blue girl

Seek Truth for Authority, not Authority for Truth

My best friend lives in Virginia Beach and has been wanting us to come for a visit for, um, ever (because I'm so dang fun!).  When you own your own business, it's hard to get away.  You may think you'd have more freedom, and in some ways you do, but not when it comes to packing your bags and heading off to the beach for a little get-a-way.  Service is what it's all about in a small business and I can actually start to break out in hives at the thought that we may lose a project because I decided to dilly-dally with my toes in the sand and a Corona in my hand.

I'm doing it anyway though.  Tomorrow my son and I are flying to the beach.  Yay for us!  Bottom lip pooched out (as Nancy Nall would say) for my husband.  He's got to stay in this red state to hold down the fort.  Come up with a couple of TV concepts, write a little copy and design some layouts for our clients that enable us to live like we do.  He's the best.

That's why I've been neglecting my blog.  I've had to tie up some loose ends and do a little shopping.  Yes.  In case you were wondering, vacation shopping is very important, at least to me.  I, much like George Costanza, pack for the *mood* I might be in at any given moment while I'm away.

But, I cannot leave without telling you all that there's a great new voice in this blogosphere of ours.  The Viscounte!  I first met Viscounte LaCarte in the comment section of one of Jeddie Ningo's posts, where he had discovered what it's like to teach Philosophy in a Red State:

Considering the lecture on Plato, you’d think that conservatives would be on Plato’s side since Plato is a Moral Absolutist. Plato argued that "Justice does not entail harming others." Oh, oh, that doesn’t sit well with war-monger conservatives. Regarding categorical imperatives, I equated Plato’s definition of Justice with the Biblical Commandment, Thou Shall Not Kill. What’s all the fuss about? Alas, conservative Christians talk big on the Ten Commandments, but do they really accept moral absolutism?

Given the brouhaha last election over conservative "moral values," I brought up the obvious contradiction between the pro-life position against abortion on the one hand, and on the other hand, unquestionable support for an unjustifiable invasion of Iraq that has led to over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, mostly children. Moral Absolutism, I argued, calls for CONSISTENCY. Otherwise, if you allow for exceptions, it’s no longer absolute. Make up your minds. Either you adhere to the moral imperative or you’re a relativist.

The Viscounte LaCarte commented:

I would have to agree that there are major inconsistencies in the current "Absolutist" paradigm. My error was expecting consistency. People who practice critical thinking realize that consistency is a fundamental aspect of a rational belief system. People who are attracted by this psuedo-Absolutism by definition cannot practice critical thinking.

The people I'm speaking about seek authority for truth.  Some of us prefer to seek truth for authority. 

The authority figure speaks in absolutes but justifies the contradictions with his authority, and people who subscribe to this accept what the authority figure says as truth.

This is an important component of the Republican methodology. Religious fundamentalists (who believe themselves to be Absolutists) are used to accepting the fantastic and the improbable as undisputed truth. The Bible and the ministers are the authority. The Republican strategists figured out that if they can mobilize these people behind a few simple issues they will have their vote and their support, regardless of their actions.

" Seek Truth for Authority, not Authority for Truth."

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

P.S. My brother once said that The Bible was the "Weekly World News" of the ancient world:

"Moses Parts The Red Sea!"

"Man Swallowed by Big Fish - LIVES!"

I loved what he wrote there:  I would have to agree that there are major inconsistencies in the current "Absolutist" paradigm.  My error was expecting consistency.

But I especially loved: " Seek Truth for Authority, not Authority for Truth."

And I made the comment in Jeddie Ningo's post telling him so. 

The Viscounte LaCarte then emailed me and said that the quote was the seed that turned into ideas that have helped him reconcile all of the contradictions that makes his head want to explode.

He also said that he wasn't sure it was the time for him to do a *proper* blog.

Ok.  That's got my paranoia level elevated!  Is there such a thing as a *proper* blog?  And if yes, what makes it *proper*?  Do I have a *proper* blog?  (You see I  sometimes suffer from "blogophobia", so this wasn't good at all.)

