Finally gave up on the AJC

I have finally given up on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. I've subscribed to it for more than ten years, but it became harder and harder to justify each year. I always viewed it as a being a liberal rag, but I do like the sports page and its coverage of the Braves, Falcons, Georgia Bulldogs, and Georgia prep sports. Because of that, I put up with its increasingly warped ideology. No longer, though.

As our state has grown more and more conservative, this clueless paper has become more and more liberal. Cynthia Tucker, the op-ed chief, is a predictable, reactionary, race-baiting loon whose schtick is staler than week-old bread. And Mike Luckovich (whom other liberal cartoonists seem to idolize) is an offensive, tiresome, talentless hack. Add in Jay Bookman, who must've been educated on the westernmost section of UC-Berkeley's campus, and it's just too much to take. They throw in the occasional conservative columnist in an attempt to appear fair-minded, but that's a farce. The state and the metro area long ago shifted away from the ideology this paper espouses. And I, for one, will no longer seek news from such a putrid source.

When they called me this morning to try to get me to re-up, I gave them my answer ("NO WAY") and my reasoning as outlined above. The guy who called me then tried to justify why the AJC was worthy of my subscription dollars and he proceeded to argue with me about political ideology. Some salient points from the "sales pitch":

• He said that all big-city newspapers were liberal. THAT'S an argument in favor of me re-subscribing to the AJC? I should continue to pay for it because it's a big-city newspaper and all big-city newspapers are liberal? I pointed out to him that most big-city newspapers were also slashing costs and laying off employees because of declines in readership. Hmmm...could there be a connection there?
• When I mentioned that the state voted about 60% Republican and the AJC is about 95% liberal, he claimed that only 60% of the 51% who voted were Republican -- and that all those who didn't vote were Democrats. Well, that's a ridiculous assumption to make. And even if it were true (which it's not), why should the paper overwhelmingly reflect the ideology of folks who were too irresponsible to even vote?
• Then he stated, "Well, you guys have the state legislature". Ummm, yeah. The majority in the Georgia House and Senate are Republicans and the Governor is Republican. I suggested that those realities just reinforced the FACT that Georgia is a conservative state and the AJC should better reflect that reality.

Needless to say, his brilliant counterpoints weren't enough to sway this now ex-subscriber. I did tell him that I would re-subscribe if the AJC became ideologically conservative (or at least moderate). I could barely say it without laughing, though. I don't think I'll hold my breath for that one.

Celebrity deaths really do happen in threes

I've heard it said before that celebrity deaths happen in threes. I always that it was coincidental, but I'm starting to wonder if there might be something to it. This past weekend, the following three actors died:

• Don Knotts - Deputy Barney Fife
• Darren McGavin - Immortalized as Raphie's father in "A Christmas Story"
• Dennis Weaver - McCloud

Granted, all these fine actors were up in years. And with the sheer number of actors in the world, folks are always dying. And maybe we (I) just don't notice when actors die in twos or fours or distinctly separate from anyone else. However, after Darren McGavin died, I asked if it was going to happen in threes this time. Then, a few hours later, I heard about Dennis Weaver.

Strange, don't you think?

UAE ports deal: Are you kidding me?

The deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over six major US seaports is rightfully catching heat from all sides. Michelle Malkin, in particular, is on it with a vengeance. It is an egregiously bad move from the administration for several reasons:

• The ports are allegedly insufficiently secured now and turning them over to Islamofascists surely won't help that
• One or more of the 9/11 hijackers were from that whacked-out country and there could very well be millions more like them who are just praying that this deal goes through
• It gives Democrats an opportunity to look like they are on the right side of national security when they aren't
• It's a bad PR move that makes even conservatives question your motivations and intelligence

What's next? A night watchman apprentice program for thieves? How about a Jihadist pilot training program? Or maybe a "buy two nukes get one free" deal with all of the middle eastern countries?

George, you need to stamp out this fire quickly and get it behind you. It's making you look like a half-wit. And each day you don't jump on this and disavow it, you are moving closer and closer to being a quarter-wit.

