Lou de Loop flies the coup

"Mr. Independent" really is now. Lou Dobbs quit CNN today to take his shtick elsewhere.

Where "elsewhere" is, we don't know yet. And neither does Dobbs -- at least that's what he's telling the public.

You have to wonder whether he's going to try -- now that he has no more "network supervision" (for what little that's worth) to worry about -- to out-Beck the sine qua nut of the airwaves, Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck. Well, if he's going to try, he's gonna need a megaphone the size of the one he just left behind.

WHICH IS ODD, given Dobbs' stated reasoning:

Over the past six months it’s become increasingly clear that strong winds of change have begun buffeting this country and affecting all of us, and some leaders in media, politics and business have been urging me to go beyond the role here at CNN and to engage in constructive problem solving as well as to contribute positively to the great understanding of the issues of our day. And to continue to do so in the most honest and direct language possible.

I’ve talked extensively with Jonathan Klein — Jon’s the president of CNN — and as a result of those talks, Jon and I have agreed to a release from my contract that will enable me to pursue new opportunities.

At this point, I’m considering a number of options and directions, and I assure you, I will let you know when I set my course. I truly believe that the major issues of our time include the growth of our middle class, the creation of more jobs, health care, immigration policy, the environment, climate change, and our military involvement, of course, in Afghanistan and Iraq.

TRANSLATION: I was fired.

Either that, or there's going to be a Dobbs '10 campaign for something. That would be interesting -- frightening, but interesting.

Still, you have to wonder what happened to Lou Dobbs. He used to be a straight-laced business reporter and anchor. And there was nothing wrong with his questioning politically correct orthodoxies about immigration, particularly that of the illegal variety.

But. . . .

Apparently, there wasn't anything Lou Dobbs couldn't take too far. As in Too Far. As in playing fast and loose with facts.

As in, sooner or later, lapsing into inflammatory rhetoric that -- in a saner day in TV news -- would have gotten him fired on the spot.

And then there was his whole fascination this year with Birtherism, and his refusal to drop the subject when it became painfully clear not only that President Obama was indeed born in Hawaii, but also that the Birthers (and by association, Dobbs) were a bunch of paranoid lunatics.

COME TO THINK OF IT, Lou Dobbs had been trying to out-Beck Glenn Beck even when Beck was just another radio talk-show blowhard.

Unfortunately for Lou, he lacked the blackboard, the tear ducts and the madman charisma to lead an armored division of nutwagons to ratings glory. Instead, Lou now has been relieved of his command.

Mobilizing the Unhinged Corps has fallen to a bolder general . . . a regular George Patton will lead that googly-eyed irregular army.

Because nobody out-Becks Glenn Beck. Enjoy oblivion, Lou; you earned it.

Remain calm, oil is well. . . .

Gee, we kind of are the Great Satan, aren't we?

I mean, we suck up vast amounts of the world's natural resources in order to support ridiculously overblown lifestyles and compulsive consumerism. We drive all over the place in SUVs, spend money we don't have like no one will ever cut up our national credit card . . . and it's all either to scratch our itch, or go to war in regions of the world we'd care nothing about if not for oil.

Oil is the fast food of our supersized national appetite.

AND WE'LL DO ANYTHING to deny the reality that the jig is about to be up. From the Guardian in London:

The world is much closer to running out of oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

The senior official claims the US has played an influential role in encouraging the watchdog to underplay the rate of decline from existing oil fields while overplaying the chances of finding new reserves.

The allegations raise serious questions about the accuracy of the organisation's latest World Energy Outlook on oil demand and supply to be published tomorrow – which is used by the British and many other governments to help guide their wider energy and climate change policies.

In particular they question the prediction in the last World Economic Outlook, believed to be repeated again this year, that oil production can be raised from its current level of 83m barrels a day to 105m barrels. External critics have frequently argued that this cannot be substantiated by firm evidence and say the world has already passed its peak in oil production.

Now the "peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have [already] entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

IN A WORD . . . sigh.

A special kind of nuts

What kind of insanity would cause supporters of health-care reform to declare war on the only thing keeping health-care reform from legislative oblivion?

THIS KIND of insanity, is what. The Hill fills us in:

A House Democratic leader said Monday she's “confident” controversial language on abortion will be stripped from a final healthcare bill.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the Democrats’ chief deputy whip in the House, said that she and other pro-abortion rights lawmakers would work to strip the amendment included in the House health bill that bars federal funding from subsidizing abortions.

“I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there,” Wasserman Schultz said during an appearance on MSNBC. “And I think we're all going to be working very hard, particularly the pro-choice members, to make sure that's the case.”

The amendment, offered by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), won the support of Republicans and dozens of centrist Democrats in the House, but revealed a deep divide in the Democratic caucus over abortion.

Sixty-four Democrats voted for Stupak’s amendment, without which the House healthcare bill would not have won final passage in a 220-215 vote.

