Happy, happy, joy, joy!

Oh, happy day.

Not just for Democrats. Republicans can once again fufill that role they seem so happy and comfortable in: whiny ass titty baby. The whining about congressional "minority rights" is just the warm up.

I heard a great proposal with regards to this issue- Democrats will pass Pelosi's old "minority bill of rights" as long as it's tied to a change in House rules so that the rules themselves can't be updated without support of 70% of House members.

Why are you going to prolong the inevitable?

I'm walking on the moon at the news of this band reuniting. I hope it actually happens and I'm not driven to tears. If I start blubbering then just don't stand so close to me. If it does fall through and they don't tour then just consider me the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

None of you ever knew George Gipp. He was long before your time, but you all know what a tradition he is at Notre Dame.

College football needs a playoff system.

I say that every year but once again I'm incensed that the stupid BCS system got it so wrong. I watched the USC/ Michigan and Boise State/ Oklahoma game and it was pretty clear that both Michigan and Oklahoma were hugely overated and probably had no business in the premiere bowls they landed.

The college football BCS title has become a joke. It's built on a system in which only the same 10-15 teams will ALWAYS be in the title game. There is zero chance for a Cinderella under this system.

The NCAA needs to lose it's fear of Notre Dame and force them to either join or form a real league. Yes they (Notre Dame) will lose $$ but college football stands to lose fans.

Well baby, you're already in that cage. You built it yourself. And it's not bounded in the west by Tulip, Texas, or in the east by Somali-land.

Did you know our failure in Iraq is all the responsibility of General Casey? According to the New York Times that's exactly the case.

Chaos Overran Iraq Plan in ’06, Bush Team Says

By DAVID E. SANGER, MICHAEL R. GORDON and JOHN F. BURNS
Published: January 2, 2007

WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — President Bush began 2006 assuring the country that he had a “strategy for victory in Iraq” He ended the year closeted with his war cabinet on his ranch trying to devise a new strategy, because the existing one had collapsed.
The original plan, championed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Baghdad, and backed by Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, called for turning over responsibility for security to the Iraqis, shrinking the number of American bases and beginning the gradual withdrawal of American troops. But the plan collided with Iraq’s ferocious unraveling, which took most of Mr. Bush’s war council by surprise.

(Also of a surprise to Bush's "war council" were cellular phones and these new fangled com-put-ers.)

The whole thing leaves me with a whole range of questions the greatest of which is "who the fuck cares?"

It's long past the time anybody who occupied any position within this failed, joke of a presidency and who was able to influence policy should have one more pixel of print thrown at their attempt at covering their backside. The failures in Iraq are not in strategy but in policy. They have absolutely nothing to with whatever strategy Casey and other uniformed officers had to cobble together out of the impossible policy the President and his people put in place. Ultimately that's what the ISG concluded which is why Bush blew off their suggestions.

Iraq is George W. Bush's albatross.

We kill for our future. We kill for peace.

It's long past time that anybody try to make sense of President CooCoo Bananas incoherent babblings but having accidentally read this in the middle of an article on Saddam's execution I'm simply left saying "WTF?"

Mr Bush said Saddam's execution was "the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime".

Saddam's victims were denied show-trials followed by speedy executions?

This is down to the line, folks, this is down to the line. There can be no more divisions among the living!

I've got zombies on the mind.

Overdroid's lovely girlfriend presented me with a copy of Max Brook's "World War Z" for Christmas and I've found myself *ahem* devouring it.

Brooks tells the tale of a zombie apocalypse that engulfs the earth and almost wipes out humanity. The story is related as a series of post-war interviews Brooks conducted with the survivors for a report to the United Nations. It may sound cheesy but it's utterly engrossing. Probably partly because the zombies are really not that important to the story and partly because Brooks seems to have thought of everything when it comes to how such a fictional war would play out.

What I really love about the book is that it's seeped into my subconscious in all sorts of insidious ways. I'm finding myself analyzing what the best places in the Portland/ Metro area would be to defend against the zombie hordes. Brooks points out that zombies can't climb so tall buildings are a good idea as long as they're clear of infection and the stairwells have all been disabled.

There's a former federal treasury building only a couple of blocks from my office which has bars, bullet proof glass and steel shutters on the windows and 6" thick solid steel stores without handles that looked like a good place to hole-up. The problem is it's awfully close to downtown and that's where all the undead will concentrated.

Ultimately the safest place in Oregon in the even of a zombie uprising would probably be Timberline lodge. It's not as secure of a building but the zombies have a lot of trouble with cold weather and freeze. Just thought I'd share that important safety tip.

