This article was inspired about a radio station in Fresno who now plays "X-rated" themes.

USA today published a piece talking about how a radio station, calling itself "porn radio," is now playing songs that "have little in common except suggestive titles and lyrics." I.e., it plays several genres that sing about, well, fornication.

Now, this isn't Howard Stern. It is a bunch of overgrown juveniles who think it is funny to play a continuous loop, over and over again, with sex songs.

This was a former Christian station - but probably had low ratings. So it tried something else. One DJ stated "It would appear this is another of those promotions that are simply designed to create controversy."

Well, duh. Fourteen-year-old boys would think it would be funny to listen to for about two weeks, then get bored and go back to their hip-hop, death metal, or country stations. One common theme of this blog is that American society is so sex drenched, that a bit of titillation no longer excites as it did in 1959. In fact, the songs listed are such that I wouldn't be surprised that they could be played on a station in 1959. And I don't even think it's titillation.

My theory is that some producer probably got bored with thinking up a format that they did this as some kind of joke. It isn't even marketable. The same DJ mentioned "This format belongs on Sirius or XM, not on over-the-air." Actually, it doesn't belong there, either, as I don't think either of those entities can dredge up more than two listeners on a regular basis. I think that after a month, it will go away.

In the meantime, the Disney Corporation mentioned that it is going to do away with R-rated movies, and go back to more traditional fare. I would suspect this is for profit reasons. Nearly 15 years ago, Michael Medved noted in his landmark book "Hollywood vs America" that R movies have taken over the movie genre, and G rated movies make way more money than R-rated movies. So it would be in the best interest of studios to make more G-rated and PG rated movies.

The picture then was a little more complex. Maybe there was more room for G-rated movies, but which group of people most often goes to movies? Single people, in their teens and twenties. And they are more likely to be interested in R-rated movies than boring G movies. One thing that Medved didn't mention was the overall gross of each category. If there were more G movies, on average, maybe the average take of each one would have been lower than R-rated movies.

Yes, many of those movies had low grosses - especially the anti-American movies and the anti-Christian movies. He is correct there. But your run-of-the-mill sexy film did bring a lot of people into the theatres. And even some of the more disgusting films were raved about for a while, when I was that age.

But then again, a lot can change in 15 years. What a pundit writes 15 years ago is largely obsolete (if it touches on current events). Yes, Medved is more than a pundit - he is a critic, more in the tradition of Visarrion Belinsky. But his analysis is obsolete by the one thing, largely, that changed entertainment.

That change was the internet. And not just 24oo bps modems. But high speed wireless of cable modems. Or whatever else. And there will be much faster in the future.

There are also video games, too, which are much more "realistic" than they were in 1991. While sex may entice an 18 year old, violence sates the other half of his mind. In 1991, he could see an "action" film. Today, one can get something that appears fairly "realistic" but which can drag in much more than is possible, even with a lot of special effects, than movies can make. And in addition, it cost much less to produce a violent video game than a movie. I would guess that it would cost $100 million, minimum, to make an "action" movie, while video games cost much less to produce. And due to the proliferation of these games, and the fact that an 18-year old guy often does not ask another guy to the movies (it's awkward), instead it's much easier to ask a bud to come over to your house to play against you in a game, the audience level will go down.

Thus, it is getting to costly for Hollywood to produce violent films, as compared to the revenue.

And as I mentioned before, it is more costly to make sexy films than it once was. Today, one can pay very little to subscribe to a porno site, and download lots of dirty movies. In the meantime, he could go pay $9.00 to see some Hollywood starlett take off her shirt, maybe once or twice. And it costs many, many millions to make a simple Hollywood production - you have to pay lots of people several million dollars. While making porno movies for the internet is very cheap - probably the cost of production has gone down within the last 15 years, due to technology. ON top of this (no pun intended), porno actresses are made to be much hotter (yes, made) than Hollywood starlettes. So if the movie is stupid, the guy isn't going to see it. And the girl will still insist on some stupid chick flick. With the proliferation of "options" out there, there is much less demand for a "sexy" R-rated film (or NC-17 film, for that matter, which doesn't get to the level that a porno movie gets to) than there was 15 years ago.

One indication of lower demand is this is that when the NC-17 rating came out, there were some movies that were made for this rating. The trend was that more movies would go toward this. But, now how often do you hear of a movie being offered that is NC-17? I haven't heard of one for a long time. Which means there probably is no demand there.

So where will Hollywood go? Some movies, due to the theme or plot, will still need to be made as an R rating, to get the point across. But I suspect that producers will no longer throw in unnecessary sex of violence to get this rating. For example, Passion of Christ was one.

40 years ago, the Hays code was scrapped. And Hollywood cheered. Liberation at last! The Hays code was in effect for about 40 years. Now, it seems that the post-Hays code era is about to end. But this is more due to market pressures, because making those types of movies are no longer profitable, as it is largely unprofitable to do so. Hollywood is returning to some type of oppression again. Oh, no!

But that is because they cannot keep up. I think that Disney realizes this. The era of big-screen hedonism is gone, possibly forever.

Remember how, well, wonderful the old Disney movies were? Pre-Eisner? There was a cheerfulness to them. And always a happy ending. This was the Disney product - for non-cartoons. I suspect that the time is coming around that Hollywood, or at least Disney, will return to making some of these movies again. For that is where the money will lie for much of our lifetimes.

The Uneffective Nations, Hizbollah, and Israel

Or the "UN" to many of you.

Kofi Annan has called for an emergency meeting of the Security Council to put forth a French sponsored resolution that asks for an end to the fighting, and the withdrawl of Israeli and Hizbollah troops from southern Lebanan.