Of course the devil on my shoulder murmured, "Of course you don't, you musical theatre major!  You think just because you were in Pippin in the early 80's and matched your leg-warmers to your bandanas that you would know anything about the world at all?  After all, how many times do you have to go to the thesauras?  The dictionary?  Do you even have a common theme to your blog?  No.  You started out wanting to change the world and you quickly discovered you were fighting windmills.  You gave up so easily.  Look at Shakespeare's Sister.  She does it. So, why can't you? Mwah ha ha ha!  No.  Nothing about your blog is *proper* at all.   Why don't you just blow off your job and go on vacation?   Mwah ha ha ha!"

Ok.  It wasn't that bad.  But, the *proper* blog comment has stayed in my head since The Viscounte wrote it.  And now I'm so happy that he's chosen to write his own *proper* blog. 

We will all benefit because he has chosen to do so.  Go there now and read it!  The devil says: do it now!

Couple more things before I go.  Thoughts that have been swirling around in my head that need to be pounded out on this keyboard:

First of all, Lance Mannion!  Gosh darn you with that Nostalgia post.  I was already in a *certain mood*, read it, cried for 10 minutes, ate a piece of cherry pie then had to take a nap. 

My reaction is proof that this guy can write.

And, for the love of Pete, I mean "M" -- YOU ALL MUST READ this post by Res Publica.  It is important.  Very important.  The angels say:  "Please read it now, won't you?"  As they fly, unseen, around your head.  (And Res, you should worship me -- don't ever forget it.)

And dear, dear Jedmunds.  I loved your list explaining, (even better than a powerpoint presentation could, by the way!) way you hate *some* blogs:

1.  Cat-blogging. 
Seriously, man, I don't give a fuck about your cat. If in real life, you started telling me about your pets, I would roll my eyes as conspicuously as possible and laugh in your face. I hate your cats. Seriously. They aren't cute.

2.  Friday Random Ten Posts
I could give a fuck what you have in your Ipod right now. I mean, really, what kind of stance are you trying to pull here? Cause it really only comes off like yuppie scum a little too fond of their gadgets and bourgeois musical tastes.

3.  Posts about how Democrats can better appeal to the red states.
Self-explanatory really.

4. "I just dug up the craziest fucking dipshit I could find on the opposing political team, and now let's all pat ourselves on the back for either a) not hating america or b) not being stupid."

5. Let's all speculate on what George Bush will do about X and why he'll do it posts. I really don't understand these posts. The most recent spate of them were the "who will Bush appoint to fill O'Connor's seat and what if Rehnquist retires too?" posts. Pretty obviously those posts are all completely obsolete now, and no one can even remember who was right and who wasn't. Plus it wasn't all that interesting anyway unless you're a really tedious person or you've got some conspiracy theories and you need a thin pretext to start pushing them.

All I have to say about #2 is:  What is the big deal about the *random* songs playing??  Didn't we all learn that in, say, 6th grade when we made a *mix* tape for the special someone we had that huge crush on?

I mean really!  For crying out loud!  I've always loved Macs and all the related products.  But to take advantage of the *mix tape* idea?? Great marketing strategy.  Like it's completely original??  Very, very lame.

And Jedmunds, regarding your #1 reason for hating some blogs. 
Wook ad da widdle boo boo wid dos glowing eyes!  (kinda scary!) His name is Oliver.  He is a widdle baby!

Jedmunds!  Can't wait to show you photos of our other two black cats!  Lego and Woody!

Yes, we have three black cats.

Even to me, kinda weird.  But, what are ya gonna do?  They needed a home and we took 'em in.

And we're all the better for it.

I guess my point to this long rambling post is -- that blog roll I've got over there?  Those *Inky Wretches*?  They are all awesome.  And for the one or two of you who come here outside of the "blog-clique" -- please check them out.  All you have to do is *click*.  It only takes a couple of fingers.  The devil says, "do it now!"

Ok.  This blogging hobby-thing I started a few months ago is very time consuming.  It's 11:22 p.m. -- and I haven't even packed yet.  And MORE importantly, I've missed The Daily Show.  Bummer.

Blogging from blue girl could be *normal* till next Monday (cuz I'll be with a bunch of teenagers who can help me hook up my laptop and help me figure it out) -- or it could be non-existent. 

