[Yesterday morning] before
nine I had Thom Hartman on at some length.
His podcast, unlike any other on “Free Speech” does not have any
commercials, and you get both his news summary and also the regular radio
program. I did not know that "internet neutrality" was NOT the law of the land. Neither did I know that now there are forces in play which could forever take away the access we have to the internet that we thought was ours by natural right. I have a renewal of of outrage
against the FCC and this former head of the FCC who would just as soon that the
internet wasn’t “free” as a public access vehicle but rather that if a ISP,
internet service provider, so wanted to, they could monitor every site you
visited and decide for themselves whether it was in their interest for you to
visit that site, and could slow it way down, in Gov Christie fashion, if it
didn’t meet with their approval. In
other words it’s internet by highway robbery, and now you have to pay them
extra for the something by right you should get free. Thom also said that only this ALEC right wing
political group - - supports this Pacific Rim Trade agreement or whatever. So why is President Obama getting into bed
with such sleazy people. If this his
solution to”bi-partisanship”? After
this I had Ed Schultz on the Chicago station.
Ed has been stressing that the president has “nothing to lose” and has
no reason at all to “be nice” to all these republicans who’d just as soon see
him dead, except in that case Joe Byden would become President. In fact the reason why the Republican Senate
did not convict Clinton in his impeachment trial- - and fact the thing fizzled
faster than someone who’s Viagra had just worn off- - is because it would give
Al Gore a lock in power and a big leg up on the upcoming election of 2000. After lunch of course I had the Monterey
station tuned in.
You can't de-hydrate water. When a Christian peddles something sometimes the kindest thing you can say or hope for is that it costs you little, and won't actually harm you. This isn't always the case.
The best way to shut up these people who cry "class warfare" is - - "OK then, if we are not at war then make me your equal, for a man will hardly declare war on himself". If you are not "fighting me" for anything, this should not be a problem".
Since when is a corpse giving birth to a baby whose deformation was caused by the thing that killed its mother two months ago - - any sort of "natural occurance?"
They say they love Nelson Mendella and hate Joseph Mc Cartny, but this is because they are more afraid of either of them, then they are of "appearing inconsistent". Certain issues are so universal that they feel they have to lie to us to "fit in"- - even if the lie is comically obvious to one and all.
You can't de-hydrate water. When a Christian peddles something sometimes the kindest thing you can say or hope for is that it costs you little, and won't actually harm you. This isn't always the case.
The best way to shut up these people who cry "class warfare" is - - "OK then, if we are not at war then make me your equal, for a man will hardly declare war on himself". If you are not "fighting me" for anything, this should not be a problem".
Since when is a corpse giving birth to a baby whose deformation was caused by the thing that killed its mother two months ago - - any sort of "natural occurance?"
They say they love Nelson Mendella and hate Joseph Mc Cartny, but this is because they are more afraid of either of them, then they are of "appearing inconsistent". Certain issues are so universal that they feel they have to lie to us to "fit in"- - even if the lie is comically obvious to one and all.
Foreigners, have you found yourselves vexed in mastering the subtleties of the English language. Do you find yourselves continually flumixed between the distinctions between common words such as "champ" and "chomp" or "whipped" and "whooped". Or the most important distinction of them all, between "roasted" verses "broasted". Well here at the Marcus Arelius school of proper syntax you learn the distinctions between "Oh, no it's not him" and "Oh no, it's not Him!". You will learn the secrets foreigners have sought for years like the distinction between "spatter' and "splatter" and "spray" verses "spritz" or the difference between "sprinkle" verses "drizzle", particularly when discussing rain in southern California. In our political chapter you'll learn the difference between "prudent' and "expeditious" and also learn the difference between "Pathetic" and 'Unfortunate". You will learn that around 1950 the term "He's a really square fellow" did not refer to whether he was honest or not. You will learn that Boston, Chicago, and Kansas - - were not at one time just places on a map. You will learn the difference between "He didn't see clearly" and "Clearly, he didn't see". You will learn the difference between "Are you going out with her?" and "Are you going out with her? You will learn that your choice of whether to use "catch up with" and "interdict" depends on how cinnister your motives are. You will also know that when Rush Limbaugh uses the word "ontological" in a sentence, he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. When any salesman uses the word "absolutely" as an answer instead of "yes", you can be pretty sure he's lying. And just remember that we don't discriminate. The only color we believe in is green, which itself means something different in this sentence then if you heard it at an Al Gore seminar. Some people who aren't fresh off the boat even have problems with the English language. Maybe some day Chuck Smith will learn the difference between "flout" and "flaunt". Black people should know that the word "jive" is a verb, - - not an adjective. It means to be in synchronization. Apparently even some Rock Groups think American's are a little "daft". For instance changing Lead Zeppelin to Led Zeppelin was for the benefit of Americans prone to mispronounce words. There is no truth to the roomer that there was a special Beatles album released in the South as "Leave It Be". Some words though meant to enhance, actually detract from the thing they are modifying. For instance saying "white and pristine" is better than saying "virtually white and pristine". And "I promise to well and faithfully discharge the duties of my office" is better than saying "I promise to pretty well execute - - ". Also saying "Jesus was a perfect manifestation of God" is better than saying "Jesus was a more perfect manifestation of God". Also for John Lennon's information "spaz" is the noun and "spazzy" is the adjitive. In like manner the word "loon" is a noun and the word "Looney" is an adjutive. The word "snipe' is a verb, and the word "sniper" is the one doing it. Try to remember these. Foreigners would never want to get the words "homey" and "homely" mixed up. There are an impressive number of freak -LY words that are not adverbs, such as friendly, cowardly, beastly, manly, lordly, scholarly, kingly, unsightly, priestly, lovely, heavenly, miserly, homely, wifely, timely, unseemly, matronly, costly, and lengthly. And for you Doors fans out there "I'm gona love you till the stars fall from the sky for you and I" - - is incorrect grammar. Capish?
In terms of the President's speech I'd give him an A minus. It was a way better speech than I expected him to deliver. And frankly if I were delivering that speech I could not have done that good a job. I would have done a much more negative speech, laden with a lot of statistics like Bill Clinton's convention speech. But I think Obama was good at reading the times, and used that guimick of the personal example, which I as president would most likely use sparingly. That's because in a lot of cases it's a cheap shot. I thought the logical organization of the speech was amazing. He flowed in perfect logical progression from one topic to the other. Maybe he didn't entirely hit it out of the park- - but the ball bounced off the highest part of the fence. I think he was wise to stress the topic he did and frankly the President did much as Pat Buchannon had suggested he do in terms of personal content and what he enphasized. Again I'm giving it an A minus.




