How Wars are Apparently Won

I haven’t seen Clint Eastwood's new movie, "Flags of our Fathers," but from what I’ve seen and read, it makes me feel bad about my country. The trailers and articles seem to suggest that the American people were getting down on the War (WWII), and this one powerful photograph was seized on by the military and the war department (just realized that “Defense Department” was the first concession to political correctness that will undoubtedly lead to the second concession, Nancy Pelosi’s “Peace Department” which can only lead to some political puke suggesting an “All You Need is Love Department”) to gin up support for War Bonds.

So the facts of the case: the Japanese taking out much of our fleet at Pearl Harbor in a sneak attack and Hitler busily conquering Europe and probably the world, was not reason enough to support the war effort. The American people needed more. Is it any wonder Madison Avenue and the Public Relations community hold such sway over us? EVERYTHING must be promoted and merchandised.

So here we sit. Islamic Fascists have attacked us time and again, culminating in this country, with 9/11 (in large part). Islamic Fascists promise they will kill us all or force us to convert to their wacko religion, and yet, the president is outpolled by spaghetti-spined weiners across the land. So, as much as it gripes me to even contemplate it, we need a video (photos are pretty passe, don't you think?) that the propagandists (yes, we still have them) can use to generate enough support for the War on Terror. I don't know what the video should show, but I don't think the photographer who snapped that shot on Iwo Jima knew what he was getting, even the next day or the next week.

I'll probably see the movie, mostly for the battle scenes, but I won't like it, I promise. And I'll report back if the message is something different than I am imagining. Stay tuned.

Appeasers and Cutters & Runners

I keep needing to come up with explanations for why libs are Cutters & Runners when it comes to Iraq but bold stay-the-course warriors when it comes to battling conservatives and neocons. I’ve finally done it, and it was so simple. It’s simple but the explanation is complicated so follow along closely. I’m removing most of the pronouns so there will be less confusion. Ready?

The reason liberals are so prone to Cut & Run on the war is they’ve seen how Republicans react to the liberals belligerence on every issue they care about. The Republicans reaction is almost always appeasement toward the liberals. So the libs then think that the libs can then continue to be Cutters & Runners on Iraq and the War on Terror, because that is the way you’re supposed to respond to strength. It turns out the only thing the Pubbies are staunch on is the WOT. And according to press reports, and Rush Limbaugh, the staunch ranks seem to be dwindling, with a growing number of conservatives who are Cutting & Running in two areas – from voting (at all) in the upcoming election and the WOT itself. Might this be a clever strategy designed to throw the libs for a loop? I mean, if enough cons start advocating Cutting & Running, the libs won’t have anything to disagree with the cons on and be forced into disagreeing with the cons’ agreement on C&Ring by changing the lib position and staunchifying their position vis a vis staying the course in Iraq and the WOT.

But let’s look at this from the other perspective, why are the Cons being such appeasers to libs? I think it's because they have such a misguided sense of fairness that they figure, "Well, I want my way on homeland security (and abortion and gay marriage), so the fair thing to do would be concede on spending, affirmative action and maintaining, indeed inflating, an obscene number of federal bureaucracies."

What these idiot Pubbies don’t realize is that if the libs had their way, they would have their way – on EVERYTHING they’re debating. That’s why it would be so dangerous to let them have control of the whole operation. Republicans are, on the whole, reasonable people. Libs, who tend to believe in fairness in all things, which has no basis in reality, are in fact, very unfair. They want it all, and will not hear that trade-offs are necessary in life. This makes them totally untrustworthy.

Got that class? Thank you!

Damn You Roy Rogers and Errol Flynn

If you're wondering whom to blame for the liberals not wanting to take full advantage over our adversaries in the world, and there are many, blame Roy Rogers and Errol Flynn.

(SwoboNote: I meant to post this during the recent Israeli / HisbAllah war when libs - and the world community - were grousing about the disproportionality of the Israeli's response in the fighting, but I never got around to completing the entry.)

Here is my theory:

I think the libs watched too many Roy Rogers, Hopalong Cassidy and Gene Autry shows - along with the occasional Errol Flynn movie - when they were kids. As many of you will recall, one of the stock scenes in most of the shows took place during the obligatory fight scene:

The bad guy accidentally loses his gun or runs out of ammo and the good guy, wanting to keep the fight fair, throws his own gun down and continues the fight with his fists. The Errol Flynn equivalent was when his opponent, the bad guy, lost his sword. For example, Errol would knock the sword out of the bad guy's hand and then, with the tip of his own sword, he'd flips it back up to his nemesis so they could continue to fight "fair."

I, personally, always thought it was stupid. The good guy's efforts caused the bad guy to be at a disadvantage. That's what fighting is all about, right? But the good guy evidently doesn't want to respondsond disproportionately. Sound familiar?