Either way -- I'll be thinkin' of all of you when my toes are in the sand with Corona in hand.

Cheers!

We're having people over tonight for a little twisting and shouting.

And tomorrow, I have to work all day.

So, just wanted to say Cheers! to all my blogger buddies.

Catch ya on the flip flop.

If Franklin Harris Says It, Is It True?

My friend Jedmunds has had a hard day.  Blogger ate his really cool post (About what?  Not sure.)  where he said he was really loose, fingers on fire, just lettin' it fly.  His words magically formed into astonishing sentences, which when completed had a nice, organic quality to it.  Knowing Jedmunds the way I do, I'm sure the post was indeed the cat's pajamas.

He's going to try to re-write it this weekend, but says,
". . .Though I'm not sure where I'll find that time as a certain medical ethics advocacy group I am a member of has decided to protest in front of the homes of prominent surgeons, waving placards with pictures of tumors and open chest cavities and whatnot, hoping to make people realize just how gross surgery is."

I am proud of Jedmuds for being a member of that group!  All I do is sit in this house all day complaining to my husband about how gross surgery must be.  Like a C-section?  I always ask my husband if he thought he could've handled that if it came right down to it when I had our son.

He's like, "No way!  Too gross!  You would've been totally on your own."

And I'm like, "What??!!  Are you kidding me??!! You would've been lucky that you were in a hospital because I would've killed you!  For the damage I would've inflicted, they would've had to rush you into surgery immediately!!

But, see?  We're all talk, talk, talk.  And talk is cheap.  Jedmunds is actually doing something about it!  Good for you, Jedmunds!  Wave a placard in my honor tomorrow!

All this talk about gross things and killing leads me to my original reason for this post.  Integrity and Pat Buchanan.

Jedmunds continues in his post:

"I don't know much about The American Conservative as a publication. They probably don't represent the highest standards of integrity. But neither do I, so I'll link to their rumor without caring about it's veracity. If true though, I'd probably be pretty outraged, but only if my outrage hadn't been beaten into a cynical pulp by the continuing stream of outrages flowing from the Bush White House. Seriously, this is probably only the third or fourth worst thing this White House has done, and it's a doozy, if true of course. And I-ran I-ran so far away..."

The latest rumour out of the Bush white house, which if true we'll all be outraged by, but will result in the majority of Americans supporting the new front in the War On Terror, while we -- the outraged ones -- blog, blog, blog away -- is this from Justinlogan.com by way of Matthew Yglesias the TPM
Cafe:

What Is the Plan If There's Another 9/11?

According to Philip Giraldi, writing in the new issue (not online) of the American Conservative, it's to nuke Iran:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States.  The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons.  Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites.  Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.  As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.  Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

True?  Rumor?  Rumor that will turn out to be true?  Who the H-E-double toothpicks knows.  I am not writing here to figure out whether or not we are going to bomb Iran in the aftermath of another 9/11-type attack.  (I guess yes, right in time to really use it in the run-up to 2008.)

No, I want to give Jedmunds a little background on the American Conservative so that he can make an educated decision as to whether the writers there do or do not have integrity.

Ok.  According to Franklin Harris of lewrockwell.com, the American Conservative was launched by Pat Buchanan in September 2002 with two other gentlemen:  Scott McConnell, late of The New York Post, The New York Press, and Antiwar.com, and Taki Theodoracopulos.  (Say that last name three times!  Do it now!)

Harris continues:

Given its backers, it is clear the American Conservative plans to focus on the one area where Buchanan is strongest: military intervention.

The magazines mission:

"It is written especially for those who have begun to question whether Conservatism means, as many Beltway conservatives now would have it, that the United States should have bombed Serbia and should now embark on countless other wars that have little to do with America's own vital interests. It is written for those who question whether we ought to completely remake our wonderful country through continued mass immigration from all corners of the globe. It is written for those who understand what George Washington meant when he warned Americans of the dangers of passionate attachment to foreign nations."

Harris continues:

"If Buchanan, Taki, and McConnell didn't think the American conservative movement needs a drastic change from the pro-war rantings of Fox News and The Weekly Standard, they wouldn't bother starting the magazine in the first place, would they? The purpose of the American Conservative is to change minds, not follow polls.

