The dumbest thing I have ever heard...

Ah, the holidays. A time for tradition, whether gathering around the fire for some Christmas carols and eggnog or filing away your grandfather urinating on the tree under repression or denial. A time when the stress and constant grinding press of Christmas is all too often mistaken for the "magic" of the season. Showing the self-restraint not to dish out a British mobster-style beatdown to the little old lady who just cut you off, for the parking space you weren't even interested in to begin with, does not qualify under "peace on earth and goodwill toward men (or little old ladies). That goes 365 days a year, not just when we start singing carols about it.

The holidays are also a good time for the sappy announcement. This is only amped up each year by the steady stream of commercials for jewelry chain stores and the asinine made-for-TV "entertainment". You have your standard holiday engagement announcement (the less on that the better), the always popular impending child announcement (we all know the turkey doesn't always put people to sleep...), and so on and so forth. Notice how you never see the TV ads where somebody comes out of the closet, or waits until everyone pops that first bite of Christmas dinner into their mouths before announcing the divorce?

And I suppose, on top of all the other hot mess, the holiday season is a time for contemplation, whether it be how to deliver (or break) the news, or whether or not you are going to test the airbags out on that little old lady's Cadillac DTS. An in a telling sign of the times, you can pretty much contemplate how you want the apple of your eye to shine on down the road, catalog shopping for that custom-made kid that seems to be in vogue somehow, to people as much money as hope, or arrogance. Then, of course, you knew once we started gaining little bits and pieces here and there of the ability to play God, the idiots were going to wander onto the field start demanding stupid new rules along the way.

The Human Tissue and Embryo Bill, currently in Britain's House of Lords, would bar parents undergoing embryo screening from picking one with an abnormality if a healthy embryo existed. You know how it is. The coffee you drink may be hot, the cutlery set you just received may be sharp, and the cruise control in that car in the driveway, the one with the bow on it? Yeah, it will not drive the car for you. So, it hardly comes as a surprise that somewhere, somehow, someone should have to be told, as a matter of law, that they cannot purposely select a child to be born with a disability. That's where the government comes in, and then...

...here come the protests. No matter how oblivious or disconnected from reality one would have to be to argue this point, bless them , they are out there. Jackie Ballard, a former director-general of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and MP, said deaf parents should be allowed to screen their embryos, so they could pick a deaf child if they wanted to.

Well, that just about the dumbest argument I have ever heard. Pun intended. Ballard, now the chief executive of the Royal Institute for Deaf and Hard of Hearing People, or (mercifully) RNID, thinks the slim number of deaf parents who may want a child that is deaf as well should have the right, because being deaf is a cultural identity. WTF? Being deaf is a disability. If you can rise above it and live a productive and/or meaningful existence, more power to you, and damn well so. Declaring it a cultural identity just opens it up to the overwrought political correctness that too many times diminishes an issue just by its mere mention. Ballard's stance is that "we should not destroy that cultural identity by preventing children from being born deaf. Britain has seemed to achieve an odd parallel to the United States. Someone who was in charge of animal rights thinking humans should be purposely allowed to be born deaf makes as much sense as putting a thoroughbred sports exec in charge of disaster management. And it is roundly impossible to say, or even think at this point, that Ballard is doing a heckuva job.

As cockamamie as Ballard sounds, if you can believe it, there are others who fall into her puzzling line of logic. Several organizations are collaborating to force changes to the bill to allow parents to pick abnormal embryos, including the British Deaf Association. The stance taken by the organizations is that the bill is discriminatory, as it prevents a couple from selecting a baby with a disability on purpose, and rightfully so. Amazingly enough, no one seems to mention how discriminatory it is for the newborn to get dealt something like a disability, and from the people who purport to love and know what's best best for the kid. after, they took the painstaking lengths to bring the kid into the world, didn't they?

Ballard's last bit of erstwhile wisdom came in the form of "we would like to retain, as far as possible, parental choice, but it has to be in conjunction with a clinician so that people know exactly what they are choosing." That's the problem even a former MP should be able to spot. Just because people know exactly what they are choosing, regardless of the context or situation, it does not necessarily make that choice right, ethical, decent, or legal.

I would go on, but I'm afraid to say it may be falling on deaf ears. Again, pun intended. Good thing this is typed, so I don't have to yell.