THE STUPAK AMENDMENT provided the thin margin by which health-care reform passed the House. Without it, you can bet it won't pass the Senate.

And if it's stripped in conference -- assuming Senate passage of a bill, which well might be a long shot -- the legislation will fail in the House. Really, what kind of insanity causes alleged supporters of health-care reform to intentionally doom what they say they're for?

I suppose the same kind of insanity that causes a society to execute its future in the womb and call it women's rights . . . even though at least half of the condemned are women.

And if you're OK with flat-out elimination of society's least powerful and least privileged members, what's the big whoop with telling those vastly more able to fend for themselves to "root, hog, or die," right?

There is no place like Nebraska

The really sad commentary about these Daily Reveille reporters' adventure -- as Louisiana State students behind "enemy lines" in Alabama -- is that the Visigoths in Tuscaloosa make a valid point with their complaints about the relative incivility of the Vandals in Baton Rouge.

Sorry, but the older I get (and the longer I live up here in the Great White Nawth), the less impressed I am with the "SEC game-day atmosphere" and the "charm" of getting drunk off your ass . . . and then showing it to the world.

Follow the links, and you'll see this is no mere metaphor at LSU.

And I say this as only a transplant could . . . truly, there is no place like Nebraska.

Tea-bag right wants to 'stir fry' Cao

For New Orleans' congressman, Anh "Joseph" Cao, the easy vote was "yes" on the House health-care reform bill.

But the easier vote for the Vietnamese-American Republican might have been against "socialized medicine" and for the fat cats demanding Stalinist uniformity within GOP ranks. That's because Cao likely will find himself booted out of office by his mostly black, overwhelmingly Democrat constituency, no matter what.

If that's the case, there's no percentage in hacking off your party masters, who could find you a nice patronage setup befitting a former member of Congress.

NEVERTHELESS, the diminutive Republican decided -- with the abortion issue removed as a matter for conscientious objection on pro-life grounds -- to vote the interests of his health coverage-deprived constituents . . . the ones unlikely to return him to Congress next year.

And boy are the Republicans mad. Some hardly can wait to make good on GOP chair Michael Steele's threat to "come after" representatives not hewing the party line.

Of course, some members of Louisiana's predictably barbarian GOP base are resorting to ethnic slurs to make the "Obama-lover" pay. The Dead Pelican is reporting on the early stages of just that:

Republican voters were irate Saturday about Congresman Joseph Cao casting the lone Republican vote for what has come to be known as "Obamacare." The backlash became quickly apparent after Cao cast the fateful vote.

Mere moments after casting the vote, DEAD PELICAN received the above photo from DEAD PELICAN reader Adrian Guillory.

He calls the photo "Joseph Cao: American Sellout."

When asked what his message to Cao was, Guillory simply said "BYE, BYE, CAO!!! You're gong to be deep-fried and stir-fried in 2010!"

The photo is highlighted in an ominous shade of red, and the "O" in "Cao" is highlighted with the insignia from President Obama's campaign literature. The photo conveys Republican outrage, suggesting that Cao is "in the tank" for Obama.

HOW DID the guy not manage to use the phrase "chop chop"? Or suggest that Cao might be closet Viet Cong?

Oh, damn. There I go again, giving ideas to people who rarely have them naturally.

And then there's this, from some tea-party hothead in Orange County, Calif.:

This traitor needs to go. The GOP needs to quit funding the campaigns of RINOS such as him. I find it interesting that one twitterer who responded to a tweet that I posted advocating that he needs to be voted out responded with "Unfortunately he is as conservative as we are getting in that district." ARE YOU KIDDING ME?" ABSOLUTELY NOT! The time for compromise is over. We need to raise up true red blooded conservatives all across the nation that will run to unseat RINOS who run on the coattails of our party and then support their own radical liberal agendas. Can you say Dede?

Are you mad as "HELL" yet? If not get off your apathetic arses and join in with the millions of conservative voices that will fight with every last breath to win back our party and save the Country that we love from descending into the abbys of SOCIALISM.

We keep hearing politicians throw around terms such as this corporation or that institution is too big too fail. Americans let get this straight......AMERICA IS TOO BIG TO FAIL! We need to keep fighting. I for one will never give. Lets's send a message to Cao and his ilk....Votes have consequences so start packing!

"LETS'S" be careful about descending into the "abbys of SOCIALISM." If you mess with the wrong Abby -- if you start making wild accusations about her politics -- Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs just might have to cast you into some fresh criminal-justice abyss.

The House's prescription

For once, you have to give the U.S. House of Representatives credit. It pulled off the previously unthinkable.

And a good kind of unthinkable, at that.

After decades and decades, it finally passed something that's as close to universal health coverage as is likely to survive an American legislative chamber. Now if only the Senate would get on board. . . .

THE HEROES of the fight for health-care reform -- at least thus far -- are Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and his band of pro-life Democrats. They won a ban on federal subsidies for abortion in the House bill and, in the process, assured its final passage.

