be “Don’t Mess With Texas” while Senator Kerry’s might be “I’m a Yankee Doodle Dandy”. If that doesn’t suit his taste, he could always ask Al Gore’s permission to use “I’m a Little Tea Pot”.

Next comes the set design. I say drop the podia. Besides, I don’t want the audience electorate saying Bush has an unfair advantage with the Presidential Seal prominently displayed. Instead, each contestant candidate should stand before a tribal altar, with the appropriate tribal emblem. Bush’s emblem would be the great gray elephant, while Kerry’s would be the bold brown jackass donkey. Bamboo torches on either side of the altars will set a serious and somber mood befitting a ritual sacrifice serious discussion of the issues.

I’m also afraid that the network journalist have to sit this one out with the League of Women Voter’s. So instead of a gang of biased mudslingers panel of professional news anchors, I think the show debate should have one emcee moderator that personifies American values and ideals: Simon Cowell. So who cares if he’s English? He speaks it better than either of the contestants candidates. Simon will be seated upon an elevated throne, with a pin spot effecting an angelic glow around his head. Simon will ask the questions as well as rate the contestants candidates performance answers.

Finally, since most of the morons undecided electorate will be unable to agree upon a winner, a tribal council consisting of six bachelors and six bachelorettes will be convened at the conclusion of the competition debate. Each council member will vote on a square piece of paper by marking a large ‘W’ for President Bush or a large ‘F’ for Senator Kerry. Mr. Cowell will count the votes and announce Bush the winner. In case of a tie, Simon will launch into a tyrannical assault against both contestants candidates until Kerry one of the contestants candidates runs from the stage sobbing.

The show closes with Paula Abdul presenting a rose to Bush the winner. But don’t feel too bad. Kerry The loser still gets to sleep with Trista.

Michael Moore aka Hezbollah Harry

Michael Moore aka Hezbollah Harry

By The Gray Dog

That we live in politically fractious times is apparent to anyone that picks up a newspaper or watches cable news. In the four years since our last Presidential election, the tone of political debate began a downward spiral that seems incapable of establishing new lows that last more than a few days. Each time the thunderous, mean spirited, ad hominen attacks directed at the Bush administration appear to reach a deafening crescendo and the depths of vulgarity have been plumbed, a new wave begins to build, buoyed by the destructive force of it’s predecessor. Each time the American public surfaces for a collective gasp of air, another tidal wave of bile and hatred crashes overhead, threatening to submerge all of us for the final count.

The most recent wave of destructive vitriol is Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911” . Even the New York Times, the bastion of left-wing liberal thought, published this review written by A. O. Scott which states “"Fahrenheit 9/11," … is many things: a partisan rallying cry, an angry polemic, a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power. But one thing it is not is a fair and nuanced picture of the president and his policies. What did you expect? Mr. Moore is often impolite, rarely subtle and occasionally unwise. He can be obnoxious, tendentious and maddeningly self-contradictory. He can drive even his most ardent admirers crazy…”

Just who are Mr. Moore’s most ardent admirers?

The Guardian of London reported in June that organizations related to the Middle East-based Hezbollah terrorist network have offered to help promote the film in the United Arab Emirates. This has also been reported on countless web sites, print media and cable news shows such as “The O’Reilly Factor”. That Mr. Moore’s insane diatribes provide delicious news bites and political spin for the Kerry Campaign and late night comedians is just an unfortunate fact of today’s political reality. If Mr. Moore’s cynical viewpoint is further inspiration for Hollywood’s elite to move to France, England or Palestine, then maybe there is a positive aspect to this film as well. However, Mr. Moore’s deliberate and malicious attempt to undermine America’s war against terror, while simultaneously providing aid and comfort to her enemies should be considered Treason.

Now, before this article receives an avalanche of negative responses from the ACLU and others asserting Mr. Moore’s First Amendment rights, let’s be clear about one thing: There are limits to “Freedom of Speech”. One cannot falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater any more than one can make a direct threat against the President. There are numerous other examples where the safety and welfare of the public supersedes an individuals right to incite through “free speech”. But just how does Mr. Moore and his film go beyond the pale and warrant this indictment?

Is Mr. Moore a continuation of the sad and pathetic legacies of Ikuko ‘Iva’ Toguri and Mildred Gillars?