For that matter, what has all of its warmongering got The Weekly Standard?  It is supposedly the leading "conservative" publication, yet it couldn't survive a day without its sugar daddy, Rupert Murdoch."

And this from DemocracyNow.org:

John Kerry received an endorsement from what many thought was an unlikely source: The American Conservative magazine.

In the article endorsing Kerry, the American Conservative writes: "The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

Excerpt of an interview Amy Goodman had with Scott McConnell, executive editor of the magazine:

AMY GOODMAN: We're joined right now by Scott McConnell, who is executive editor of The American Conservative, author of the article on the November 8 issue, endorsing Kerry. The headline: 'Kerry is the One.'   Why are you so critical of George Bush?

SCOTT McCONNELL: Well, he has made very, very bad decisions as president, and the invasion of Iraq is, I think, the worst decision any American president has made, certainly since World War II, and perhaps longer. And it's made -- if democracy means anything, somebody who makes a decision like that has to be thrown out of office.

So, Jedmunds -- there you go.  A little googled background on the American Conservative.  Is it enough to know if they have any integrity?  I have no idea.  After all, while I think Amy Goodman is pretty cool, I have no idea who Franklin Harris of lewrockwell.com even is!  He could be a total lunatic for all I know.

But they are Conservatives and they did endorse Kerry and they completely mistrust the Neocons.

Hope this helped.

It's Not Thomas Kinkade

I'm really having the strangest disconnect.  Join me won't you?

Look at both of the paintings below, then keep scrolling down and look at the photo of John Roberts. 

I don't know.  It just doesn't fit somehow.  This art and the Roberts photo so close together. 

See what I mean?

Blue Girl Art Gallery

A few years back, my husband worked on a series of oil paintings where he combined human and industrial elements.  The paintings did fairly well.  He sold one and another was featured on a local morning show.   (Although Barbie and Ken, the hosts of the show, did not really know what to make of it.)  Now the paintings just sit in our basement, which is such a shame.

The two below are from that series.  A little something for everyone.  Enjoy!  (And oh!  You might wonder if blue girl was the model for the one?  I'll never tell.

I Don't Know Enough To Judge Yet

Just wanted to give you all some links already up about John Roberts.

Look at this guy. 

He's so boring/normal looking -- even that name -- nothing controversial about him on the surface at all.

Shakespeare's Sister's got some scoop that she wrote back in February.  She also said, "He doesn't look my like worst nightmare, but he's only 50!  Mwah ha ha ha!

(More from Shakespeare's Sister here -- she's already on the case!)
 
And here's the Common Sense Desk, who's got all kinds of links you can check out.

I've got to get caught up on my reading about Johnny boy too now.  Wouldn't want to pre-judge you know.

Thank to SS not only for the photo, but for the *Mwah ha ha ha!"  I laughed as I picured you typing it!  And I don't even know what you look like!

(SS:  Hope gals like us can laugh together a few years from now -- they won't be able to take that away from us girls....will they?)

We Are Outta There!

I am incredibly naive.  But am getting less and less so with each passing day.  I was raised to have respect and unwavering support for authority figures.  Doctors, teachers, ministers, firemen, policemen, the elderly.  They talk, you listen.  Simple as that.

It's been a painful and eye-opening experience as, one by one, I've come to learn that yes, they are just people too, who have character flaws and sometimes make dopey decisions, just like me.  But, jeez!  They're supposed to be smarter than me!  (Whoever said they were supposed to be smarter than me?  I don¹t ever remember my parents actually drilling that into my head. But they must have.  And I bought it hook, line and sinker, because they were my parents!)

When my son was little he suffered from one ear infection after another.  It finally got to the point where we contemplated having tubes put into his ears and I made an appointment with the doctor to discuss it.  He didn't offer me any tremendous information so that I could make an educated decision.  He basically just said, "He's had a lot of ear infections.  Do you think he should get tubes?"   I was dumfounded by that.  I went to college and studied musical theatre.  I was not a med student.  My experience in the medical field was extremely limited.  Why would he think I had the foggiest idea?

Doctors can be as dopey as me.  Check.

