Whatever will happen in Pennsylvania Tuesday?

Who knows. Barack says he thinks Hillary will win but he'll do much better than anyone expected. Some say Hillary has to win by double digits to remain viable. Howard Dean is wringing his hands.

Nobody knows what the polls mean because men lie to the pollsters and claim that they will vote for a woman when they wouldn't think of doing that, and white people lie to the pollsters and claim that they'll vote for a black guy when they wouldn't think of doing that.

It sounds more and more like Hillary does not really like Barack. Just look at the way she looks at him.



So, if Barack wins the nomination, there is fear that Hillary's supporters won't vote for him. Oh, Howard Dean just threw up his hands. He doesn't know what he'll do in August if the Super Delegates don't bail him out by June.



According to Barack, Hillary has taken up Karl Rove's stategy by talking about Osama bin Laden. Barack complains that she is using fear to win votes, just as the Republicans have done in every election since 2002. He's really steamed and will not tolerate that from her. He's going to take the fight to her. He's invading her space.




So, when it's all over by Wednesday, what will the Democrats face? Will Hillary throw in the proverbial towel and let Barack have it? Will they keep fighting and trying to destroy each other all the way to Indiana and North Carolina? Will we find out that Barack knows more people with dumb ideas, so dumb that their thoughts will derail his campaign? Now that Hillary has the endorsement of Richard Mellon Scaife, when she gets to North Carolina will she enlist the aid of the Jesse Helms machine to make us all afraid of Barack? Will Barack drive a tank at Fort Bragg and look like a doofus?

Or will they, in the end, just kiss and make up?



Stay tuned - we'll find out soon.

Why American News Media is so Flacid

I know that many of us have wondered what’s wrong with our news media. They are pitiful. With all of the significant newsworthy stories circulating all over the world out there, all our media seems fixated on is junk like Paris Hilton’s latest party.

Well, it’s become a bit more clear to me why it’s so difficult to get the media to take news seriously. I saw this today:

NEW YORK (April 18) - A CNN reporter was arrested Friday in Central Park with what police say was a small amount of methamphetamine in his pocket, but he avoided jail time by agreeing to undergo drug counseling and therapy.

The New York Post, citing law enforcement sources, claims Richard Quest was caught with more than just drugs. The newspaper reports that Quest also had "a rope around his neck that was tied to his genitals, and a sex toy in his boot."

Okay. That explains it. I’m just expecting too much from them. Now I understand.

What in hell was he . . .

BENNY JETS TO THE U.S.

Pope Benedict XVI and his views on the Iraq War

Before he became Pope Benny (settle down – I’m a Catlik, so I can say that – also, my favourite Pope was JPII – not for what he stood for but for being quite the congenial fellow) he was Cardinal Ratzinger. Then playing the role of - what was it? - "God's rottweiler"? - he really did not seem to mince words about the so-called “Iraq War” and the excuses leading up to it. Not when he was a Cardinal. Many believe that his views have not changed. We can only hope.

Nope, Benny said “it was right to resist the war and its threats of destruction . . . It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world.”

Now, tomorrow Pope Benny makes his first visit to the U.S. as Pope. Protocol says that he should visit the White House and the fellow living there. So, he will. I would love to be a fly on the wall when he does and he repeats that comment to Dubya. I expect that if Pope Benny has any – uh – well – you know – those two things down there, then he will pummel Dubya with “I told you so’s.”

After the invasion, at around the time Dubya donned his codpiece and rode on a jet onto that aircraft carrier to let the world know that his “mission” was accomplished, while then still a Cardinal, Ratzy said “There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, (likely talking about cluster bombs) today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a ‘just war’.” He also said that the Catechism said nothing about the concept of “preventative war.” Dubya's in deep doo-doo.

I also hope that Pope Benny is very, very cautious. I remember what happened when the late, great Pope JPII met with Bush. Before that meeting, he was the picture of health:

You may recall how Pope JPII reacted to discovering the extent of Dubya’s intellect:

It went on – the poor Pope was really suffering as Dubya went on. He actually felt like God had abandoned him:

Finally, as President Dubya prepared to leave and offered to shake the Pope's hand, we can see clearly how much that single meeting took out of the Pope:

This candid moment was caught after Dubya left - it really tells the whole story:

Not long after that, many Catliks began to blame Dubya for killing the Pope. He never recovered from meeting and talking with ol' 43.

To cap it off, Dubya received a congratulatory kiss from Laura right in front of the late Pope JPII’s body. Disgraceful!

My message to Pope Benny? Get on your Jet and get out of here.