Gives a whole new definition to getting the shaft

With the oppressive, vice-like grip of the holiday season firmly around our wallets, as well as other vital parts of our anatomy, I figured it was only a matter of time before some fairly ludicrous stories involving air travel came to light. Not that it isn't already fairly ludicrous that you have to do everything short of turning your head and coughing before boarding (give them time), but you know you were braced for some horror story involving delays boarding on residency on the runways or the usual bakers' dozen each year where some poor unfortunate's "personal massager" takes on a mind of its own, forcing some cool, if ultimately embarrassing bomb squad action. I'd like to think this story falls somewhere in the grey area.

Alaska Airlines, along with Horizon Air, have a new discount program for certain flights during the holiday season, but under the condition the ticket buyer visits a special page on the airline's website, geared for the homosexual traveler. Not a giant deal in my way of thinking, given discounts regularly given to elderly customers, children, or club members for a variety of services, not limited to or including air travel. Not so fast. Of course, family values had to pitch a fit somewhere, after all, the homosexual is involved, so naturally, some "values" group is in hot pursuit, no pun intended.

Bryan Fischer, with the Idaho Values Alliance, is steamed under his probably starched collar over the discount program, calling it discriminating against heterosexuals. Yeah, I hear ya, pal. Us straight people don't get any breaks. Fischer went on to mention preferences given to gays over married couples and concessions such as allowing male passengers to dress cross-gender on flights. Calling up the somewhat meaningless statistic that more families buy tickets than individuals or traveling pairs, Fischer goes on to say that "it just doesn't seem like it's smart business for them to stick their thumb in the eye of the main passengers." That does not come down to pleasing demographics, it comes down to misguided belief on the part of Mr. Fischer. If the airlines had one tiny iota of business sense in their possession, then the industry would not have benefited from previous government bailouts. They are in the business to sell tickets, and if that entails discounts here and there, then that's what we like to call free enterprise.

As Fischer delved deep (again, no pun intended) into the apparently illicit world of gay air travel, he spoke with a reservation clerk, who was unaware of the discount program, but did say the discount was available through the specified page on the website. Wait, huh? How can you be unaware of something's existence, but tell you exactly where to find it? This clerk would have had, or indeed could still have, a bright future in politics. Shame the Bush White House didn't find this guy earlier.

Fischer's problem, as it appears, is not so much having to say you are gay, lesbian, or otherwise to nab ten percent off your airfare, but that you pretty much have to be gay, otherwise you would not logically find this page on your own. Can't say that isn't at least a valid point, but then again, a bargain is a bargain, and there will be those who will find and take advantage of a bargain, by hook, crook, or sexual preference and Internet savvy.

For all of Fischer's indignation at someone, somewhere, getting a better price on air travel then he is able (or willing) to get, his argument leads me to wonder if, at any time, Fischer ever parked in the handicapped space, you know, "just to run in here real quick." You need nerves of steel, or at least a strong stomach and the patience of saints long ago departed to handle air travel in America in 2007. If a male passenger wants to undertake this adventure in a dress, then not only does he deserve a little credit, but maybe a hug, as well. If American soldiers escorting the body of a fallen fellow soldier home can be forced to strip down to t-shirts and boxers (no word if the TSA made the corpse strip), , then the circus of the absurd surely has a little room left for a couple of cross-dressers. If Fischer wants to harness his indignation, then he should try to find out how many heterosexuals have went alternative lifestyle in order to save a couple of bucks.

Maybe someday, although probably not soon, Fischer will learn that, holiday season, sexual preference, or whatever else is thrown into the mix, the only real value that will prevail in the end is the value that helps out the wallet.

Bush's "small ball" career needs an asterik

Since the band done packed up and grabbed the first available lifeboat outta Dodge, there is very little left to do but watch Dubya try to steer what's left of ship around with an iceberg jammed in its backside. This entails locking a bit of that world-famous tunnel vision on "kitchen table issues," or what Bush administration aides call the smaller issues that hardly matter to the public-at-large and requires no act of Congress. This is similar to President Clinton in the later years of his second term, when the GOP regained control of Congress.