I was robbed at gunpoint last year.  And it was a pretty crazy experience. And going down to the police station for months afterwards to see mugshots of the latest murderers in the city just added to the stress of it all.  The detective assigned to my case was a nice guy.  But, he talked a lot and not
about my case.  Coincidentally, (and to me this was a huge coincidence) the guy who robbed me gave or sold my cell phone to this girl.  The day I was robbed my cell phone called a phone number over and over and both the detective and I knew this could be the way to get the kid who robbed me.
Turns out, the number my phone called was my detective's dad's best friend!  My detective had grown up with him!  The dad told the detective that his daughter had called him over and over on that Friday.  Yay for me and any potential victims!  I figured my detective could ask the dad to have his
daughter come over to his house, the detective could be there and voila! -- he could get the information he needed to find the kid who robbed me.

Did that happen?  No.  And I bit my tongue for a long time because I didn't want to be the amateur detective on the case giving the professional *advice* on how to do his job.

But, finally -- after yet another trip to the station to view mug shots and having to listen to yet another story that had nothing to do with my case, I finally just came out and asked him why he didn't just do that.  Of course, I prefaced my question with, "now I know I've watched too many movies and TV shows, but why can't you just.....?"

I didn't get a straight answer, just another long winded story, about, say, why did he have to take the oath in court and the lawyers don't?  Well, good point.  But by this time, I couldn't have cared less about the stresses of his job.

My husband thinks that because of his personal ties to my case, he really didn't want to *solve* the crime.  Could be.  But, my gut instinct told me he was just a dope, getting through his day with as little imagination as possible.  I stopped calling him for updates and he never called me back.

Detectives can be as dopey as me, or even dopier.  Check.  Case closed.

My son's teachers?  One blamed my son's poor spelling skills on being an only child.  Check.

Ministers?  Priests?  Check.

Policemen?  Check.

President of the United States?  Check.  Check.  And Check into infinity.

I could go on and on, but won't because I'm about to get to the point of my own long winded story here.

When you play baseball, who's the boss?

Yes, that's right.  The ump.  He makes the rules and you follow the rules. Got it?  Now sit down and shut up!

Background:  There was a local baseball tournament a couple of weeks ago where one of the fathers and the ump got into a fight.  The father broke the ump's nose and one of his fingers.  It was *the talk* around here for obvious reasons.  Why would a 40-something dad beat up a 60-something ump.  How disrespectful is that?  What is wrong with people?  Everyone assumed it was the dad who lost his temper, because of course, no one thinks that the ump lost his first.

If you've read my previous baseball posts, you know my son is playing this summer and my husband's the coach.  And the last several games have been highly emotional.  The stress and aggravation levels at these last couple of games have been out of hand.

At one game, one of our players got thrown out.  In black and white terms, it was the boy's fault.  He let his emotions get away with him when he struck out, and he threw the bat on the way back to the dugout.  But, the ump wouldn't let it go at that.  He stormed over and lectured our boy on why he got thrown out. In front of everybody, reducing him to tears and ratcheting up everyone's blood pressure.  Words were exchanged.  Tempers were hot.  And I just sat there praying the game would end as soon as possible. 

Last night was our last game.  And we had the umpire from hell.  He was yelling at players on both teams.  He yelled at both coaches just for asking questions.  He would stop the game to lecture the pitcher on something. Over and over again.  And he wasn't a talker, he was a barker.  Again, blood
pressure started rising.  Parents from both teams were starting to argue with each other!  I got yelled at by a dad on the other team because of a scoring issue I was confused about.  I yelled back.

That Nazi-Ump set the tone for that whole game.  It was all about him proving (very loudly) who was in charge.  Not once did he stop to explain a call to the kids.  I guess he didn't think teaching 13 year olds about the obscure rules of baseball mattered.  And I guess that's not really his job.  But, after
all, they're kids.  And he could have used his position to be a positive role model.  I guess once again, I expected too much.

I just read an article about the dad and ump that got into the fight a couple of weeks ago and guess what?  The ump was charged with assault.  It turns out he started it.  He grabbed the dad by the shirt collar and was screaming in his face.

So as my faith in people of authority continues to crumble, I still have to teach my son to respect those around him.