MSNBC has the story:

"It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans. It offers everyone, regardless of health or income, the peace of mind that comes from knowing they will have access to affordable health care when they need it," said Rep. John Dingell, the 83-year-old Michigan lawmaker who has introduced national health insurance in every Congress since succeeding his father in 1955.

In the runup to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.

The vote added to the Democratic bill an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and others, that prohibits individuals who receive insurance subsidies from purchasing any plan that pays for elective abortions.

House Democratic leaders agreed Friday night to allow a floor vote on the Stupak amendment to the bill in order to win the support of about three dozen Democrats who feared that the original bill would have subsidized abortions.

Ironically, the abortion vote only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for the conservative Democrats to vote for it.

A cheer went up from the Democratic side of the House when the bill gained 218 votes, a majority. Moments later, Democrats counted down the final seconds of the voting period in unison, and and let loose an even louder roar when Pelosi grabbed the gavel and declared, "the bill is passed.'

From the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada issued a statement saying, "We realize the strong will for reform that exists, and we are energized that we stand closer than ever to reforming our broken health insurance system."

(snip)

The compromise brokered Friday night on the volatile issue of abortion finally secured the votes needed to pass the legislation.

As drafted, the measure denied the use of federal subsidies to purchase abortion coverage in policies sold by private insurers in the new insurance exchange, except in cases of incest, rape or when the life of the mother was in danger.

But abortion foes won far stronger restrictions that would rule out abortion coverage except in those three categories in any government-sold plan. It would also ban abortion coverage in any private plan purchased by consumers receiving federal subsidies.

Disappointed Democratic abortion rights supporters grumbled about the turn of events, but appeared to pull back quickly from any thought of opposing the health care bill in protest.

GOING TO THE WALL for abortion coverage, to state the painfully obvious, would not have been pragmatic. If you want to build a workable coalition around an already-controversial bill, you don't go around actively chasing off allies.

Like the Catholic Church, for one. Or pro-life Democrats, like Stupak and his confederates, for about 40 others.

It can't be emphasized too much that only by doing the "right thing" did Democrats save health-care reform from sudden legislative death.

It also can't be emphasized too much that the House has neutralized the biggest weapon in the anti-reformist arsenal. If one opposed health-care legislation on pro-life grounds, that's non-negotiable. That's something over which you "go to the wall."

Now, not so much.

Now, if pro-lifers are going to oppose health-care reform, they're going to have to explain how opposing coverage for millions and millions of the uninsured might be considered a "pro-life" move. They're going to have to explain how the perpetuation, by default, of a fundamentally unjust system responsible for the needless deaths of an estimated 44,789 Americans a year isn't a profound betrayal of the pro-life cause.

And you know what? They can't.

NO, IF "PRO-LIFERS" want to persist in railing about "socialized medicine" instead of getting behind an imperfect but as-good-as-we'll-get House-passed bill, they're going to have to admit that the pro-life movement -- or at least the K Street manifestation thereof -- really is nothing more than an anti-abortion movement.

I can think of no greater travesty . . . no greater affront to a God who, it has been rumored over 6,000 or so years of Judeo-Christian history, continues to care deeply about human beings once they emerge from the womb.

In today's deeply toxic and deeply stupid political culture, I am sure what I've just written will get me branded a "radical socialist" by more than a few. Well, if this be socialism, I will wear the "socialist" label with pride.

3 Chords & the Truth: On the road

We're on the road again.

Just can't wait to get on the road again. . . .

Now, wait a minute. With apologies to Willie Nelson, you can't get on the road again if you've never gotten off. And that's the story of life -- you're on a long, long road and you never get off.

At least until . . . well.

WE'RE ALWAYS on the road to something or down the road from something. Life is a journey, and we live it on the road. This week on 3 Chords & the Truth, we'll celebrate that little fact with a great big, honkin' set of songs for . . . the road.

And that's just one part of the deal with the latest episode of the Big Show. Maybe you need to tune in to see what it's all about, Alfie.

But that's another song, entirely.

It's 3 Chords & the Truth, y'all. Be there. Aloha.

It's Muslims, guns and morons . . . and the s*** has hit the fan

Sigh.

It didn't take long after the Fort Hood massacre for the usual suspects to say exactly what you'd expect.

IN FACT, I was so sure of that, just a little while ago I Googled "Barack Hussein Obama," "Fort Hood" and "Muslim." And in the combox of an item on Lucianne.com . . . the mother lode:

Reply 15 - Posted by: ann_n_GA, 11/5/2009 6:21:55 PM (No. 6002989)
How in the world could someone like this horrible Muslim terrorist(s), become a Major in the US Army? Don't we make sure people like this are not able to gun down the men and women in our armed forces?

Now I'm hearing he's a mental health professional and/or a doctor. Well, it makes no difference to the Muslims, as long as they can sneak them in.

And I'm sure Zippy and his Reverend Wright are gleeful, right now.