An older generation of Americans will remember these two women as “Tokyo Rose” and “Axis Sally”. Each of these American women allowed themselves to become puppets of the Japanese and German war efforts respectively during WWII by providing regular radio broadcasts for the purpose of demoralizing American troops. While there is no direct evidence that their broadcasts caused more than curiosity and amusement to their intended victims, each for their efforts were tried and convicted of treason.

Mr. Moore however is no one’s puppet and his irresponsible foray transcends mere political demagoguery. It is a propaganda tool that has all of the potential of not only inspiring our terrorist enemies, but of actually becoming a real vehicle of revenue enhancement for terrorist causes. It should not be beyond one’s imagination to see this film being distributed throughout militant Muslim nations, raising dollars that can be used to arm and support continued assaults against all Americans, our allies and humanity in general.

As the mantle of “Hanoi” Jane Fonda has been passed down through Hollywood’s elite, Moore is the latest poster child for the “America Last” crowd inciting a deadly brand of militant activism. It is as lethal as if Mr. Moore strapped the explosive’s on the back of a fifteen year old Palestinian youth himself. It is the type of activism that goes beyond protected speech.


Unlike poor Ms. Toguri and Ms. Gillars, it is unlikely that Mr. Moore will ever be held accountable for his traitorous behavior. Moore is wealthy and has political clout. Any attempt to prosecute Moore in our current politically charged environment would act as a lightning rod aligning all disparate liberal factions to his defense. Even more frightening is the power that Moore and his Hollywood disciples possess: The power to shape the public’s opinion through their fractured lens. Crafting false images of their opponents with slick edits, showing close-ups of America’s warts while ignoring the panoramic view of all her glory. With heavy makeup and dazzling effects, Mr. Moore will be portrayed as the “defender of the masses” and the “harbinger of truth” and all we are left with is a monstrous distortion that the unsuspecting masses will soak in. Sadly, the real beauty and truth will have been left on the cutting room floor.

The New Loyalists?

The New Loyalist?

By The Gray Dog


Whew! I needed to get that off of my chest. Actually, I must admit that I am quite happy that Gwyneth Paltrow has decided to raise her new daughter Apple in England. I’m sure the English children will be far kinder to a girl named Apple than the little American urchins. But I digress. As I said, I’m happy for Ms. Paltrow and respect her decision. Unlike Alec Baldwin, Paltrow and hubby Chris Martin aren’t making idle threats to leave the country. They’re movin’ on up to the east side (of the Atlantic, that is), and if lucky might become Madonna’s new neighbors. I’m sure Madonna must be licking her chops for yet another attempt to convert the young couple to the Kabbalah faith.

Johnny Depp’s okay in my book as well. He’s taking up new digs in France. Michael Moore on the other hand is only an “Honorary” Canadian. Michael, go home! I’m not saying “America, love it or leave it”, I’m just saying quit raising our hopes with your boisterous, attention-getting rants and get going already. If you’re not going then quit torturing us with false promises.

Actually, I am jealous of all of you. I wonder what it must feel like to know that other places exists that are more suited to your intellect and sensibilities. Other places that offer Utopian visions of peace, harmony and love. Somewhere that can protect it’s citizens from the horrors of nuclear war and terrorists attacks through peaceful and reasoned negotiation. I envy your noble cultures, your castles and great halls of learning. The art, music, theater and literature. A pacifist paradise.

But what about the movies?

Well no place is perfect. Right? I know that most of you ex-Hollywood, nouveau-Europeans will return to the states from time to time, make a new movie (and a few million capitalist dollars) and then high tail it back across the big pond. Some of my friends will not like this, but I’m a true capitalist. Until we find enough talent in our community theaters to replace you, I’m willing for the government to issue temporary work visas for the duration of filming. Just don’t overstay your welcome.

Yes, I say come back to work once a year, visit your mom and attend an occasional funeral. The only day you shouldn’t plan to be here for is the Tuesday which follows the first Monday in November. That is the day that the rest of us, with nowhere else to go, get down to the serious business of preserving the world’s last great bastion of freedom. And if our candidate should lose, we will still be here the next day. Where would we go?

If John F. Kerry should prevail I won’t move away to some foreign land that better suits my politics or provides a better place to raise a child. I will just stay and work harder because that is what most Americans have always done. NO, I don’t relish the idea of the democrats regaining the political edge again, but they’ve had it for most of my life and I’m still here kicking. That is why I’m sticking around not only for this election, but for all the others that will happen while I still draw breath. No, I won’t move away to that better land. It doesn’t exist. I will just stay here and do what I can to improve my homeland the best way I can. I think a good start will be to get a subscription to my local community theater.