Admit so, sir. This is some new form of torture. Say it, Brother Sir.

A friend recently asked me who I thought would take the Democratic nomination in '08. I haven't the foggiest. If you believe the press then it'll be Hillary or Obama. Yawn. Here's my personal take on the candidates and potential candidates so far...

Hillary Clinton - No, no, just NO. The appeal seems to be her profile, her enormous campaign war chest with would presumably give her an advantage in the general, and the "two-fer" we'd get from having Bill Clinton back in the Whitehouse as the First Spouse. So what?

Hillary has been a huge disappointment as a Senator. She represents a solidly blue state yet has continued to put her national political ambitions ahead of what's good for the country or what's good for the Democratic party. Her support for the war or, at the very least, her failure to criticize it's prosecution, should automatically disqualify her from the nomination as demonstratably lacking the judgment necessary to be President.

Barack Obama - Look, I loved his keynote speech at the convention, although it was delivered before the the wrong audience. Democrats aren't the ones pushing the red/ blue America meme.

Putting that aside the guy just hasn't lived up to the hype. There was a particularly memorable moment when he got Pwned by John McCain over torture that comes to mind. He just comes across as too nice a guy to deal realistically with Republicans who favor eliminationist policies towards Democrats.

John Edwards - I like the populist message and like seeing someone focus on economic concerns but the fact is he did very poorly in his debate with V.P. Yosemite Sam. If you can't face down the Prince of Darkness, who can you face down.

Dennis Kucinich - Love his policitics but don't think he has a serious chance at fundraising and the nomination. Would love to be wrong on this.

John Kerry and Al Gore - I'm lumping these guys together not just because they share the dubious honor of already having been the Democratic candidate for the Presidency but they also both failed to understand the depths Republicans would go to to steal the Presidency nor be willing to put up a real fight. Kerry sins on this issue are particularly unforgivable.

I know I left a ton of potential candidates off this list the whole exercise is beginning to leave me depressed. I'm really hoping for a white horse this year to come in and shake things up.

Let a man die, right away he's "good, old Claude". How was he *before* he bucked out?

One more observation on the death of President Ford.The headline in today's Big O reads "Ford again stirs unity, this time to grieve." This seems to be the prevailing public stance on the former President.

But I'm having a difficult time imagining that same sentiment will be extended by the press to former President Clinton when he passes. In fact - I can't imagine there will be a headline or article that doesn't lead with the Lewinsky matter and refer to the impeachment in one way or another.

When they look at me, they see what they are.

I really try to live by the adage to never speak ill of the dead but I can't be the only one finding the adjective "brave" a little tough to swallow when referring to Gerald Ford. His crowning achievement was his pardon of Richard Nixon- an act that won him a "Profile in Courage" award from the Kennedy foundation a few years ago. Ted Kennedy said he spoke out against the pardon at the time but realizes now that it was a brave act that will be looked on favorably by history. He may be speaking too soon.

It's too soon to tell for sure, but it seems to me that history will judge that the scorch-and-burn political strategy really came into it's own under Nixon and Ford's pardon did nothing but push it out of sight. It continued to fester and plague our political system for the next thirty years. Had Nixon actually been tried and convicted we MAY not have had to suffer through the likes of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove with the damage they've done to America and our political system.

I can't be responsible for what my goons are ordered to do.

Back.

I hope everybody had a wonderful holiday. I know I sure had a great time goofing with Overdroid and his gal, Don and his fam, the fam, HJ and everybody else and I suppose it's time to get back to work and post a couple of things since I'm out of blackberry wine anyway.

So right out of the gate I give you this article covering Saddam losing his death-sentence appeal in Iraq. I recall quite a few Western legal analysts saying the conviction would probably be overturned on appeal considering what a farce the actual trial was. Suckers.

Seems there's this section of Iraqi law in which a death sentence must be ratified by the President and two Vice Presidents of Iraq. There was some question as to whether President Talabani would sign the death warrant since he generally opposses the death penalty but the Appeals court wasn't about to let that technicality get in the way of a good hangin' --

Raed Juhi, a spokesman for the High Tribunal court that convicted Saddam, said the Iraqi judicial system would ensure that Saddam is executed even if Talabani and the two vice presidents do not ratify the decision.

“We’ll implement the verdict by the power of the law,” Juhi said without elaborating.

At least it's not like Washington is pushing the High Tribunal to ignore the countries' laws and push through this execution. Our hands are clean, at least.

Excuse me while I clean off my keyboard. I just re-read the paragraph before this.