In the recent war in Lebanon, Israel, the good guy who was attacked started fighting back with the intention of winning and getting their guys, who were kidnapped by HisbAllah, back. But the mushy, touchy feely, anti-Semitic liberal elite and hardcore leftists, at the first sign that the IDF was taking it to the Hizbos, started insisting that the Israelis stop bombing their enemy and / or give the bad guys their "swords" back and "fight fair."

This philosophy, I believe, also permeates any conflict between the United States, and any other rogue state, who by definition is a bad guy who cannot match our power and weaponry. To just kick the crap out of the enemy just wouldn't be fair, so we have to somehow equalize the fight. This is what the libs are doing in all their appeasing, delaying, apologizing, and on and on and on.

The problem with all this appeasing, delaying, apologizing, and so on is this ain't no TV Western or black and white (or colorized) swashbuckling fantasy. The scriptwriters for those pieces of fiction could still have the good guys win. However a fictional script is not the real world. In the real world, the United States might be able to come back from adversity and vanquish their foes, but it is not a sure thing. And all this faux adversity gets real people killed.

In fact, I just saw a movie - "The Guardian" (Pammie made me, it was her week to pick) - and Ashton Kuchar (spoiler alert, don't read any further if you don't want to know how it ends) gets all noble (meaning: not practical) about saving a guy on a boat who is trapped belowdecks. So he waves off the low-on-fuel rescue helicopter which is his only ticket out of there to go down and save the dude. He too gets trapped belowdecks and Kevin Costner has to come out of retirement to fly on a refueled chopper and save the both of them. (How this can even be remotely possible in the Bering Sea when it would take more time to get to them than anyone could survive, even in a survival suit, is total fantasy in and of itself. But I digress.) Kevin Costner gets to the sinking vessel just in the nick of time, saves Ashton, loses the loser that Ashton was trying to save, and drowns in the process. So Ashton, being all noble and fair, thinking he'd sacrifice himself, ends up losing the victim and the killing rescuer. Two people gone instead of one bit player who probably appeared in the closing credits as "Last Dude to Die."

I think the libs believe this is all still just a big TV western, or classic swashbuckling flick, and that somehow they can game the rules or drive the plot. They want to be Roy or Gene or Errol and flip the nukes back to the bad guy to make it fair and then pull things out at the last possible minute, like when the tv or movie heroes don't even have to stab the bad guy but the bad guy accidentally runs into the sword and dies an almost passive death.

Well this is the real world, and I do not want to see if they can somehow pull it off. I honestly don't think they can and I don't want to tempt fate. It's time for us to look after our own arses, first. Which means it's time for us to put the enemy down, now, with prejudice. Let's get it done.

Dr. Phil - FINAL Post

Pammie TIVOed the final episode of the psychologically pornographic couple that was befouling the airwaves for at least two previous hours, and, weak man that I am, I could not avert my eyes. Dr. Phil did his final counsel and sent the ill-fated family home, where the slut wife immediately left for her honey-poo on the side, exactly as I had predicted a full two weeks ago. Sigh.

Next up in the newly redecorated Dr. Phil house (the redecoration of which was supervised by Mrs. Phil, who they showed cooing and gushing about the colors and furnishings) people who hate each other. All I could absorb was the skinny person who hated fat people vs. the fat dude who hated skinny people and the black person who hated whitey and the white supremecist who hated blacks. I'm sure there will be ample bleeping and viewers will be exposed to toxic levels of HDV (human despicability venom).

NO TIVO. NO WATCHIE. NO BLOGGIE.

So Long Lanny. Hello Nick.

Best news of the day: Nick Faldo replacing Lanny Wadkins as main golf commentator on CBS coverage of the PGA (link). Lanny was even more annoying than Johnny Miller on NBC, and the supreme all time master of stating the obvious or making a critique that was 180 degrees off reality. Johnny may be a bigger prick and say things just to be mean, but at least he had an element of self-effacement. And Johnny was usually right along with being unnecessarily brutal. Lanny was just a pedantic fool.

The thing I really disliked about Lanny has less to do with what he does on television. I had occasion to meet him once. It was not a good experience. A friend of mine from Seattle and I were at a conference in Charleston back in the late 80s or early 90s. We would always get to our conference site the weekend before the meetings or stay the weekend following and eat and drink and play golf, on the company. This isn’t as bad as it sounds because back then, staying over a Saturday night meant a savings of up to $5 or 600, so it was good for the company too.