Fat chance this will happen.

Because, well, the UN has been cooperating with Hizbollah. It is my understanding that it's post flies the UN flag along with the Hizobollah flag at some posts. Nari an Israeli flag is seen. Taking sides, anyone?

And, it has been announced that a crowd of Lebanese have attacked and ransacked the UN embassy in Lebanon. The UN in responsed condemned Israel (yawn - yet again). Well, the hoodlums may condemn Israel. However, even though the Lebanese support Hizbollah, I am not going to condemn their attack on that embassy.

Thank God we have John Bolton on the security council. There is a motion to put in peacekeepers, or something. Hopefully, for the above-mentioned reason, he will vote this down. He did vote down the resolution condeming Israel's actions (but not those of Hizbollah, who originally supported it). For those of you who are mad that John Bolton was appointed to this position, just be greatful it wasn't Michael Bolton who W appointed. Because that is the Bolton who really blows.

In any case, UN troops are not like totally unbiased. This is the organization that has been condeming "Zionism" (whatever they mean by that) since the 1970's. These are the so-called "peacekeepers" who engaged in various criminal activities in, say, Kosovo (the wrong thing to do there was to bring in the UN, the right thing, and the thing bringing more peace in the long run, would have been to arm the Muslims there, which would have shed less unfavoratism in the Muslim world had we taken the Republican action in 1995).

Since the Security Council is composed of five respectable powers, and a bunch of bozo states, it has been rendered ineffective. Because there are a bunch of competing states, and because each state sitting on it has a liberum veto. While I like supermajorities, a liberum veto is a little extreme, and nothing ever gets done. This little parliamentary motion is adjudged by historians as to the reason why Poland disappeared at the end of the 18th century.

And hopefully, this conflict, along with the liberum veto, will bring down the entire UN. Just like the League had completely sunk by 1943.

You see, the UN, like many a charity, has ceased to address it's central mission. To minimize world conflicts. In the middle ages, the Catholic Church, which even in it's corrupted form had some common sense, knew that warfare could not be eliminated (think Kellogg-Briand) but put many, many constraints on it. And it minimized the impact. As a result, few people were impacted by the fighting.

Instead, it is time to sink the UN and replace it with a new body. John Carlson suggested an organization that had similar values (unfortunately, when he brought that up, I called to pin in my two cents, but the callers kept wanting to speak about something stupid and insignificant from the prior hour, which shows that talk radio really isn't that deep). Here is my suggestion.

After Vienna 1815, there was this body called the Concert of Europe. No, Metallika didn't play at it. The Concert of Europe was set in place to reduce European conflicts. And the peace lasted 99 years - long after it went away, but it set the tone.

I would suggest replacing the behemouth with an international organization that was made up of democracies. Yes, China would be excluded, but that's the way the boat bounces. Since democracies have most of the wealth in the world, and much of the population, it encompass much of the world.

Here are the requirements of membership:

1) A state that has a stable democracy (meaning it has had a democratic type government for at least a generation, or 20 years).
2) Those that are democracies for ten years are given observer status.
3) Overthrow of democratically elected governments automatically terminates membership.
4) Each state is not only a largely political democracy, but also a largely economic democracy(i.e., has a largely capitalist-market-like economic structure) and largely social democracy (meaning that there is basic equality for all before the one) one, too.

Who would be eligible? North America, almost all of Europe, Japan, India, Israel, some Latin American states, South Africa, Turkey, some other states, too.

Who is put in observer status? Russia, Ukraine, Brazil, Chile, Eastern Europe, some Latin American States.

Who is ineligible for membership? China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, most of Africa, Cuba, some Latin American states, some other states, too.

What do the last states have in common? Those are thuggish regimes where most of the human rights abuses take place. Almost all states have abuses of human rights - the US is no exception - but in democratic states, human rights abuses are on an individual scale - a rogue cop, for example - and there is no systematic method to launch into a tirade of human rights abuses against a class of people.

I suggest 20 years as that is how long it takes to establish a democracy. After ten years, there is promise, but the structure is still fragile.

Now, this organization would focus on two things. First, it would address security concerns. It would have a multinational force - but only made up of members of those states.

Secondly, it would address gross human rights abuses. What I mean by this is that it takes actions against those states who deny very basic human rights to a class of people because someone does not like that class. I.e., it would focus on genocide, or chattel slavery (as in Sudan). If resources are there, it could go after regimes who deny religious liberty.

Now, some states deny human rights to pesky dissidents who want some say in the power structure. While this is bad, it should not be the focus of any international-type body. Often times, those dissidents are terrorists anyway. However, those regimes often do not deny human rights to those attend a different church. As long as their organization does not challenge the government, they couldn't care less about it. The reason for my limitations here is that there are not enough resources to deal with this problem.

If I were to put together this organization, I would purposely provide prohibitions against certain silly activities - like "rights of the child" or expanding "scientific" knowledge, or stamping out hunger - and limit the organization to just these two functions. And, in the charter, it would prohibit the passage of any legislation or international agreements that interfered with the laws of a sovereign state - which was a reason why the League was rejected.

By limiting the scope of the organization, there would be much less opposition to it. And, it would be much more able to address it's central mission - that of reducing, and limiting the scope of, world conflicts.

Why Madonna not selling

I'm not much into Madonna, but since I write about cultural issues, I will explain this one.

Supposedly, she is not getting much top-40 radio play. Why? According to a recent article "More than 3,300 fans have signed an appeal at http://www.petitiononline.com". That is a very loyal fan base.