In other news, during the call-in portion of the Diane Rehm show on NPR this morning, while discussing Pope Benny's visit to the U.S., a caller observed that the Christian community in the U.S. is complicit in the mayhem that has come to be referred to as the "Iraq War" - you remember, the Operation Iraqi Liberation before Karl Rove realized the acronym was too accurate - since it was the Christian community that elected Dubya to his second term. Hmmm. Good point.

GUNS ON CAMPUS

We’re hearing a hue and cry for permitting college students to carry guns on campus. Some seemingly intelligent elected officials are actually proposing such legislation and talking up the idea. The concept is that if some deranged person walks into a classroom with intent to shoot and kill people, the armed students can respond by using their own guns to disable or kill the deranged person before he can do his evil deed. Well, probably just kill the deranged person.

Let’s think about this, now. Sure, some college students may be former members of the military, some of whom actually have training with firearms and maybe even combat experience. But, the bulk of the 18, 19 and 20 year olds in college have no such experience. They may have experience playing video games and may envision themselves as heroes should they be confronted with a situation where they are afforded the opportunity to save a campus full of young people from a deranged, gun toting person. In reality, they are possessed of the judgment of children just out of high school. But, oh, do they ever swagger as they walk around campus with a handgun strapped to their side.

So, what we will be telling kids as they get out of high school is that when you go to college, you can strap on a handgun and wear it to class. (Of course, this will permit the deranged, gun toting person to blend in more readily but that’s not what we’re talking about, is it?) Then we tell the kids that if you, in your inexperienced, untrained, youthful mind perceive a threat, you are free to jump in and “take care” of the situation whether there is actually a threat or not.

ASIDE: Now, I know a lot of college faculty members. I don’t know any who would be comfortable walking into a classroom with untrained kids carrying real guns with live ammunition. Come to think of it, a lot of courthouses in this country don’t even let uniformed police officers carry their own weapons into the courthouse when they are there to testify. Ever wonder why? Because it’s easier to control conduct in a courthouse if you control and strictly limit who is allowed to enter the building with firearms.

BACK TO OUR THINKING. Let’s imagine that your child is one of the kids sitting in the front row. Someone walks into the classroom during class and three gun toters in the back perceive a threat. Suddenly, like the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, they whip out their guns and commence to firing on the person who walked in. Of course, they are not very well trained in the use of handguns. For example, they don’t realize that when firing several shots from a handgun all of the rounds will not go exactly where their eyes are focused. No, many if not all of the shots will miss the target completely, particularly when fired from further back in the classroom. There’s a pretty good chance that some of the students, oh, maybe two or three of them, sitting in the front row will suddenly get shot in the back of their heads. Oh, drat!

Notwithstanding that this might not really be a deranged person who actually poses a threat except in the minds of the kids we have armed as campus vigilantes, what if it is a deranged person? Now he knows where to direct his high powered weapon of mass destruction first, which weapon is infinitely more accurate than the puny handguns our prospective heroes, who just killed three of their classmates, are firing. Then, our deranged person whips out his shotgun which, too, is far more accurate than the puny handguns our prospective heroes are using. Plus, now you don’t only have a deranged, gun toting person - you have a pissed off deranged, gun toting person who really has his adrenaline going.

Now, let’s also imagine that sitting in the second row is the best friend of your late child, someone who managed to get a call in to 911 to report shots fired in the classroom and was not killed by the first barrage of vigilante fire.

Now, imagine that you are the first police officer who arrives on the scene. All your late child’s late best friend was able to say before being hit by the second barrage of gunfire from the vigilantes was that shots were fired and what classroom they were in. Sorry, there was not enough time to give more information such as the fact that vigilantes were firing too, or a description of the deranged person or an indication of how many deranged people there were. As you, the first police officer on the scene, step into the classroom, all you see is the one surviving vigilante still firing his 9mm handgun. Unfortunately, the deranged person has stopped to put another clip of ammunition into his high powered automatic rifle. Do you wait and sort out who poses the threat before taking action or do you shoot to kill the person you see firing a handgun in the classroom? Drat, there went the last of the vigilantes. Then, while your attention as the first police officer on the scene is focused on the falling vigilante, unfortunately the deranged person now opens up on you. The last thing you remember in your whole police officer life is hearing the rapid fire from the deranged person’s automatic weapon that the Second Amendment purportedly says he has a right to buy before the rounds from it snuff out your life. Double drat!

On the other hand, maybe the best way to deal with this perceived threat is to make it exceedingly difficult for the deranged person to get the high powered weapon of mass destruction and shotgun in the first place. Let’s see, which ranks higher, the interpretation of the Second Amendment that says everyone, including the pissed, deranged gun toting person is entitled to carry any kind of guns he wants wherever he wants to carry them or the part of the Constitution that says that everyone, including your late child, and your late child’s late best friend is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life. Guns or life.

Tough choice, huh?