On this trip we had made arrangements to play Wild Dunes golf club on the Isle of Pines (I believe). The pace of play started slow and got even slower. There weren’t enough alligators on the course or dolphins in waterways along the course to keep things interesting. We made the turn in just less than three hours and, for a twosome, it seemed even longer. On probably the 12th hole, a lackey for Mr. Wadkins drove up to us and said that Lanny was playing with the club pro behind us and poor Lanny had a plane to catch and could they play through. Whaddya say? So we let them. They played through, expressed insufficient gratitude, played through all the groups ahead of us. Lanny undoubtedly played his 18 in less than four hours while we suffered through a six-plus hour round.

And I thought to myself, “So let me get this straight. I’m lucky if I play once a week. I pay $75 or 80. I suffer through one of the longest rounds of golf of my life. While Mr. Lanny Wadkins plays all the freaking time. Never has to pay for a round of golf. And gets to play through anybody he wants because he has “plane to catch???" What’s wrong with this picture? His attitude of privilege, that's what's wrong.

So now he gets fired from his cushy announcing gig. Oh they said it was his choice to leave the booth so he could devote more time to the Champions Tour and to his family. Riiiight. I’ll bet it was his choice about as much as there really was a plane he had to catch 15 years ago in Charleston. Karma.

So play well on the Champions Tour, dude. As for Nick Faldo? Always respected him as a golfer. Really liked him later in his golfing career. Love him as an announcer. Wonderful wit. Inspired insight. Cool accent. I’m a sucker for the Brits with the occasional Irishman thrown in. You won’t need any luck Nick. You’ll do great. You haven’t anchored a telecast yet and you’re already the class of the field.

Lest Anyone Misinterpret ...

... my last post, here is where I stand:

Foley = Bad. Glad he's gone and he has most certainly done more than engage in naughty communications with underage boys. Charge him and fry him if the facts warrant. As for the alcohol rehab, get straight [figuratively] outa here. He may be an alcoholic, but that in no way excuses what he did. He may have been diddled by priests as a child. I don't care what the studies show, if anything, this should make him less inclined to molest young boys. This whole episode is making me rethink my opinion of why priests molest and who they select to molest.

Old opinion: House Leadership = Probably Bad. (This was originally written before a whole news cycle passed - my Internet Provider was down).

New Opinion: Hastert = Bad. Get [literally] outa here.

While my initial opinion was to fight back, we don't have enough substance for Hastert to fight back. Denny, move back into the pack and you may continue to be an effective (we hope) Republican congressman. We need someone with a little more presence and strength of character and charisma and judgment to fill the Speaker position. Do it now and do not wait until the world makes you twist in the wind for another few days or weeks.

Perv-a-Rama

We can still refer to the act of adults coming on to kids as perversion, right?

I was thinking the Democrats would have a tough time commenting on and dealing with the whole Congressman Mark Foley exchanging suggestive e-mails and IMs with 16-year-olds. My thought was: "Democrats are pretty much for the NAMBLAzation of our culture, ergo a Republican going NAMBLA* would fit their long range plan for defining deviancy down to the point of anything goes for any individuals of any age, sexually speaking, of course.

Silly me. If there is political hay to be made, one must make political hay, consistency be damned. So even though there have been several (numerous?) instances where Democrats have not just suggested sex with minors, they engaged in it, was the offending party booted out of congress before the rest of us even knew that he had done anything?

No, they were wrist slapped, ran for reelection, collected campaign contributions from NAMBLA, and won - MULTIPLE TIMES!

But the Dems absolutely have different rules for Republicans, and the Pubbies obviously have no say in the matter. Republicans are like the real stupid enlistee in the movie, "Stripes." Remember that scene in the barracks where Ox (played by John Candy) is teaching Cruiser (played by John Diehl) how to play poker? Cruiser always has the better hand but Ox always has a special rule which he matter of factly explains thusly - "Ah, that's a good hand Cruiser, but on Tuesdays, in September, within a week of Sergeant Hulka getting a haircut, three aces are only worth a pair of dueces so my pair of threes wins."

That's the way the Dems play the Pubbies.

So we get not only, Foley = Evil Perv. But we also get Hastert = Cover Up + Entire House Leadership Should Be Relieved of Duties. In other words, investigate everybody before executing them and replacing them with clones of Pelosi, Reid and Barney Frank (with a Howard Dean thrown in for good measure).

Got that Cruiser?

* North American Man Boy Love Association - It's a real organization (that I refuse to publish the link for, Morton) that was most accurately depicted in an episode of South Park.

Dr. Phil - Continued

OMG, it didn't end. THEY'LL BE BACK NEXT MONDAY!!! If I didn't know this was all pre-recorded, I'd go out and terminate them myself. (Just kidding on that last part.)

Dr. Phil as Psychological Pornography

Saw Dr. Phil recently. Hey, Pammie has it on when I’m home on my day off. Ninety-five percent of my attention is devoted to plinking on my laptop. The large doctor made a “one hour” show out of maybe 15 minutes worth of real content. They preview everything, show everything, and then review maybe half of it.