How do I do that?  It's a tough call.

Knuckleheads In The News

NannyGate is all the rage today.  And the Nanny is raging back.  Jedmunds gave me the first heads up and then upon surfing the Net like I do on Sunday mornings, it was like fire ripping through an old wooden house.  And it's consumed me all day and into the evening.  All this gossip is consuming me!  And gossip indeed, is what it is.

And if it wasn't so freaking hot, as our air conditioner decided to *break down* while I've got so much laundry to do and other chores I wish I had a Nanny for, well -- I'd be having a lot more fun with this story. 

At first I sided with Helaine Olen, the employer of the Nanny.  My first thought was:  "Well, of course!  Duh!  You don't put your personal thoughts up on the Internet for everyone to read -- AND GIVE YOUR BOSS your blog address so that she can read it too!  Helloooo?!!  (Well, I still kind of think that but...)

After I had some time to think it over, I knew it was incredibly crappy (and bitchy) of Olen to write about her Nanny in the newspaper.  The Sunday New York Times -- FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Yes, it took a vindictive, ambitious woman to pull that off.  But, is that really such a surprise?  Vindictive women?  Again, hellooooo?!!

Didn't Tessy, the blogger, recognize vindictive behavior in her boss on a day to day basis?  My gut feeling is no.  She wasn't paying attention.  She maybe kind of knew, which is why she blogged about her employer getting on her nerves.  But, she never fully appreciated the extent to which her boss would go to get revenge.  Sometimes when you're in your 20's, you're kind of wrapped up in yourself -- you're not really paying attention to the things that will come back to bite you in the butt.

And, oh.  Did it bite her in the butt.  But, I've got a feeling that it's not really going to be too bad for Tessy in the long run.  I smell *book deal* -- or something of equal value to her.  I think she's going to be just fine.  After all, Lance says she's a better writer.

All of this got me to thinking about women and how mean they can be to each other.  Really.  They can be horrendous.  I had a group of girls after me in middle school for no apprarant reason.  Yikes! I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.  They actually threatened to spray "nair" in my hair!  Can you imagine?!  And today's spectacle reminded me of that.  8th grade.  Yes, life is so much like 8th grade.  Except.

I started to think about this group of girls.

I worked with this group for ten years.  The stars aligned and we were brought together.  And although there were crazy, stressful deadlines, a negative word was never spoken.

Never.  Ever.

We grew so close. 

No judgment.

No criticism.

Completely accepting of each other, no matter the circumstances.  And living and working together for ten years, there were a million opportunities for circumstances to rip us apart.

It never happened.

You see those girls there?  You think they're pretty?

You should see their hearts.

Their chest x-rays should be featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated.  That's how beautiful they really are.  Yes.  They are unbelievable on the outside.  But, they are astonishing on the inside.

How lucky I was to be with them for so long.  It really was a miracle.  Something I will be grateful for for the rest of my life. (I miss you all!)

I write that last sentence in parens as an afterthought because none of these girls will ever read my blog.  They'd be like:  "What is blue girl doing now?  What's a blog? Is she talking about politics?  Is she Fighting windmills?

They wouldn't even say "windmills."  I would try to explain Karl Rove and they'd be asking me to fill their wine glass again.  Nodding their heads to be polite.  But we'd be laughing!

They are incorrigible.  Impossibly, incredibly, thankfully incorrigible.

And the crazy thing is -- Mel!  I know you peek at this blog every now and then and you are not in that picture! But, it's not my fault!  Where were you??  You were dancing on a desk somewhere in the office weren't you? 

Don't worry.  No one that I know of in my blog-clique will judge you.  They are all just as cool as you are.

Anyway, this Nanny gossip took up a lot of my head-time today.  Bad?  I say no.  It all reminded me of what real relationships and real maturity is all about.  And I haven't thought about that in awhile. 

So, for that I thank those two knuckleheads in the news.

Score Another One For The Bad Guys

My son had his last baseball game of the season a few nights ago.  On the way to the game it started raining, thundering, lightning.  I knew it would be cancelled, but we continued on to the field anyway.  My husband is the coach, so he felt a certain responsibility to make sure other parents who might already be at the field, knew that the game was called for sure.