I would have never believed that in my lifetime, I would see a man get elected President who outwardly exhibits hatred for his country. And I feel very sorry for our military, who has to call this man their CIC. It's disgusting.

This all makes me nauseated...

Reply 18 - Posted by: 10ftOverhead, 11/5/2009 6:24:19 PM (No. 6002995)
Will Obama and Michelle do a little fist bump when he gets home?

Reply 19 - Posted by: planetgeo, 11/5/2009 6:24:27 PM (No. 6002996)
#14, "Any one in the military with a muslim background should be scrutinized very carefully."

Wrong. Any one in the military, or any sensitive government position, should be removed from their position and placed under watch by our intelligence agencies. This is now at least the 3rd incident of Muslims either planning or executing an attack on our military facilities in the United States. How many more will our leaders tolerate before they stop the nonsense about "a tragic event" and planned, pre-meditated jihadist action?

How many more?!

Reply 20 - Posted by: planetgeo, 11/5/2009 6:27:44 PM (No. 6003007)
I'm so angry I couldn't even see straight enough to add the obvious..."with a Muslim background". I'm sure my fellow LDotters know the feeling.

Reply 21 - Posted by: bean, 11/5/2009 6:29:43 PM (No. 6003011)
EVERY news channel is AVOIDNG the obvious-this was a terrorist attack. Is the White House threatening them to keep quiet?

Reply 23 - Posted by: vrb8m, 11/5/2009 6:37:27 PM (No. 6003031)
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, from the book "The Audacity of Hope".

Reply 24 - Posted by: Israel Putnam, 11/5/2009 6:39:30 PM (No. 6003034)
Get angry...get ready.

Reply 26 - Posted by: loosietoot, 11/5/2009 6:40:17 PM (No. 6003038)
Sorry folks! I hold this so-called and probably illegal President directly responsible for all deaths of all soldiers with his dithering on Afganistan increases, and his praising of HIS MUSLIM BROTHERS.

I thought he sounded so PHONEY IN HIS APPEARANCE ON FOX!!!! My God, our country is in serious peril with this Muslim President!!!!!!!!!!

Reply 31 - Posted by: RedWhite&Blue2, 11/5/2009 7:00:28 PM (No. 6003096)
One wonders how a crazy Muslim could become an American army Major?

The same one wonders how in blazes a guy named Hussein, raised by commies, could become CIC of the USA? A very skinny, purple-lipped, whistling ignoramus!

What the hell is wrong with us? 40% conservative in America and yet we let the commies, the muzzies, the lefties,the public schools, the DNC, the sandal-wearing commie creep professors, the LSM, and Hollyweird DICTATE our very own policies to us!

I am MAD as HELL and if I wasnt 60 I think I'd re-up and pick up a gun again like I did in '67! It's been a civil war here for some years, hasnt it? Isnt it most evident today?

God have mercy on their souls....

I THINK that's enough. You get the picture.

And I think it's pretty apparent by now where "Liberal Fascists" author Jonah Goldberg gets his reactionary nature . . . Lucianne.com is run by his mother, Lucianne Goldberg.

Right now -- and it's now 7:44 p.m. Central time as I type -- we know damned little about what happened in Texas. We know the alleged shooter, an Army psychiatrist with the rank of major, was a Muslim.

We know he's dead, having been shot by police.

We know he may have been “pretty upset” about his pending deployment to the war zone, at least according to U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas.

We know Fort Hood's commander, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, said there were eyewitness accounts of a second shooter, and that a person of interest is being questioned.

We know the dead suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, 39, may have posted Internet items justifying suicide bombings. Likewise, we know federal authorities have yet to confirm Hasan was the author.

And we know that, ironically, Hasan was a graduate of Virginia Tech.

THAT'S ALL we know, and we don't know no more. Then again, since when has not knowing much been a deterrent to the Tea Party set when the subject matter is extreme rhetoric and rash action.

Keep your powder dry, people. There will be lots to think about -- and to decide what to do about -- when we have a few answers in hand.

Until then, "patriot" morons and their Internet enablers are just making a bad situation a lot worse.

UPDATE: And sometimes what we "know" just ain't so . . . which just goes to prove my point.

The alleged gunman isn't dead. Wounded, yes, but not dead:

An Army psychiatrist opened fire Thursday at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 12 people and wounding 31 others, military officials said.

The gunman was wounded multiple times at the scene but was captured alive and was in stable condition, Lt. Gen. Robert W. Cone, commanding general of the Army’s III Corps, said at a press conference late Thursday.

See, I have this antique juicer. . . .

And when you're done, you'll also have a bowl of smashed apples.

What to do with your apple remains? Well, get you some of this kind of bread -- "multigrain sandwich thins" they're called.

See? Nice and thin. This will be important.

Because when you toast them, they get nice and crispy. And they won't get soggy when . . .

. . . you slather them with honey and cinnamon . . .

. . . and dump all your smashed apples on there.