But lets think a few things through.

First, 3300 fans have signed a petition. For the so-called "Queen of Pop." That really isn't a lot for an international phenemon.

There are some other factors, too. First, Madonna the 1980's sex goddess is, well, pushing 50. She isn't going to be a sex goddess at that age any more. Now, she can certainly shock by acting like one at 50. And she is good at doing that. And I can see her doing that. But she ain't going to get her former audience back by doing that. And, if you've seen her photos lately, she certainly looks terrible. She got the Sharon Stone symptom.

But there's more. Remember the "King of Pop". His name was Jacko. Madonna, who is Jacko's age, is certainly trying to morph herself into Ms. Jacko. Although it takes quite a bit of eccentricity to reach that stage, so I don't know if that's possible to get as wierd as him. After all, Jacko was the biggest eccentric of the 20th century. But one can certainly try.

And, the old-musician's symptom is coming thru, too. Those who care about current singles are a. teenagers, and b. Adults without children. And even adults get tired of new stuff. Thus, artists always need to cater to the former. And once one reaches a certain age - grandma's age - they are not interested in buying music from that musician, who is often the age of a teenager's mother.

Like Jacko, Madonna never really developed a her own style. Instead, she kept abreast of trends in clubs. However, her albums are somewhat consistent in a genre, unlike those of Jacko. Nonetheless, that does not work to address the biggest audience, teenagers, who are not only requesting radio play, but often, are buying (or "sharing") their music in downloadable format. In any case, I predict that Top 40 radio will soon die and go by the wayside, because there are too many other entertainment diversions out there.

Old musicians cannot keep up with current trends. Instead, they out grow up and get a contract with Bellagio, or New York New York, or the Venetian, or Tropicana, or one of those places. One of my favorite bands, which certainly has the gravitas to perform at a strip hotel, KISS, has failed to do so. Instead they keep touring, embarrasingly, to smaller and smaller audiences.

Around her age, Frank Sinatra announced his retirement. So did Ozzie. But both came back and found a way to re-market themselves. In Ozzie's case, he started Ozzfest, where yes, he is the central act, but there are several young metal bands performing with him - any many youngsters, who go to see two or three of those acts, go to see everything else, too. In neither case did these artists keep writing albums, and produce essentially the same old music.

Especially since kids are going after hip-hop. While I do not like the stuff, this fits within a general theory I have of music. Hip-hop will not become the dominant music form, but there will be a successor to hip hop which will. That is how rock started in the 1950's, and Jazz in the 1910's.

Somewhere in the Bible it talks about how we all eventually need to grow up. And that includes artists. Old artists getting less and less airplay is not at all a new story, but it has been a theme of mass-produced music shortly after recorded music was mass-marketed.

Bad Album Covers

One of my co-workers passed around an email called "The Worst Album Covers. Ever." Like always, I want to give some commentary, so here I go.

1) John Bult. Julie's 16th Birthday.


When I saw this, I thought it was a father celebrating his daughter's 16th birthday. How naive of me - I hope I never have daughters!

If you look at this album cover, you figure this was made about the late 1970's. Think about what songs were popular then. "Christine 16" by KISS. A decade later, Winger's (yeech) "Seventeen". What is meant by "Julie's 16th Birthday" is really the age of consent.

One commentator stated "This one disturbs deeply. Mr. Bult is obviously an alcoholic child molester. The hat, half-empty beer and cigarette add that "special something" that makes me want to crawl into the fetal position and cry like a little boy. " Another stated "Why do I see Julie's father outside, about to bust in with a shotgun?..."

Around this time, it was acceptable for men to talk about having sex with 16 year olds. This is because the media was monopolized by perverted sickos. Of course, the media monopoly has been broken within the last ten years, so any ordinary Joe can come on board, one who is nowhere near as perverted as a musician, and give his comments to denounce John Bult.
I doubt that if John Bult ever went to prison he would be someone's bitch. But I can guarantee he would be extremely unpopular there.

2) Cody Matherson - Can I borrow a Feeling?

Approximately early 1980's.

Some dude with bad fashion ideas. People thought this was "cool". Here are what some commentators say about this one:

"Cody, Cody, Cody. Man you must have been huge in the trailer parks. All I have to say is sure Cody you can borrow a feelin'"

"And, I'll shamelessly admit that Cody Matherson, who appears as #1 on their [http://www.heavy.com/diesel2/2/] list, looks like several of the guys who went to my high school."

"Can I Borrow a Feelin’?” asks Cody Matherson. Not from me, Cody. ..."

"...cross eyed Cody Matherson, I've got a feelin' you can borrow. It's called pain"




3) Millie Jackson - ESP "Extra Sexual Perception"

Circa 1980

While I was able to locate those comments from a Google search, I really couldn't find anything regarding her. I did find out that she has her own article on Wikipedia.

From what I can tell, she gloried in gettin' around. And she certainly likes to goofingly show her breasts. Of course, now we think about how goofy this is. I guess that we have gotten somewhat more puritan over the last 15 years, too. Hell, there is even rock song about kissing on the first date - done today. And the guy sings like he is some kind of badass or something. And the record companies are trying to push this song - to people who grew up with much, much dirtier lyrics. And the music isn't even that good. Maybe that artist will also end up in the collection, too.


4) Orleans - Waking and Dreaming.

From 1976.

Difficult to find on Google Search. Maybe shoud've tried dogpile.com. But they do appear on Wikipedia. Classified as a "soft-rock" band (an oxymoron if I have ever heard of one).