The nasty thing about the show was that it was about a trashy, loud-mouthed married couple who yelled and screamed at each other and obviously had no inclination whatsoever to reconcile. I didn’t care, mind you – alright, that’s a lie. In fact, I did care. I wanted them to knife each other in the throat.

So Dr. Phil was working with them. Come to think of it, this was the second one hour episode devoted to Mr. and Mrs. Trash. They both demonstrated that they had less than zero respect for each other. At the end of the second hour of Dr. Phil programming, we all learned that the conclusion to this marital drama wouldn’t take place until NEXT FREAKIN’ MONDAY!!!

This is worse than professional wrestling. Dr. Phil was shoveling trash out there, these people were being bleeped at least 40 percent of the time and the rest of the words wouldn't have been allowed on television just 10 years ago. The only reason for airing this show was to appeal to the prurient interests of his lowlife viewers (a subset, I hope, of his total viewership).

It was marital counselor pornography and almost made me sick. Latch key children all over the country are watching this crap.

Well, gotta sign off. It's Monday and Dr. Phil is on. I'm hoping for the long knives.

Police Comment Transcriptions

Ran across these 15 lately in something other than a forwarded e-mail, although you may have seen them in an e-mail years ago. Who says cops don't have a sense of humor.

The following 15 Police Comments were taken from actual police car videos around the country...

1. "Relax; the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch out after you wear them awhile."
2. "Take your hands off the car, and I'll make your birth certificate a worthless document."
3. "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."
4. "Can you run faster than 1200 feet per second? In case you didn't know, that¹s the average speed of a 9 mm bullet fired from my gun."
5. "So you don't know how fast you were going. I guess that means I can write anything I want on the ticket, huh?"
6. "Yes, sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don't think it will help. Oh, did I mention that I am the shift supervisor?"
7. "Warning? You want a warning? O.K., I'm warning you not to do that again or I'll give you another ticket."
8. "The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk or not. Is Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?"
9. "Fair? You want me to be fair? Listen, fair is a place where you go to ride on rides, eat cotton candy, and step in monkey poop."
10. "Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven."
11. "No, sir, we don't have quotas anymore. We used to have quotas, but now we're allowed to write as many tickets as we want."
12. "Just how big were those two beers?"
13. "In God we trust, all others we run through CPIC/NCIC."
14. "I'm glad to hear the Chief of Police is a good personal friend of yours. At least you know someone who can post your bail."

And ... THE BEST ONE

"You didn't think we gave pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't - Sign here."

TV Advertising Comment #1 - Backload the Spots

This will begin a semi-regular feature of SwoboBlog: Comments on Advertising. I'll include critiques of specific spots or general observations on advertising.

This first TVAC (TeleVision Advertising Comment) will be a general observation.

There are lots of creative, thoroughly entertaining spots out there, and so often I'll think about them when I'm in my car or on the job, smile or even chuckle to myself, and then realize that I don't know what they were selling. This is not a new phenomenon, certainly, and it has to suggest a deficiency or breakdown in the creative or account management process, but nevertheless, there it is.

Often we'll tune in to a spot at some point after the spot is underway. This can be either because:

1. We were channel surfing and landed in the middle of the spot, or
2. We were reading, daydreaming, talking or otherwise tuned out and only manage to tune into the spot at some point between the beginning and end.

The cool spot will grab us and we'll start laughing immediately and be entertained through to the end. In this new age of DVR, if it is cool enough and we are so inclined, we will TIVO back to the beginning of the spot and see if from the get go. Usually we will let it go and vow (maybe a bit strong, how about "maybe try") to catch it from the beginning, typically later in the same show, since repetition is another key component of advertising.

And, statistically speaking in this age of remote controls and split second attention spans, I think it is safe to say that most of us see the back half of commercials a LOT more than the front half, some PhD candidate should do a study (if it hasn't already been done).

Okay, okay, I'm getting to the point. The point is, advertisers will sometimes put the main point of the spot at the very beginning, and not revisit that main point again. So having tuned in after the beginning, I will have missed that point. Now trust me when I say that 99.9 percent of the time I really don't care whether I get point or not. Being entertained by commercials is 99.9 percent of the reason I even watch them. But the advertisers aren't getting the bang they're most certainly paying for.

So my suggestion is, that the spot always refer to the main point some how, some way towards the end of the spot as well as the beginning, even if it is just a little text superimosed over the video. I'm not promising I'll be tuned in, at least not every time, but I think the odds are I will be some of the time, and that's all you can ask for, right? I mean, other than that Apple 1984 commercial that only ran once, during the Super Bowl, most advertisers buy enough time so every man, woman and child in the country will be exposed to it an infinite number of times.

SwoboBlog's TVAC #1 - You've got to back load the message, because the back will be seen more than the front.