You'll also want to add some cheddar cheese. And next time I do this, I'll drizzle some of the apple juice over the whole thing to make it more moist.

Finally, you want to throw it in the microwave to thoroughly melt the cheese and get your instant "pies" piping hot. That's where the toasted sandwich thins staying crispy comes in -- they won't get all soggy after being microwaved.

And there you go. A taste sensation.

No need to thank me, The Anachronistic Chef.

The future is . . . now

I have seen the future of American journalism, and it looks something like this.

Here is why:




THE TEXAS TRIBUNE, in all its online, non-profit glory, has managed to get up and running in just three months -- and has done it with a staff of 16, with some outside-contractor help. I know of newspapers with staffs well into three figures that haven't been able to mount websites half as useful or easy to navigate after trying for years.

Are the folks at The Texas Tribune that much smarter than everybody else in American journalism? No. But they're proving themselves a lot more nimble . . . and creative.

The Tribune staff is thinking like a guerrilla army -- it's always thinking of how to do a lot with a little, and quickly. American newspaperdom is thinking like the American commanders in Afghanistan . . .and the Soviet commanders who used to be in Afghanistan.

American newspaperdom is trying to shore up a dying empire with a decimated army. Print journalism's losing the "hearts and minds" of the people.

More and more "hearts and minds" -- or at least eyeballs -- will be lost as the dead-tree media, in their desperation, start charging more and more for the printed page. And as online content (the bastard fruit of the Daily Blab's proverbial womb, birthed as an afterthought) starts to disappear behind "pay firewalls."

LET ME ASK you a question. If newspapers begin charging left and right for online content you used to get for free, and if you still can get really quality journalism on the Web for no charge from sites like National Public Radio (for your national news) and The Texas Tribune (for matters closer to home), where will you get your news -- especially when money is tight?

The Texas Tribune, I'm guessing, has a better idea. There will be other better ideas coming along presently.

Welcome to the future.

Old school

Jesus saves; PACs don't

This conversion of a Planned Parenthood director in Texas was not brought to you by the Republican Party, nasty placards sold by the American Life League . . . or by anybody's political-action committee.

Lawyers did not rack up any billable hours.

Nary a vote was taken.

THIS CONVERSION of a Planned Parenthood director in Texas was brought to you by the Holy Spirit working through some pro-life folks down the street. Folks who looked at a Planned Parenthood director and saw a child of God in trouble and in need of friendship.

Planned Parenthood -- lacking any ideas on any better response to the Almighty -- got some lawyers and went to court. It wouldn't shock me if those committed to a better culture through flush political-action committees lawyered up, too, in a bid to put God back in His proper place as the Religious Right's mascot.

After all, when that ol' boy starts freelancing like He did in Bryan, Texas, last month, that can be nothing but bad for bidness. Everybody's bidness.

The Ugly American

Like a stopped clock, the Ugly American is correct twice a day.

Or, in former New Orleans "recovery czar" Ed Blakely's case, twice in a couple of years and change.

The story of Mr. Disaster Recovery in the Big Easy -- cette Americain Vilain -- is a typical story of les Americains descending upon a foreign country, figuring out (more or less) what the deal is pretty quickly, then embarking upon quixotic quests to pound large square pegs into teeny round holes.

THIS ALWAYS goes rather disastrously. The natives grow to hate the Ugly Americans, bombs are thrown, casualties mount, and the Ugly Americans pronounce the backward locals incorrigible.

Then comes the choice between overwhelming force and getting the hell out of Dodge -- and a quick look at the poll numbers (and the ledger) usually tips the balance in favor of hauling ass. Oftentimes, the Ugly American departs with a pithy benediction for the unkempt, uncouth masses left to deal with the mess les Americains made of, well, everything (as if the everyday, ordinary messes of the locals' own making weren't daunting enough):

I KNOW . . . I know. "Hey, you f***** up. You trusted us" is not what Ed Blakely said. I know Otter, and the erstwhile "recovery czar" is no Otter.

Neidermeyer, maybe.

On the other hand, you have to admit that Neidermeyer was kinda right when he told Flounder he was "worthless and weak."

Nevertheless, that's where we stand -- Ed Blakely is your typical Ugly American in a Third World dystopia. He basically knows the problem; he basically knows how things ought to be, but he has absolutely no idea how to get from here to there.

And he damn well isn't going to stick around long enough to figure it out. Or win any "hearts and minds."

AYE, BUT HERE be the rub: Somebody's got to. We have met the enemy, he talks and acts funny, and we think we saw his kind when some junta took over some Central American country or another . . . and he, inexplicably, is us.

Louisiana -- New Orleans -- is not American, not culturally or temperamentally. The city and state face terrible problems that, in many respects, are not "American" in size or scope, and they prove resistant to public-policy medications formulated for different strains of dysfunction.

They can be fixed, but only with the application of overwhelming force and decades of "nation building." And who can afford that? Who has patience for that?