Disappointingly, this album has a song that has been immortalized by morphing itself into commercial jingles "Still the one". Yuck.

Now, another change can be indicated. They are all shirtless. At least all they are showing. Thank God the photographer did not show anything below the belly button. In any case, 30 years ago, it was acceptable for men to run around with their shirts off when it was too hot. Now, only acceptable at the beach and the swimming pool. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, a local talk-show host, Brian Suits, asked the rhetorical question "why is it that every time it gets hot in Seattle, some man has to go around with his shirt off?" And usually, it is one man, too. Just today, I went to the Bite of Seattle, and saw one man, and only one man, walk around with his shirt off. Someone much older than I. And he looked pretty disgusting, too.

5) Tino. (Something in Spanish).

Circa late 1970's?
Any normal person should have a problem when a man wears an Izon polo shirt, short-shorts, striped sports socks, and lays on the ground with his legs way open to reveal his crouch. Unfortunately, I can't tell if anything is there! This is a position announcing "I'm easy". Well so are many men. However, many "easy men" have an awfully hard time getting some - and he is probably no exception.

This was acceptable in 1979, but today, hahahahahahahahahahahaha. The question is, if you are Tino, how are you going to explain this to your kids?





6) A few Christian album covers.

There are over 200 of these bad album covers, see www.heavy.com/diesel2. The ones that made the cut on my email, which had 19 covers. Many of them were from Christian Groups, which means the person who picked them might have a slight anti-Christian bias. Nonetheless, they are still pretty bad.

Here is a sample:
















The only thing these two groups are guilty of are a. Bad fashion, b. Bad titles, and c. Bad music (most probably). One guy talked about how he had to wear those exact Country Church clothes when he was in elementary school. Unfortunately, some of our mothers had horrible taste, mine included, and thought their kids look cute in plaid pants. I found some pictures of me, and while I do not like to burn things, I buried those pictures deep, deep away. No wonder why I absolutely hated going clothes shopping before high school (so did most boys of my generation).













Here are a couple that deserve some infamy, though.


Let me touch him? And this is the faction in our society that vehemently opposes gay marriage?

















Louvin Brothers - Satan is Real


Circa 1961? I think they also have a Wikipedia entry. Unable to find commentary on Google. But this has to be the goofiest of them all.

For those who hope to make it to heaven, here are two formally dressed men who are joyously singing while in hell. And the Satan image, he's smiling! Satan doesn't look threatening, he looks just as goofy!

Tells you that some people need to put more thought into their art.






7) Joyce

Sometime in the 1970's?


While doing a Google search, I found out about a Brazilian singer named Joyce, whose first album was 1968. I thought to myself "aren't Brazilian chicks supposed to be hot?" Then I went to her website, and discovered that the famous Joyce is actually quite hot, and that that Joyce is not this Joyce.

In any case, we have a case of bad fashion, bad hair, and ugly glasses. Which make her even more butt-ugly than she actually is. I just read a book about something, and one guy noted that such a hairstyles makes him think of pubic hair! Well, doesn't it?

The best commentary about this is the 50 cent price tag at the top. Probably even this is vastly overpriced.

8) All My Friend Are Dead.

Who knows the date - and who cares?

To tell you the truth, I am getting tired of doing all this pasting into my blog, so I shall stop soon.

Now, the title in itself is quite laughable. And he is trying to be serious? Man man man...














While doing my search, I discovered I am not the first to make fun of all these bozos. There are others. For example, check this link out:

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=4222484fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=4222484fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=4222484

People of all stripes of life like to devote blog pages to making fun of them. And why not? It's fund to point fingers sometimes.

So, what is the lesson. I saw there are a few. 1) America has gotten more puritan. Try some of these themes today, and see whether or not the cops show up at your door - or you get laughed while you go down the street. 2) Try to be conscious of what you wear. Today's "in" clothing will be tomorrow's silly picture. Unfortunately, some designers need jobs, so the constantly need to change our fashion.

They are correct when they call him a bigot

Check out Pat Buchannan's most recent article:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51164

While you might think I am tooting Pat Buchannan, I am not. I am going into how, when liberals call him a bigot, they are correct.

Now, generally, the old saying "a racist is a conservative losing an argument with a liberal" is generally true. But in Pat Buchannan's case, there may be some truth to calling him a bigot.

For starters, I read his book "Death of the West." When most conservative pundits write, if race is ever brought up, it's generally about how the thugs from da hood do keep African Americans down (which is largely true) or how affirmative action is bad (which is also true). Or sometimes an infamous criminal - who happens to be black - is denounced. But then again, for the most part, conservative pundits denounce any infamous criminal - irregardless of race. I have read several books from conservative pundits, and this is generally the first book I have read that has taken a bigoted tone.

Pat Buchannan goes way beyond how most conservatives view race. If you read his book, there is a racist undertone for it. For example, when students cheered during a speech of Bill Clinton's, when the remark came up that whites would no longer be the dominant race in this country, he actually thought this was some horrific thing. My attitude, as well as that of most (including most white) conservatives, to such a statement, is, who cares? This doesn't bother us. But apparently it does bother Pat Buchannan.

Also, Pat Buchannan wants to jump onto another trend bandwagon - anti-semitism. In fact, there is pretty good indication he has always been one. And it may run in his family.

Ann Coulter wrote in one of her books that when, in 1996, it was mentioned that Pat Buchannan's father was a fan of Father Coughlin, Pat's sister mentioned that her father had never even heard of Father Coughlin. To me, this indicates that his father not only listened to him, but was probably a major fan.

