Clint Eastwood should savagely beat down on Karl Rove and David Axelrod

Seriously. One could write a college dissertation on Clint Eastwood's sort of creepy, very patriotic Super Bowl Chrysler ad, but the ad has metamorphosed beyond merchandising.

Right now, the one minute spot is an advertisers dream: it has made news; it gets repeated on television without anybody paying for it. Goldmine.

I'm not even quite sure how put phrase my own thoughts on the matter, because apparently Karl Rove and David Axelrod have told me what I should think about it.

Rove's response was, as usual, a baseless lie coupled with character assassination.  On the bright side, Rove's words were stupid enough to induce uproarious laughter.

“I was, frankly, offended by it,” said Rove. “I'm a huge fan of Clint Eastwood, I thought it was an extremely well-done ad, but it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago-style politics, and the president of the United States and his political minions are, in essence, using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.”

Um, okay. I guess the ad had too much hope and unity and Rove went ballistic. I guess it just goes to show how much the Republican Party is focused on letting us know that our country has been on a one-way track to the underworld ever since January 21st, 2009.  And that the fact that people have jobs, well, that just makes things worse!

Okay. Whatever. Karl Rove doesn't like the ad. I guess that means Obama's people love it, right?

Not so fast. Thanks to the genius of twitter, David Axelrod was able to share his douchbaggery to the masses within seconds.

“Powerful spot." Tweeted the twit Axelrod. "Did Clint shoot that, or just narrate it?”

Hey Punk! Maybe we should stop sending jobs overseas and rebuild at home!

From his tweet, I can't tell if Axelrod should have utilized a medium that would allow to speak more than 140 characters to further explain himself, or if he should have just kept his mouth shut and enjoy the game like everybody else.

But what is Axelrod saying? That Eastwood's words don't matter, simply because he didn't direct the commercial? Is he afraid that Clint Eastwood will make a run for president?

If that's the case, it underscores how much President Obama doesn't know how to play it cool. But what better can we expect from a man to full of cowardice to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire?

And when it comes to re-election, he's worried about Mitt Romney? Aka, BarMitt RomnObama? I guess Obama's losing sleep about actress Roseanne Barr, and the thought about Dirty Harry making a run has the President not feeling lucky at all.

What do you think? Should Clint go for it? Who cares if he's a Republican. Obama sure governs like one! Or should we call on McGovern once again? And does anyone want to fill in the scantron dot for macadamia nut farmer Roseann Barr?

Whatever. Maybe I should just watch Gran Torino again.

Exploring reality and artifice in the Saturday New York Times

Two articles in today's New York Times underscore the difference between perception and reality in more ways than one. On the hand, there are abstractions; political talking points, statistics with little if any context, and outright lies. On the other hand, there is cold, harsh reality.

For people living in rural Maine, the reality is very, very cold right now. One family on extremely hard times is a retired couple on by the name of Robert and Wilma Hartford. The Hartford's are on disability, making a bad situation even worse. Dan Barry of the New York Times reports:

Heating oil currently averages $3.71 per gallon, and that doesn't include delivery charges. To add insult to injury,  the Obama administration and Congress have trimmed the energy-assistance program that helps the poor — 65,000 households in Maine alone — to pay their heating bills. Eligibility is harder now, and the average amount given here is $483, down from $804 last year, all at a time when the price of oil has risen more than 40 cents in a year, to $3.71 a gallon.

That adds up to about $350 a month just so that homeowners can prevent themselves from freezing to death. And it's not as if the oil delivery man is getting rich off the endeavor, either. Ike Libby, owner of hometown energy, confesses that he would sell his business in a heartbeat to be a store greater at Wal-Mart.

Are we going to use 19th century technology to heat our homes?

Seriously, he said that.

That's the reality. Fossil Fuels aren't cheap: they're expensive. Many alternatives are more affordable that the status quo and would help, rather than hurt, our economy. Thermal solar systems could save homeowners in cold weather climates hundreds, even thousands of dollars every year.

The savings wouldn't stop there. Fewer oil deliveries to far-flung residences would mean less diesel. Less diesel and less oil would mean fewer oil tankers making deliveries.

Or we will enjoy the comforts of the 21st century instead?

The savings continues. Less oil and diesel exhaust means less particle matter in the atmosphere. Less particle matter means fewer heart attacks. Fewer heart attacks means fewer ambulance trips to the hospital. Not only does the ambulance use diesel fuel, but that life-saving medication that the paramedics give you to keep your heart from killing yourself? That's right, it comes from oil!

But that's not the analysis that the New York Times--or any other mainstream news source--chooses to pursue. The Grey Lady saved that ink and paper to "analyze" the political implications of the nation's unemployment rate that had just "fallen" to 8.3 percent. It's almost farcical to hear Mitt Romney and company complain about high unemployment--a problem that wasn't on the Grand Old Party's radar until January 20th, 2009. A problem that has was caused by and has been exacerbated by Republican policies.