Thus the Vietnam bugout. And the ongoing Iraq bugout. And the coming Afghanistan bugout -- one way or another.

And bugging out is an entirely reasonable thing to do under the dictum, "When you find yourself in a deep hole, quit digging." Obviously, it was a reasonable move for an Ugly American who'd dug himself as deep a hole as Ed Blakely.

THANKS TO WHAT Thomas Jefferson did in 1803, however, not every American (most especially the federal government) has the luxury of Blakely's "wham bam, thank you, ma'am" act.

Something's got to give -- and soon enough, it will.

Oh, they built the ship Titanic. . . .

So, Scoop, what do you think the chances are that we come out of this iceberg field alive?

Can't say, guv'na.

Why not, Scoop? I mean, we're underway at 25 knots and, from what I can see through my opera glasses here, there's an iceberg dead ahead.

Guv'na, this 'ere crew on the S.S. Titanic are not allowed to speculate about icebergs and our chances of 'ittin' one and drownin' 'ere in the bloody North Atlantic. It would impugn the very notion of our objectivity as crew.

Uh, Scoop . . . I wouldn't be worrying my little head about notions and appearances right now with that iceberg dead ahead. Shouldn't you be worrying about the real and present danger?

Listen, mate! Them bleedin' icebergs will take care o' theyselves! 'Aven't you 'eard? The Titanic is bloody unsinkable! If I was allowed to prognosticate -- which I ain't, mind you -- you would be owing me a snifterful in New York.

But, Scoop! LOOK OU. . . .

FLASH FORWARD 97 YEARS . . . to the bridge of the unsinkable S.S. Denver Post, cruising full steam ahead on a journey into the mainstream-media future as the flagship of the White Elephant Line.

So, Westword would like you to sit right back, and you'll hear a tale -- a tale of a fateful trip. . . .

The dictate went public Friday afternoon, when Broncos writer Mike Klis appeared on Mile High Sports Radio, at 1510 AM, with hosts Nate Kreckman and Joel Klatt, who hooted at the very idea of a prognostication ban.

When Klatt and Kreckman asked Klis if he thought the Broncos could defeat the Ravens in Baltimore on Sunday (which, unfortunately, they couldn't -- or at least didn't), the Post staffer explained that his supervisors had concluded that offering picks about a team beat writers are supposed to cover in an even-handed way potentially undermined their objectivity in the eyes of readers. Klis added that the change had been instituted after the San Diego game, when pretty much everyone who weighed in foresaw a Chargers victory (instead, the Broncos won).

What was the real motivations for eliminating predictions? And did readers upset that none of the writers had confidence in the Broncos have any impact? Not according to [Post Editor Greg] Moore, corresponding by e-mail, who says, "It is an ethical move. Sports writers are no different than other news-beat reporters. We would not have political reporters picking sides in a political contest.

"We did not get a single complaint from outside," Moore continues, "but I did look at the predictions before the San Diego game. Obviously, I had seen these for years. And it occurred to me that it must be making it hard for news reporters, especially when they pick against the team they cover. In an equal vein, these beat reporters don't want to seem like homers, always picking the Broncos. The more I thought about it, the more it seemed an unreasonable position to put these reporters in."

I'LL BET THE instruments of the ship's band of the S.S. Titanic were spotless -- and the musician's ability to play "Nearer My God to Thee" untainted by personal bias -- as the unsinkable ocean liner slipped beneath the waves and into the depths of the deep, blue sea.

Pakistan on the bayou

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was rather, shall we say, blunt in her remarks to various groups of Pakistanis this past week.

Basically, adjusting for diplomacy-speak, she said Pakistan was a basket case, and that unless that country gets its act together, Americans will just be pouring foreign aid we scarcely can afford anymore down a rat hole.

She told Pakistanis they were too ignorant, too sick, their infrastructure was a damn mess, and that their country doesn't tax itself nearly enough to do any bootstrap-pulling at all.

HERE'S A "money" quote from a roundtable with Pakistani business leaders in Lahore.

"And so at some point, when you ask for partnership, you have to ask what the equity state is that Pakistan itself is looking to make," Clinton said, "because it is difficult to go to our taxpayers and say we consider Pakistan a strategic partner, we consider it a long-term friend and ally, we have supported it since its inception in 1947, we want to continue to do so, and have our taxpayers and our members of Congress say, 'Well, we want to help those who help themselves, and we tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see happening in Pakistan.'"

That's blunt. And it occurred to me . . . what if the federal government took that approach with various "undertaxed" American states that, nevertheless, think they have the same -- nay, more -- right to sacks and sacks of federal cash than those "nanny states" taxing themselves into oblivion.

Red-blooded, all-American, rugged-individualist conservatives in low-tax states like (Oh, what the hell . . . ) Louisiana would like us to believe they're somehow ruggeder and more individualistic and moral than us damn Yankees in Omaha, by God, Nebraska, sitting here with the 182nd-highest property tax out of 1,800 ranked U.S. counties. By comparison, my home parish in Louisiana, East Baton Rouge, sits at No. 1,546.