For those of you who don't know who Father Coughlin is, let me explain. Father Coughlin was the giant of radio of the 1930's - he was known as the "radio priest". As he was a Catholic priest. No one's radio star would come even close to his fame until Rush Limbaugh came along - and that was long after several alternatives to radio were developed. Some people have even attempted to say that Limbaugh was even a new Father Coughlin. Both were/are partisan, right-wing radio personalities. He had/have a huge following. Both even put out newsletters! And both were/are white males, if we are to get into this similarity. But that's about where the similarities stop.

Father Coughlin had an audience, at his peak of fame in the mid-1930's, at 40 million. Rush Limbaugh's peak audience was about 22 million. But Rush is on in the middle of the day, when people most likely listen to him while driving someplace. Father Coughlin was on during prime time. And, Rush's peak was about 1993, before the internet, but long after television became the dominant medium - with VCR's to compete with your time, to boot. And Rush is still on after 18 years, while Father Coughlin was shut down by the federal government after 13 years. Rush is probably the more dynamic personality.

There are other huge differences. Father Coughlin, a priest from a (Canadian) Irish-Catholic family, started his pundit career by engaging in socialist class warfare. Rush Limbaugh is a champion of free markets. Father Coughlin was very nearly a traitor. Rush Limbaugh has always been a patriot. In 1932, Hollywood made a favorable biographic movie about him (before he went off the deep end). Can you imagine Hollywood ever doing a favorable biography about Rush Limbaugh? And most importantly, while Rush Limbaugh defends Jews, and has aided in the career of some, Father Coughlin was a notorious anti-Semite. In fact, he was a kook (Rush likes to have kooks on his show, of any stripe, because he likes humor, and likes to make people laugh).

I read a biograpy of Father Coughlin. In the picture's section that is in nearly every book today, there was a photograph of his newsletter, circa 1941. If you believed it, you "knew" a. the good Hitler was doing, and b. that England was about ready to invade the US. Seriously. He was a bit of a problem for FDR, and so FDR was justified in shutting him down. (Interestingly, long after his career, he did champion a politcian w/ Limbaughs' values, Barry Goldwater, ironically, half-Jewish!).

Now, while Father Coughlin and Rush were rightwingers, that gives a very simplistic view of commonality - it's mere semantics. While both may have liked Barry, the term "rightwing" has changed over the decades. Before the 1960's, a rightwinger generally was an anti-Semitic. However, due to the course of history since that time, those with libertarian views largely took over the right, and several fundamentalist Christians, too. And fundamentalist Christians wnat to keep Israel around. Thus, the American right wing evolved significantly from 1938 to 2006. So much so, that it is the American right that not only champions Israels' actions, but is generally highly Jewophilic.

What does this have to do with anything? Lets use some common sense. In the 1930's, the population of the US was, maybe, 200 million? I don't have any historical charts, but this is probably close to accurate. That means that 1/5 of the US population listened to Father Couglin.
Interestingly, at the height of his anti-Semitism (meaning the end of the program), his audience included 100,000 Jews, according to his biographer. This goes to show that there are always useful idiots somewhere.

And who were his biggest fans? Why, those of kin - Irish Catholics. And who were the Buchannans? They are also Irish Catholics. Thus, to begin with, to never of heard of Father Coughlin in the 1930's, you would have had to have been a total hermit. And there is absolutely no way someone who descended from an Irish Catholic family would never have heard of him - he would have been touted at whatever church social function people would have attended.

Thus, if one does some analysis, it would seem to me that when Pat Buchannan's sister states that her father never heard of Father Coughlin, she is engaging in serious coverup, that their father would have been the equilivent of a Dittohead (if there was any related term for Father Coughlin) and probably strongly favored his views, and glorified them at the dinner table every night. I really can't believe that someone as brilliant as Ann Coulter, and someone who has a strong knowledge of American history as she does, would take this statement at face value.

So, what else about Mr. Buchannan? For one thing, for which White House did he work? The Nixon White House. And Richard Nixon was probably the biggest anti-Semitic President since at least the 1920's. Maybe excepting his successor, Gerald Ford, who was a founder of America First. You will hear more about this when I write an appropriate obituary - which I hope will be pretty soon.

In any case, Richard Nixon was known to hate Jews. He plainly called them "cocksuckers". I am not making this up. I would suggest that, at least in terms of males, the homosexual population of Jewry is equilivent to that of the rest of the population - maybe a bit higher, yes, but that is because Jews historically have a strong reputation as leftists (at least until now) and are more likely to "discover" their homosexuality (yes, I believe that most gays are born that way, but I also believe that there are a few "gays" who "became" that way, especially those gays who are pure leftists, because they want to be "with it". Thus, if a segment of a population has a high percentage of leftists, I think it is safe to assume that there would be a higher percentage of voluntary homosexuals in it as well) . Remember, this is before heterosexual blowjobs became popular, too - about a generation before Bill Clinton's little fling with Monica in the oval office popularized this activity. So I doubt there were many females giving fellatio at the time, either. For Nixon to use such a slur is thus highly off the mark, and indicates a strong dislike of a certain group.

Not that I'm denouncing Jews - those who read this blog should know by now that I am a pretty strong Jewophile (I was even once a member of "Jews for the Protection of Firearms Ownership!") . And, some of my second cousins are Jews - and sterotypically, pretty strong leftists, too. Nor am I denouncing gay stuff, either. I really don't care if a couple of dudes want to get it on with one another.

Anyways, away from the pornographic comments. Nixon also hated Israel. He suggested that they do not stand much of a long term shot. Buchannan indicates this. So, do you think that maybe Nixon helped to "educate" Pat a little more?