Trying to look proactive on something as the clock runs out on the worst presidency in the history of the United States of America, Bush announced a permanent ban on commercial fishing of striped bass and red drum on federal waters, which brought little applause, or reason for applause, as commercial fishing these two species is always a no-no, with Bush's plans only coming to fruition if the current ban is eliminated. That's just how proactive Bush is going to be, ladies and gentlemen, as he sprints to the finish, he's gonna ban stuff a second time around, just to make sure it sticks.

Bush has also mentioned opening up more airspace, so that travel on Americans can be a little easier during the holiday season. In fact, he issued an executive order to do just that. Another meaningless gesture, as the FAA can open or close airspace at its discretion. Yep, no executive order needed. I'm waiting for the announcement any day that water will remain moist (if not necessarily protected), thanks in no small part to another piping hot executive order from our decider, helpful to the end as he limps off to the judgments of history.

If you can believe it, Bush was on a roll, saying he was all for giving the FDA new powers to recall unsafe foods. So, does that mean the powers the FDA had before was worthless? Does this mean they can do something other than recall anything with a "made in China" label on it. This must be a good thing...sigh.

While I'm sure former White House press secretary Tony Snow no doubt enjoys spending an evening combing through some of the asinine things he said in the line of duty, I wonder of he remembers his "small ball" remark, made after the Democrats gained control of Congress last year. While it was his contention that President Bush was not going to play "small ball," let's be brutally honest here, people. Can it get much smaller than this?

This week in people having a worse week than I...and good for them...

While I may have complained here as of late about my recent dental adventure last Monday, and the subsequent pain, discomfort, and brief moments of joy, sponsored by Vicodin, this stupid SOB over in Connecticut wins for bad week hands down.

Darren Swanson, a 21 year-old Bridgeport resident, was shot in the face Friday by people he said were strangers. Being the apparently hardcore individual he is, Swanson drove himself to the hospital, which gains him Tarentino cred for functioning after a gunshot wound. Extra action points were then awarded when Swanson crashed into the ER doors at Bridgeport Hospital. Gunshots and car crashes? Man, Connecticut's a little rougher than I thought, I guess.

Nobody was hurt when the grand entrance occured, and Swanson was in fair condition as of Saturday afternoon, but here's the kicker. Swanson was charged with possession of marijuana when they found a bag of the substance in his wrecked car. Come on, Swanson. You're telling me you had the presence of mind to drive yourself to the ER after being shot in the face (we won't go into the presence of mind to use the brakes once you got there), but somehow you failed to ditch your stash? Like you didn't know the police were going to be involved, not only because it was a shooting, but because you smashed up the Bridgeport Hospital ER? Holy damn. Maybe next time you get shot in the face, you'll know better how to address the situation.

Full Metal Proxy?

I know that somehow, someway, the military managed to meet recruiting goals, and that on occasion, mistakes have been made, but you have to admire the ingenuity in some of the mistakes. Not that it is particularly ingenious to enlist an severely autistic kid, but you know what I mean. Nine Marine Corps recruiters were busted, with one being discharged, for bringing in ringers to take the Armed Services entrance test for enlistees. Sounds like the kind of part-time job some politician's kid would get. Probably list it as "summer stock" on his or her resume. The eight remaining recruiters were given new jobs and face fines and demotion. You want punishment or demotion, try shipping those eight marines to Iraq or Afghanistan, so they can experience first-hand the paradise they've been selling...

Time's money, talk's cheap, and somebody's done spent their allowance

You know you are heading into one of these weekends when you see the numbers in a report from the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the United States has spent roughly $604 billion on the military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the tab is estimated to hit $2.4 trillion over the next decade. And to think, you were probably sitting here, feeling all good because you just made an Internet payment on your student loans. Yeah. Good for you.

Word from the Democrats seems to be they are not going to do anything on President Bush's $196 billion request for war operations until early 2008, which seems to fall right in line with the present modus operandi of not doing very much of anything of all. The train of thought limping down the tracks on this is that the Pentagon can foot the bill through March by borrowing against its annual budget. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but when the parent lets the kids borrow against their allowance, doesn't it result in a lot of wasted money? Besides, who would be surprised if the Pentagon's budget were to suddenly be increased by the exact same amount they had borrowed?