And the bottom 10 property-tax counties in the United States are all in Louisiana.

And yet, there are Louisiana's politicians standing there in Washington, with hands outstretched or, alternately, trying to gerrymander the 2010 Census to tilt federal-aid formulas in their direction -- and maybe keep from losing a congressional district, too.

Cue Hillary Clinton.

I WONDER whether she could make time for a couple of Baton Rouge roundtables? Because if you spend a day driving around my hometown -- driving around all of my hometown -- you're going to think two things.

First, you're going to think it doesn't do much to keep itself up. You're going to, at some point, use the phrase "God helps those who help themselves."

For example, is this a school in Baton Rouge or one in Pakistan?

You ought to see police headquarters (at top).

And second, you're going to think middle-class Baton Rouge spends the money it doesn't spend on taxes on heavy artillery it trains on the city's poor neighborhoods.

WHEN A STATE doesn't see fit to collect enough local revenue to take care of its basic local needs, at what point does a strapped national government -- and Americans who do tax themselves enough to, more or less, cover local basics -- look at the able-bodied beggar and say, "Screw you, buddy! I saw you take that fiver out of your pocket and buy a pack of smokes."

I mean, read these excerpts from Clinton's remarks and start replacing "Pakistan" with "Louisiana." It gets real interesting real fast:

The United States wants to help create more jobs in Pakistan. We see this happening in two ways: one, a direct way through programs such as what we are advocating for the creation of reconstruction opportunity zones which will open market access to the United States. We are working to accelerate this approach because it’s essential that we provide more assistance in trade and investment and help to improve the environment for you to do more business.

We also know, though, that in addition to direct programs like that, encouraging your government to do more in the way of trade agreements, looking for opportunities to open up the Pakistan economy to greater trade access, from not just the United States but from this region and beyond, but there are issues that affect how much business you can do, what kind of capacity you have.

(snip)

We know that at the base of any economy are the talents of the people, and there is no doubt that the Pakistani people are incredibly talented. But it is also beyond argument that there needs to be greater emphasis on education and health, on women’s empowerment, in order to realize the full potential of the challenge that exists. I often say that talent is universal, but opportunity is not. And we have to change the opportunity structure and create opportunity ladders.

Last night, I was in Islamabad for the second drawing of the Benazir Income Support Program, and I was privileged to hand out certificates to some of the women who came from very rural areas to accept their certificates, which carried with them the promise of investments, investments in them and in their families, giving them the tools that they then can use to try to improve their lives.

Really, when you look at what it takes for a society in the 21st century to flourish, I believe that it really rests on three pillars. Sometimes I liken it to a three-legged stool. One is a democracy, democratic form of government with accountability, transparency, a commitment to produce results for people, because if democracy doesn't produce results for people, there’s a built-up frustration that can often cause instability. Second, a market economy where people are given the opportunity to flourish and to create their own wealth and spread it around because of the jobs and the other benefits that flow from it. That strong economy goes hand-in-hand with a strong democratic government. And then the third is civil society, the kind of support for society that you get from faith communities, that you get from private associations, that are really what makes life worth living besides being a citizen and being a consumer and a producer in the economy, really fulfilling oneself.

And certainly, when one looks at the results of the decisions that have been made by the kind of people that the governor referenced who have left Pakistan and have moved to the United States or to Europe or to elsewhere in the world, and when I look around this table and look at the names here and realize how much success there is and how many risk-takers there are and how many people have really prospered through good times and bad because of your own hard work and your entrepreneurial skills, I have no doubt that we can expand that and create many more entrepreneurs and successful business people of all size businesses in Pakistan. The United States is ready, willing, and able to help in whatever way is appropriate. But for us, Governor, we want to make a long-term investment in Pakistan. We think it will pay off. And we certainly believe that it is to the best interest of both the people of Pakistan and of the United States to have that kind of partnership.

(snip)

But I think too that it is only fair to take a hard look internally about what Pakistan needs to do. And at the risk of maybe sounding undiplomatic, Pakistan has to have more internal investment in your public services and in your business opportunities. By any fair measure, for example, the percentage of taxes of GDP is among the lowest in the world. The United States, we tax ourselves, depending upon who is in power, somewhere between 16 and 23 percent of GDP, and right now, it usually hovers around the 20 percent. You’re less than half of that.

And so at some point, when you ask for partnership, you have to ask what the equity state is that Pakistan itself is looking to make, because it is difficult to go to our taxpayers and say we consider Pakistan a strategic partner, we consider it a long-term friend and ally, we have supported it since its inception in 1947, we want to continue to do so, and have our taxpayers and our members of Congress say, well, we want to help those who help themselves, and we tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see happening in Pakistan.