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Pat Buchannan were sitting by his TV set, wearing a kaffiyeh, hooked to either CNN or Fox News, cheering the Palesineans on like some kind of football game. I think the expression "Pat Buchannan owns a kaffiyeh" sounds pretty good, and is probably accurate, too.

Now, there is more to dislike about Buchannan. Rush Limbaugh indicated he supported him in 1992 - until he heard the Buchannan wanted to tell industries where to locate. So he probably turned him off. And, Pat Buchannan hates free trade. Thus, Buchannan is quasi-socialist, and belongs in the wrong party. But then again, I don't think the Democrats want him, either.

So what is my conclusion? Well, sometimes we agree with the opposite faction. And when they say that Pat Buchannan sucks, I don't think they are too far off the mark.

Air America - Going Down

Earlier, I noted why "Air America isn't taking off." Now, it appears they are headed toward a crash landing.

On DrudgeReport today, I found these ratings for hosts in New York City:

LIMBAUGH 144,100
HANNITY 113,500
CURTIS/KUBY 109,500
GAMBLING 104,700
IMUS 93,800
JOY BROWNE 76,200
MARK LEVIN 74,200
OPIE/ANTHONY 74,000
O'REILLY 64,900
SAVAGE 64,300
AL FRANKEN 47,300
LIONEL 38,400
RANDI RHODES 38,200
BATCHELOR 36,900

Now, lets analyze these figures. While I am not familiar with all these names, I did look at all of them. One one of those figures whose name appears before Al Franken is a leftwing pundit (Kuby). While some of those before Al Franken may be liberals, they are not exclusively liberal pundits, and focus on other things. That means that in the top half of these ratings, only 1/2 a show is one devoted to leftwing punditry.

Lets look further. New York City is a heavily Democrat city. So you would figure that Air America would have been number 1 by now, right? So why is Al Franken near the bottom - and way, way behind the next person in the ratings, Michael Savage?

Furthermore, many of these conservative hosts are just plain boring. Sean Hannity, Marc Levin, and O'Reilly - are they worth listening to? Well, not really.

And surprisingly, despite the fact that O'Reilly competes directly against Limbaugh, and for the same audience, he still has way more listeners than Al Franken. That one I can't figure out.

Also, is there any mention of any NPR hosts? I don't see any.

The problem with Air America, is, well, a few. First, they got into this long after talk radio was taken over by conservatives. Indeed, they got involved long after talk radio lost much of it's audience - Limbaugh's weekly audience fell from 22 million in 1993 to about 14 million today (despite the introduction of millions of new listeners) - yet he is still way ahead of the pack. It would appear that his audience got bored and didn't change the station - they turned off the radio.

Indeed, the radio is a much more old fashioned medium than it was in 1993. There are very few programs people specifically take the time to listen to. Most people today turn on the radio only if they are in their cars, or if they have it set to a station on their alarm clocks.

That is because of not only improved mediums of preserving information, but also due to streaming. People will now get their information off the computer by streaming it. Or, if they need news, they go to a news site.

Indeed, many formats are losing audience share. For example, the old Rock, or alternative, or country, formats are losing audiences. That is because they have to represent many aspects of a genre. And people may like one aspect of a genre, but not all aspects of that genre. Thus, who wants to listen to a Rock station, that plays music that is largely crappy, when Sirius offers God-knows-how-many stations devoted to the various sub-genres of metal?

And even if some forward-thinking entrepeneuer thought of starting Air America in 1991, he would never have gotten the audience that Limbaugh got. That is because there were several sources at that time where one could get liberal opinion. People get set in their ways and do not switch unless there is a need to. They are not going to switch away from their NPR (at a much higher intellectual level than Air America, by the way) to listen to some pip-squeeks muse on day after day on the same thing. Conservatives did go to Limbaugh because there was a general lack of conservative opinion in 1991 - indeed, even the hard news had a lot of commentary.

Entertainment, which radio is, may not cost money, but it more importantly costs time. Most people have much more limited time than money. One can always but junk and throw it in a closet - they can get more money. But one cannot really regain lost time. So in an entertainment saturated world, they have to pick their sources carefully. Air America got too late into the game not only after the talk format died down (indeed, some called the popularity of talk radio in the mid-1990's as the "talk radio craze"), but long after the internet took over news and entertainment functions that radio used to fill. Indeed, in 1991, there was already much more entertainment to satisfy a liberal's palette than there was for a conservative - which is one reason why Rush Limbaugh became so huge, while these hosts never did.

In fact, as I mentioned before, Air America hired some bozos to represent them. Both Al Franken and Ganine Garafallo (I don't know how to spell her name, but it really doesn't matter) are failed SNL stars. Didn't Al Franken hang around that set for 20 years - long after many a star from that show already had much of their careers behind them (like Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, or Eddie Murphy)? Starting a network with SNL flunkies is not a good way to get going.

And also, having Jerry Springer as one of your programs does not aid in credibility, either.

Air America has been on a long time - nearly three years. So everyone knows about it. Despite this, however, it still has very low ratings. Ann Coulter might be right when she wrote that radio enables Randi Rhodes to literally reach hundreds of listeners every day.

I need not devote any more time or bandwidth on my blog to discussing Air America, so I will not do so anymore. That is because as the low ratings, for a highly Democrat city, show, Air America is nothing more than a laughingstock. I have successfully predicted failures before, so I will stick out my neck and do so again. Though that may not be hard in this case. I predict that it will not be the powerhouse it was intended to be, and the advertisers are clearly correct - from a business standpoint - when they shift their advertising dollars away from it.