It was raining so hard by the time we arrived, you couldn't even see the road.  We get to the field and a lot of parents from both teams are sitting in the parking lot.  The rain let up to a drizzle, but the thunder and lightning kept up.  The men were standing there unable to decide whether to call the game or not.

I was getting crabby.  Why would they think that these kids should play on a field surrounded by very tall metal night light poles, at the highest point in our town, while it was lightning every 4 minutes?

They were waiting for the head of the recreation dept. to officially call the game.

My attitude was, "Why do we need someone to tell a bunch of adults what the right thing to do is?"  Why would there be any question at all?  But, wait we did and yes, the game was called.  Surprise!

The reason I bore you with this little story is that I keep thinking of it as it somewhat relates to the fizzling out of the Rove/Plame story.

The story, which was so hot just two days ago, is on its way out.

"Rove didn't specifically mention her name."

"Look!  Bush chooses to walk with Rove for a photo-op!  He is soooo loyal!"

For whatever reason, just because Bush decides to stick with Rove, everyone then just has to accept that Bush is all knowing and his mere relunctance to call a spade a spade is an indication that the story is not worth following anymore.

What is WRONG with our media?  Who cares if Bush decides to do, as Tom Oliphant put it last night on Hardball, "do a reverse perp-walk" with that dirty political trick personified?

Why did the media go on and on about how "loyal" Bush is?  Who cares?  Pat Buchanan is still loyal to Richard Nixon.  Loyalty does not equal integrity.

The other line that fell into favor last night was, "Karl Rove does not have a crime problem, he's got a political problem."

And now that the headline today is:  "Republicans and White House Support Rove," he's not going to have a political problem anymore because, just like our lame media, the Democrats will also fold and the story will go away.

I'm tired of all this analysis and slicing and dicing of words and evidence (or lack of) gathering to make something that is SO OBVIOUS, so convoluted that everyone gets twisted up in knots, therefore the story ends.

Just like calling a baseball game when there's a thunderstorm, we don't need anyone to tell us what Karl Rove did was wrong.  If you pay any attention at all, you know his history, you know how they operate, you know what went on.  You know they are smart enough to know that there has to be "a smoking gun," an absolute obvious action that will provide proof beyond a reason of doubt.  And they are not going to provide that smoking gun.  They know how to work the back channels to get what they want.

I'm so tired of the games they play.  And I just wish someone would call them on it.

Ron Burgundy. Freelance BS Slinger For The Right Wing Conspiracy.

Ron Burgundy, who sits on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, wrote an interesting editorial that appeared yesterday in the aforementioned newspaper. 

"Democrats and most of the Beltway press corps are baying for Karl Rove's head over his role in exposing a case of CIA nepotism involving Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame. On the contrary, we'd say the White House political guru deserves a prize -- perhaps the next iteration of the "Truth-Telling" award that The Nation magazine bestowed upon Mr. Wilson before the Senate Intelligence Committee exposed him as a fraud.

For Mr. Rove is turning out to be the real "whistleblower" in this whole sorry pseudo-scandal. He's the one who warned Time's Matthew Cooper and other reporters to be wary of Mr. Wilson's credibility. He's the one who told the press the truth that Mr. Wilson had been recommended for the CIA consulting gig by his wife, not by Vice President Dick Cheney as Mr. Wilson was asserting on the airwaves. In short, Mr. Rove provided important background so Americans could understand that Mr. Wilson wasn't a whistleblower but was a partisan trying to discredit the Iraq War in an election campaign. Thank you, Mr. Rove.

(snip)

If there's any scandal at all here, it is that this entire episode has been allowed to waste so much government time and media attention, not to mention inspire a "special counsel" probe. The Bush administration is also guilty on this count, since it went along with the appointment of prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in an election year in order to punt the issue down the road. But now Mr. Fitzgerald has become an unguided missile, holding reporters in contempt for not disclosing their sources even as it becomes clearer all the time that no underlying crime was at issue.

As for the press corps, rather than calling for Mr. Rove to be fired, they ought to be grateful to him for telling the truth."

Thanks not only to Ron Burgundy for enlightening us, but also for DC Media Girl for the link.