But the article implores you to keep reading. Obama might win, he might not. Check the polls. But it's early. Check back again later. Keep reading your daily paper. Follow us online. Stay tuned after this commercial break.

The artifice of the news cycle never ends. It's not so much a cycle as a continues stream of horse manure. Occasionally, that manure does fertilize the soil of news into something that is actually newsworthy, and we learn about the Hartford's.

We can do our best to stop the lies. In this case, any homeowner who pays for heat in the winter (just about any of us) can benefit from a solar heating system, even in grey New England. Some companies, like Sunrise Solar in Vermont, specialize in geographic areas in which there is little sunlight in winter. Maine Solar is another example of an organization that tailors to the needs of local residents.

Said the wise man: "Be the change you wish to see."

It's worth noting that a solar system need not replace one's entire heating system, but can simply augment it. If the solar panels only heat your hot water to 100 degrees, your furnace won't have to use nearly as much energy as if it were heating 40 degree water.

If one of us embraces the future, well, that's one person who's saving some money and helping out the environment. If a dozen of us do it, well, than we might even establish a trend.

And if we all do it? Then we've solved a very big problem.

What are we waiting for?

Politico is wrong; Steven Colbert has no ceiling

Seriously. Steven Colbert never breaks character, but if he did, he could say that he is just joking. The establishment media and the three branches of the Federal Government have no excuse for their idiocy.

Oh yeah! He's already bested Herman Cain--Romney next?

It was hilarious to watch Colbert cleverly skewer everyone in the room at the White House Correspondent's Dinner in 2006. On his January 12th episode of the Colbert Report, Steven didn't have to attempt to crack jokes at Politico White House Correspondent Mike Allen; Allen was the joke.

It was bad enough for Allen o tout his superiority over every other media outlet simply because he had an I-phone, Allen outdid himself by explaining the ridiculously poor quality of the "news" that he and his organization delivered via the "Internets."

Put your phone down, Allen. Nobody finds you insightful.

Five percent off those polled said they would vote Steven Colbert when he hadn't announced a candidacy! Five percent isn't a ceiling, that's a floor. That should be obvious. I remember back in 2006 when the establishment media called Joe Lieberman untouchable because only 13 percent of Connecticut Democrats would vote for Ned Lamont--but that 13 percent was more than double the six percent of Connecticut Democrats who knew who Ned Lamont was! A mere moment of analysis was all that was required to foresee Lieberman's rejection come primary day.

And the ceiling? Unlimited. After, South Carolina is an open primary, meaning Democrats and Independents are allowed to vote for Republican candidates. With no Democratic Primary next week, the number of votes Steven may get is dependent on how many South Carolina Democrats feel like raining on Mitt Romney's parade.



Granted, the South Carolina Primary is only a week away. And no doubt the usual nattering nabobs of negativism will claim that Colbert is a comedian and should not be taken seriously. But many of these people are the subjects of Steven's humor every night. It is they who are the joke. And on January 21st, we shall see who is laughing.

Damn Straight, Your Eminance! Pope Calls for Massive Wealth Distribution

Right on, Father! Almost 20 years to the day after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Pope Benedict XVI took aim at Communism's seeming polar opposite.

Sam Walton's children have more money than the Catholic Church. Seriously.

A more just and peaceful world requires "adequate mechanisms for the redistribution of wealth," said the Pontiff in a statement released on December 16th in preparation for World Peace Day. So is the Pope a Communist?

Hardly. Capitalism only appears to be the polar opposite of Communism. At the core of each ideology is a belief that tramples the individual while claiming to speak for the commoner. While Communism takes away the right of the individual under the State, capitalism takes away the right of the individual by way of the all mighty dollar.

Am I being overly dramatic? Maybe not, when you consider attempts to stifle freedom of expression via the Internet, or attempts to eliminate government meat inspection. Sure, a few people might die, but that would cost precious dollars!


E. Coli in hamburgers, poison pet food, led paint in children's toys. This is unregulated capitalism friends, and it ain't pretty. Unless you're at the very top, unrestrained capitalism doesn't enable life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Certainly not if you don't have health insurance. And if not for Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, along with massive tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance AND President Obama's recent reforms, most people in this country wouldn't be able to afford health insurance. They would simply be priced out of the market.

Pope Benedict called for--among other things--better education. Boy, this country sure does need it, because the uber-capitalists have actually led people to believe that the rich in this country are insufficiently rich. That's a theory that is beyond absurd.

Did you know that Sam Walton's children have more money than Warren Buffett or Bill Gates? Seriously, the four of them have a combined wealth of nearly $85 billion! And they can't pay their employees a living wage because?

The Pope has criticized unrestrained capitalism before. Perhaps with income inequality in the news courtesy of Occupy Wall Street, people will notice.

To be continued . . .