And I can say that because I think there has to be, in any partnership, but more importantly in any plan for your own economic future, a hard look at where you’re going to get the resources to meet these needs. You do have somewhere between 170 and 180 million people. Your population is projected to be about 300 million as the current birth rates, which are among the highest in the world, continue – 2.6 birth rate. I don’t know what you’re going to do with that kind of challenge unless you start planning right now.

And despite the fact that you have all of these wonderful assets that we have been talking about, Pakistan ranks at about 142nd on the Human Development Index. So as we sit here in this absolutely magnificent building, as we talk to people who are educated and worldly and successful, it doesn’t reflect what I saw last night when I handed out those certificates to the very poor women who had come to collect them.

So I think that it is important for us to do our part, and I am here to make that commitment. But that partnership and that trust deficit that was referred to can only be dealt with by an open and candid conversation. We have been friends and allies. We’ve gone through good times and bad times. As somebody said to me earlier in one of my meetings, it’s like a marriage; sometimes we just get really put out with each other. And I said yes, but we don’t want a divorce. What we want is to keep working to the benefit of our countries and our people, and, from my perspective, to really see the time when Pakistan realizes its destiny. I mean, strategically, geographically, in every sense, it’s all there. But it has to be put together by the people of Pakistan.

We are willing to help, and President Obama and I have a very personal commitment to this relationship that we will carry through on. And I look forward to this kind of conversation and then the follow-up call to action and work – the hard work – that’s translating the hopes into the reality that’s on the ground that will realize the kind of economic prosperity that the people of Pakistan deserve.

YES, HILLARY CLINTON "looks forward" to "this kind of conversation" with a country on which we're spending relative chicken feed compared to what we're spending at home. On states and localities that obviously have a lot more federal representation than they have self-taxation.

Maybe the Obama Administration has too small a pool of folks it's planning to engage in, as the diplomats say, "frank discussions."

Northern soul and Northern soul

There was a Casino in Wigan, Lancashire, but nobody gambled there.

No, there England danced. Young Brits would come from all over the country on weekends to dance the night away . . . and well into the morning. It was all about the phenomenon called Northern soul -- meaning northern England and American (and British) soul music.

THE EPICENTER was the Casino nightclub in Wigan, a gritty, working-class industrial town. Well, at least when places such as this in Lancashire -- and America -- actually manufactured things.

Above is a Granada television documentary on Wigan, the Casino, Northern soul and the plight of the working class -- and the resilience of the human spirit -- circa 1977. It's well worth a viewing, if for no other reason to reaffirm the truism that Brits and Yanks are a people divided by a common language.

What the hell were they saying, again? Subtitles, anyone?

3 Chords & the Truth: Saints and sinners

It's gray. It's wet. It's cold.

And it's drafty in here.

I've been drinking so much hot tea -- with the requisite amount of fresh mint -- that my kidneys bought one of those inflatable giraffe life-ring thingies kids use in the swimming pool. All I need to accessorize my toasty flannel robe is three days without a shave and an empty six-pack of Schlitz.

I'VE GOT SOME SORT of low-grade crud, my sinuses hurt, and I'm thinking that -- if I'm really lucky -- people will someday pray for my purgating self on All Souls' Day. I will be the reason future Catholics still are at it the day after All Saints' Day.

Hey! There's an episode of 3 Chords & the Truth in there somewhere.

Ah . . . look. Here it is.

As usual, the Big Show has the usual variety of great music, spanning various styles and genres. This week, in addition to our saintly and "soulful" musical musings, we also saunter through the '70s.

AND THEN WE . . . aw, hell, you just need to listen to the thing, all right? It'll be worth an hour and a half of your time.

Really.

It's 3 Chords & the Truth, y'all. Be there. Aloha.

Oki-poki my eyes out now!

If you want to see weird s***, one of your Facebook friends -- in my case, a classmate from Baton Rouge High -- sooner or later will come across some prime Weirdus Maximus and throw it up on his "wall."

This has happened to me once again, and I had to, as they say, share.

NORMALLY, I'd advise that this is the kind of thing best viewed with a buzz on. Uh . . . not this one. You couldn't handle this one after having a couple or three.

Trust me. You may not be able to handle Yogi Oki-Doki and his "farmyard yoga for kiddies" sober as a judge. To tell you the truth, it made me want to go out and commit a crime.

Then again -- and I'm not 100-percent sure about this -- Yogi Oki-Doki just might have during the taping of whatever it is this is. Who knew that FFA stood for Future Freakazoids of America?

BUT IT IS POSSIBLE (also through the magic of YouTube) to turn this cringeworthy display of dexterity into some snarky techno hilarity:


THAT . . . is all.

The prophetic Wolfman Jack

Wolfman Jack had radio's number a long, long time ago -- after all, the famed disc jockey died in 1995.

As far as I can tell, this Phoenix TV interview probably was recorded in 1987. Nineteen eighty-seven . . . 22 years ago.

If the Wolfman didn't like radio then -- and he was right, radio was boring in the '80s -- he's probably spinning in his grave over what it's come to now.

My misspent youth

. . . and middle age, alas.