Officials in the industry say the beginning plan would cost other programs, like base support and training, increasing the costs on down the road. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), head of the Armed Services Committee, said the Dems were looking at approving dough six months at a time, to increase pressure for a timetable, as well as dodge a "negative message to the troops." Yes, sir. Nothing would increase pressure on a timetable like continuing to pay for the wars. The only timetable President Bush is interested in starts in January 2009, when he can get started on his Presidential Liberry. One year, six months, week-and-a-half, what exactly is the difference? As for the troops, I'm sure enough of them already have a negative message of some sort, regardless of how much more money is spent to not equip them. Speaking of negative messages, not one Republican member of the House Budget Committee showed for a Thursday meeting on the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Something tells me somebody is pretty comfortable not only wit the cost of the wars, but the idea they are, in all likelihood, going to get the money one way or another and in some sort of eventually. And from what we've sen, why shouldn't they be anything but comfortable?

Less and less like news each day

Holy damn. By this point, my only real surprise is there is no Britney Spears' Upskirt Shot of the Day club. Even chieftains of the most remote tribes of the Amazon rain forest know what Kevin Federline and slow creeping insanity managed to wreck for everybody else. Tell you what, princess, you shave your head again, would it at least tempt you to browse the panty section at Frederick's?

Better yet, I'm waiting for the morning when I'm just trying to enjoy my first cup of coffee, and the Feature section regales me with the snippet regarding Spears' upcoming scratch-n-sniff coffee table book, Oops, You Read Me Again. That'd be the book signing of the year.

With success like this, who needs failure?

With all of the flat-out denial we get treated to on a daily basis regarding the current state of our fiasco in Iraq, I imagine sometimes it is easy to forget that Iraq is not the only war America is losing. In the midst of plummeting approval ratings for both the president and congress, a less-than-surprising new chapter in denial made its debut courtesy of the nation's drug czar. According to John Walters, the head of the Office of Drug Control Policy, the war on drugs is seeing some of its best results of the last 20 years. Thankfully, there is no mention of the insipid and ineffectual anti-drug commercials the government has flushed away hundreds of millions of dollars on over the years.

So, what are some of the results that Walters is crowing mightily about? While 90%, give or take, of the cocaine that enters this country comes from Mexico, interdiction efforts have disrupted the flow enough to drive prices up in thirty-seven cities across the nation. The price jump is reported to range from 24% to nearly double in some cities. Okay, let me get this straight. Thirty-seven cities, out of thousands of cities, is considered the best results of the last twenty years? Sounds like typical war on drugs mathematics- high on optimism and low on return. Besides the numbers not exactly playing to Walters' favor, there is the train of thought that increased prices will just increase pressure in the clandestine drug market, leading to increased efforts to get it, at least in thirty-seven select cities. I'm sure any potential increase in the crime rate will make the irony involved somehow worth it.

Another key point in Walters' happy news was his statement that fewer American workers are producing positive drug test results, in addition to fewer cocaine-related hospital admissions. More ado about nothing. While fewer hospital admission can invariably reduce peripheral spending linked to the war on drugs, and fewer workers testing positive for drugs will undoubtedly help employers sleep better at night, it misses two two other obvious points to consider. Interdiction may be helping but the reality is people are simply growing more functional and using smarter. I have said for years that potheads are among the most cost-efficient employees out there. They hate switching jobs, due to often having to test for a new job, and they are among the safest, because workers' comp always drug tests for an on-the-job accident. That right there is more realistic and believable than possibly anything John Walters has said since taking charge at the ODCP.

You may consider Walters a little foolish, as he beams like Don Quixote charging a windmill, but at least he is a humble man, our drug czar, sharing some of the credit with Mexican President Felipe Calderon. Out of the world leaders battling a major war on drugs, only Calderon seems to be the one willing to put up some serious, and realistic, effort to combat trafficking, sending 25,000 police officers and army personnel to the areas hit hardest by drug violence. Not that sending 25,000 U.S troops to our borders would do much good, seeing as how the DEA, Customs, Border Patrol, ATF, U.S. Marshal's office, Coast Guard, Homeland Security can't coordinate and make a dent in any drug traffic, let alone the scratch to the iceberg Walters is celebrating.

Walters issued his remarks as the United States and Mexico are kicking around the details of an aid package estimated up to $1 billion to help Mexico fight the drug trade. What kind of success can we expect for this $1 billion, the kind John Walters is promoting, or something someone could be proud of with a straight face? Walters says the challenge is sustaining the results for the long term, but that seems to be casting an impossibly large shadow over the challenge of actually producing some results.