What You Won't Read About in the Most Recent Conflict

Today, the Israeli government released the names of the two other soldiers that were kidnapped by Hezbollah.

One of them is Ehud Goldwasser.

So? What is the significance?

Kinda translate the last name. What do you get? Goldwater.

And who was Goldwater? Why, he was the man who is probably most responsible for making the Republican party conservative!

Like Israel, too, he was militant. Which is one reason why he was so exciting. Like Israel, he was forced into militancy by the establishment (like Israel is today).

More interestingly, I think they are relatives. How, you might ask?

Well, distant, but relatives.

In the 1800's, a Polish, Jewish immigrant (probably speaking Yiddish) came to Arizona territory, named Goldwasser, also. Like many a Jew, he went into the business Jews were often very familiar with - retail. He opened up a department store - and a highly successful one, too.

This was Barry Goldwater's grandfather. Along the way, the last name was anglicized. And that is where Barry went to church - although there are few conservatives going to Anglican services today. Barry was half Jewish, the first person nominated by a major party to be so.

If we look at the kidnapped soldier, he has the same last name as Barry's grandfather. Which means he probably came from Poland, too.

Now, lets think about a few things. First, lets look at the last name of both. It means gold water. Is gold water a common, everyday item? Better yet, do you actually know a Goldwater? Unlike a Smith (meaning a blacksmith) or a Clark (coming from clerk, or cleric), this is not a common thing to call someone, and a person dealing in gold water engaged in an unusual profession (unlike a blacksmith, or a clerk, or a cleric, of whom everyone knew at least one). Due to it's lack of commonality, and the fact that there are relatively few Goldwaters (or Goldwassers), I think that we can reasonably assume that both of these individuals have a relatively recent common ancestor. My theory can be easily proven - or disproven - using a geneology chart. Geneology isn't hard anymore - I have traced my ancestery to the Caeser family - using a Norweigan geneology book and this very computer.

People with not-usual names - probably the majority of those whose families came from Europe - usually have some common ancestor. Especially for last names that are more than bisyllabic. Monosyllabic last names do not indicate anything - like Smith, or Lee, of Nguyen (if pronounced correctly, it's Wen). Think about this - the Roosevelt name. Even though there are lots of them, whether or not they are close to Teddy or FDR, they all come from the same ancestor who landed in New York in the 1660's. Despite being a Dutch name, this is one surname which is purely American in origin.

Thus, I think it is interesting that the conservative base, which owe thanks to Barry, now supports Israel. And in the process, one of his distant relatives was kidnapped.

This doesn't really indicate anything. Just the fact that I like to take two relatively insignificant facts and make some kind of connection (like announcing in Wikipedia that Calvin Coolidge is a bona-fide Adams).

In 1964, Democrats alleged that a "Goldwater" would start WWIII. Although they got the wrong "Goldwater," who knew that they could have been so right?

Give War a Chance

It's good to see Israel back in form!

Now that Hezbollah thought it would be funny to kidnap an Isreali soldier, Israel has finally decided to get serious with Islamic terrorists and essentially take out the Palestinian government. Which is perfectly fine with me. It's about time they get serious again. The Palestinians already have a state - it's called Jordan. And Israel was willing to let the Palestineans live next to them - as soon as the boundries settled in 1948 - but they have to keep this 60 year old grudge.

Now, they are liberating Lebanon, since they are purportedly aiding the terrorists. I have a problem with this. What is it? Who essentially controls Lebanon? Syria. I would like Israel to get serious and liberate Syria, too.

Of course, Syria denies any role in all this. I have one word to describe their statement. Lies. Of course Syria is funding them. Terrorists always wiggle their way out of situations by lying. History has shown this is the case. And no, you don't try to "understaaand" them. You merely take out the kookiest of them, or their funding sources, and the moderates will be more flexible and will learn to not only give up their terrorism, but they will live more peacefully.

I would have liked us to liberate Syria. But unfortunately, we are overextended. And history shows what happens when one country invades a whole bunch of other countries. They all gang up on the big country. So we really can't do much more. Hence, we have to have other countries take out the other terrorist states. Hence, Israel should be encouraged to take out Syria. India, who just had that huge train bomb, should be encouraged to take out Pakistan (another terrorist supporter). Japan should be encouraged to develop it's own nuke, and when North Korea gets a little more uppidity, take out North Korea (I think the Chinese and Russians would breathe a sigh of relief). And we shouldn't take the lead on Iran, but let the Europeans do it - we should merely do the cheerleading. If Iran doesn't comply - which I think they won't - then we should forgive France and Germany for their opposition to our liberation of Iraq, and let them do their own liberation of Iran. Sure their troops are probably wussies, but it will be good for Europe to get back to some good old fashioned fighting. Sure France will have something to crow about - helping defeat Iran - but letting France beat Iran is far better than letting Iran keep it's current regime.

I do agree with the Democrats that unilateralism can create serious problems in fighting the war on terror. And, I think we should be letting our egos rest, and let other countries take the lead on getting rid of these terrorist states. For the end goal is dispensing with evil terrorism, not stroking our pride. And if other countries want to take the lead on a terrorist state, we should encourage them to do it, rather than do it ourselves. Then, with all these awful terrorist states taken out, we can get more peace.

Know Thy Enemy

Ever made it to the list "100 People who are Screwing up America"

Probably not. You have to be famous to do so. However, not necessarily. John Green, the guy who threw a cup a Ron Artest, made it on there, too. But for the most part, you have to be famous (or infamous).

And for the most part, you have to be a leftist.