Oh, and one more suggestion: The next time the great thinkers and Ivy League grads in your administration sit around and approve any kind of deal involving anyone in the Middle East, you should first give the deal the sniff test by asking any AVERAGE FRIGGIN' AMERICAN WHO KNOWS HOW TO TIE HIS SHOELACES if it makes sense. If he/she doesn't faint, scream, cry, or pimpslap you, the deal may be okay.

Gerardo Sandoval: Anti-American much?

On Tuesday's Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity was interviewing Gerardo Sandoval. Sandoval is the supervisor to the 11th district of San Francisco. He was one of several on that board of supervisors who voted against a plan that would move the USS Iowa (WWII battleship) to San Francisco as a museum and tourist center.

When I saw that this interview was on, I figured I'd listen in to see what Sandoval had to say. I know that folks like Hannity and O'Reilly usually spin things people say in order to ratchet up the sensationalism factor. It can often make for good TV, but it can also be very deceptive. Because of that, I wanted to see Sandoval take this opportunity to explain the position of the board of supervisors who made this decision. Perhaps there were valid reasons for them not wanting the ship in their harbor. Of course, Hannity was going to try to paint it as anti-Bush and anti-military hubris. I thought that this may be a part of the decision, but I figured that the overriding reasons would lie elsewhere. Perhaps they didn't have the room in the harbor for this endeavor. Or maybe they would concerned about being a target for terrorists. Or perhaps it was a money issue. Maybe they were concerned that it would be a net loss to the taxpayers.

Well, sensationalism or not, Hannity quickly got to the heart of the matter. He asked Sandoval if we should have a military. That was a typical Hannity "trap" question, where he hopes to get the interviewee to trip up and say something monumentally asinine. Well, not only did Sandoval fall into the trap, he did so willingly and unapologetically by answering that we, as a country, should not have a military. Even when asked about how we could defend ourselves without a military, he continued to assert that the military is bad and we would be better off without it.

Wow.

Colmes, who usually jumps to the defense of the liberals on the show, was even dumbfounded. He quickly tried his best to disassociate Democrats from THIS Democrat by saying that this was not what most Democrats believed.

Sandoval's reply to Holmes' incredulity? "Welcome to San Francisco."

I'm still just astounded at this interview. I like to think that I'm not naive (although I'm starting to wonder). I know that people like this exist. However, I didn't think that people like this were ELECTED TO PUBLIC OFFICE. Even in San Francisco, I didn't think that there were enough of these anti-military, leftist, fringe types to form a majority constituency. Apparently, I was wrong, though.

You know, I don't care what the map shows, folks like Sandoval and I don't live in the same country (or the same world, for that matter).

Saddam's hunger strike -- a win/win

Apparently, Saddam Hussein is on a hunger strike. It's his form of protest against the horrible injustices of the US, the new Iraqi government, and his trial.

Is this supposed to be some type of punishment? IMO, this is a win/win. His many victims and their families can revel in him wasting away in a slow, debilitating manner and the US can watch him disappear forever (which is all we really want, anyway). And Saddam can rest easy knowing that we are having to abide the oh-so-harsh message that this calculated move is sending.

So here's what I say to Saddam: I'm with you on this one. This is truly a noble effort on your part. See it all the way through! A hunger strike will really show us. Keep up the good work! And those hunger pangs you will be feeling? View them as little daggers that you're hurling at the West. Be strong, take your stand, and see it all the way through!

You can do it, Saddam. I just know you can!

Bolton and the UN: He'll take names later

John Bolton has called for daily briefings from the member-states of the UN Security Council. Not everyone was thrilled by this:

...some council members grumbled when Bolton made the request on Thursday that they were too busy for the daily briefings

They relented, though, and there will be daily briefings while the US holds the rotating presidency over the Security Council.

I thought this was funny:

French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere and Chinese Ambassador Wang Guangya practically jogged into the chamber as the council chimes marked the hour.

I think I would pay money to see that.

Bolton has the whole "church lady on steroids" persona going for him. I could see him sitting there tapping his foot and giving the laggards the evil eye as they dove for their seats, ready to rap them on the knuckles with a ruler at the first sign of sloth. I imagine he can be overbearing at times, but if there ever was a "child" that needed to be snapped into shape, it is the UN.

Keep up the good work, John. Maybe this lost cause can be "found" and made useful after all.