Which is why several leftists disdain this list. In fact, some leftists, consider it an honor to be on this list. After all, here was the guy who wrote the book "Bias".

Sure, people like Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, and Noam Chomsky (heros to leftists) make the list, but lets look at who else has made the list:

Jerry Springer
Paul Eibler (designer of Grand Theft Auto)
Ken Lay
Dennis Kozlowski
Anna Nichole Smith
Howard Stern
David Duke
Michael Savage (someone I like, BTW)
Jimmy Swaggart
Jacko
Matthew Lesko

And, recently:
Prussian Blue (the bubblegum white-supremacist teenage duo)
Fred Phelps (that uber-anti-homo bigot clergyman)
Jeremy James (a leading email spammer)

And, I didn't include Richard Timmons (a mass-murderer), John Green, Eminem, the "unknown ELF Terrorist"

Now, some people actually like Jerry Springer. The Ohio Democrat party named him "Democrat of the Year". I am not making this up. Sometimes, it helps to see your fellow ideologues in the mirror. While many Democrats may like him, America regards him as a laughingstock.

Oh yea - Ann Coulter almost made this list, too.

So what is our lesson today, children? Don't always act on knee-jerk reactions. You might regret it. Although the list is dominated by leftists, if they read the list in it's entirety, those who think it's an "honor" would quickly change their mind about being placed an a short list with white supremacists, corporate looters, scam artists, perverts, a few of your ideological enemies. and other associated wierdos.

Book Review - Ann Coulter Godless

When reviewing Ann Coulter, it's hard to be objective. Either one loves her, or totally hates her. So you get a bifucuration of reviews.

I got bored reading Gibbon, and decided to take a break (actually, the only Gibbon you get is paraphrased, and I got a bad paraphrase). So when at Costco, I bought her book. John Stossel wasn't there. In any case, I have all her books but the first.

Now, you might think - "Ann Coulter gets read because she looks like a bimbo and every conservative wants to sleep with her." I will refute this argument in two points. First, while Ann Coulter looks like a bimbo (albeit an aging bimbo), she certainly doesn't write like one. After all, she went to an Ivy League school, and has a law degree from UM. You try to get those degrees. So she has a superior education, and ten years on me (and my education is further down the dumbed-down path than she is). If she wrote like a bimbo, no one would have read her second book. Having a lot of wit makes her a huge success, too.

The second point is that, well, not only do conservatives have the hots for her. So do many liberals. If you read through this entire blog (I believe it is this one) - cajunjew.blogspot.com/ - it will link you to a site where some leftists want to engage in perversions with her, too. And this guy might, also.

So, what is Godless about? It is about how leftists, who claim to be irreligios, really have a religion - "liberalism". She spends much of her time outlining her thesis.

She bashes those who deserve to be bashed. Like teachers. The high priests of our civilization. She kinda beat me to the punch, as I am hoping to someday explain how the education establishment is nothing more than the new Papacy, but someday I will explain my thesis. You see, teachers get waaay too much credit, although they are often dolts. And, according to economists who measure their salary, greatly overpaid dolts.

Her most infamous example is over the Jersey Broads. You know, the ones who exploited 9-11. While she maybe went over-the-top, you kinda have to wonder about how these four women have managed to exploit 9-11 for their own ideological gains. Ann Coulter, who is one of the few iconoclasts today, is merely dishing something back to those who are "untouchable".

One problem with the book is that Ann seems to wander on and on in her writings. But then again, she could probably wander aimlessly and still get bestsellers - she's Ann Coulter, #2 conservative, right behind Limbaugh. Which is why she seems disjointed when she spends much of the book attacking Darwinism - approximately 2/5 of the book (I'm too lazy to calculate if I'm correct).

She makes a point that those who are irreligious defend Darwinism - not on science, but on faith. For people who supposedly have none. Despite all the evidence that put holes in Darwinist theory, they still cling to it like it is the absolute truth. How do they know - the certainly weren't there. Then again, maybe they were - after all, they're dinosaurs.

And, there is a lot that puts holes in Darwinism. But they refuse to debate those who see problems with Darwinism - and there are even some athiest scientists who see problems with the theory - merely mentioning that it is a waste of time to debate facts with them. After all, as my 10th grade biology teacher told me - if you don't believe in Darwinism, you don't believe in biology (this is the same man who taught us sex ed without parental permission).

Toward the end of the Darwin chapters, I realized that she is getting to her main point - these people do not want there to be a God, so they will use their own faith to try to prove there is no God. Athiesm is intellectually dishonest, and intellectually arrogant - there is absolutely no way to disprove any supreme diety, all dieties, or all animal spirits. Agnosticism is much, much, more honest.

If you do not get her central argument, she brings up some past episodes whose stories are now forgotten. First, two 1920's anarchist thugs, Sacco and Venzetti, the Mumia of their day,were actually guilty of their crime - but many leftists were willing to try to prove their innocence. The second episode, the Scopes Monkey Trial, also in the 1920's, was a fraud - Mr. Scopes may not have even taught evolution - and was nothing more than a publicity stunt to get the ACLU to do a test trial, and to get some town in Tennessee a lot of publicity. I looked up both these episodes on Wikipedia, and it turns out that Ann is telling the truth about both.

So, who should read this book? I think everyone. She brings up some fresh points. For it gives conservatives more ammo. And we all need to read some book once or twice a year from our ideological opponents. This is a good book for liberals to read to help understand conservatives better. And for squishy moderates - well, they need to read any political book, as they are most often the least interested in politics, so they have next-to-no training in ideologies anyway, and are total political dolts. So this is a good book for them.