Not Worth Reading.

Dwindling Readers,

Paris Hilton. She's pretty. She's rich. She's whip smart. She is in possession of a cracklin' wit. She's earned everything she's ever received. And there are still those among us (like Dieter and Sherry) who detest her and want her to do hard time (a decade or more) for poor driving. Well, I for one shall not stand insolently by as one of my fellow citizens is spit upon, again and again, until the saliva drips from her trendy clothing like so much excessive dripping clothing saliva.

We all know Paris' parents, Ken and Marjorie Hilton, the founders of the hugely successful Marriott chain of hotels. These well-run "inns" dotting our spectacular interstate landscape, from Newark to points outside of Newark, feature crisp, clean sheets, delicious cool tap water and complimentary bathroom towels. Ask the maid for an additional ("trial size") bar of soap and guess what? You'll GET it. Now how many of our nation's hotels come through in this fashion, time and time again? "ALL OF THEM" you may counter but you'd probably be missing the point. 'Nuff said.

Some unsavory types (often from Oregon) would whine, "But Paris never earned anything at all!!" Oh, really? Well, when the first Marriott opened in Dayton, OH in 1987, five-year-old Paris and her sister (Doris) routinely helped to clean the rooms, change the air-conditioner filters, and scare defecating ducks away from the tiny swimming pool. It wasn't until 1992 that the 3-story, rundown hotel began to turn a modest profit and, in the ensuing two decades, over 2,200 sparkling franchises appeared across our land.

Is it not logical that, if young Paris worked so hard on the very first hotel, she should share in the incredible resulting wealth? Well, I don't know. It's not my job to "know" but in fact to excite and stimulate. You see, friends, I am skilled at presenting salient points and then stepping back, as if to say, "Why don't you folks debate it all among yourselves and come to your own conclusions." I believe it was John F. Kennedy who said, "Give a man some fish and he eats for a day but loan him your fishing gear and, well, who knows what can happen and stuff." And then he was shot in the head near Houston by a man. A nation grieves still.

So Paris, who enjoys the high life in Hollywood, New York, and San Bernardino, made a few mistakes. No one thinks it's okay to drive poorly. No one believes that a beautiful young woman has any right to change the rules of the road or place traffic signs at a height only she deems optimal (say 3' 4"). NO one is saying that here!! A fair punishment is in order. On that we can all agree. 45 days in jail has been deemed proper by a certain Judge Sendrickson. And Paris shall indeed serve the 45 days (minus time off for good behavior and other relevant matters).

And so she shall emerge in 4-6 days a stronger, more evolved woman, lesson learned. The hard way. And we can all again look forward to her pouty ways and her fetching catwalk struts as the world's best designers drape her lithe, feline form in cottons and other fabrics which aren't cotton. In the meantime, as she stoically serves her sentence, we can go to the YouTube (on the WorldWide Nets) and enjoy her past devilish utterances of "she's hot," "he's hot," "they're hot," or perhaps "that's hot." Hot indeed, Paris. City of lights. Or is that Stuttgart? Either way. Not my job to find out.

In conclusion, whether it's Lindy Loshan, Brittney Speer, or Valerie Bertinelli, we must never stop cherishing our hot young women, those who invigorate our loins and challenge our minds with the words which come from their mouths. Never forget that our young heroes serving in Iraq are (above all) protecting our freedom to pursue the adoration of countless Hollywood starlets and, yes, heartthrobs. NEVER FORGET that (at this writing) 3,506 young Americans have sacrificed their lives to prevent the Taliban from covering up these vixens with ill-fitting tarps and unwieldy beekeeper helmets. If we give up on this epic struggle the terrorists, just like that, shall win and the starlets shall lose. And if that happens, ladies and gentleman, we as a country lose. And that country is the United States of America (The USA).

It's worth protecting.



-Paul C. Rosa

A Return To Form

Friends,

Well, it's been over two weeks since my last BLOG post and I have been deeply moved by the responses from many faithful readers. Some, clearly hoping I am fully rested, suggested that I continue my "vacation" and send e-mails only when "absolutely necessary." Many friends indicated to me that "less is more" and advised that I contact them "rarely if ever." I am moved that they would value my painstaking editing.

Others asked that they be removed from my e-mail list altogether as they simply have too many items to read on a daily basis already and have no time for my fine, lengthy pieces. Understood. We all live busy lives and can't always get to what's most important. A select few had (defective) computer "auto-responses" that indicated my e-mails would be "permanently blocked" and I have sent (hand-written) letters encouraging them to ask their service providers to fix this technology glitch.

A fellow (Mitch) e-mailed me a short while ago asking me, "What's up, dude?" When I read of such clear interest in my writing career, I become a bit emotional. Whether you're an actor, singer, ventriloquist, or writer, in your soul you crave love from your audience as a way of confirming your own self worth. Hearing "what's up dude?" reminds me yet again that I was born to write, to share my intimate creative processes with as many readers as possible in order to entertain, amuse, and (yes), to educate.

And there's always been a playful "give -n- take" with my sizable audience. Reader Nicole R. once responded to one of my pieces by forwarding a collection of photos featuring cute baby animals in amusing situations. Terrific! Rich N., after reading an essay I forwarded in March of this year, in return forwarded a delightful video of "Dads being struck in the groin" by a variety of sports accessories. This let me know, loud and clear, that he appreciated my hard work. Message received, Rich! Again and again my readers have demonstrated how important I am in their lives and and they have richly rewarded me. Indeed, it is my pleasure!

As I prepare myself emotionally for increased summer writing I assure my audience that my dedication to my craft has never been more pronounced. Thank you for making me a regular, welcome guest at your "computer station." In due time I will create a credit-card portion on my BLOG allowing you to make substantial donations which will be utilized for marketing pursuits, office supplies, and cans of compressed air (allowing me to keep my keyboard dust free).

A happy summer to all and blessings to most.

l

-pcr

Harry Back.

Words:

Well, no one saw this coming! The British government has announced that Prince Harry will not be going to Iraq. They explained that, since he would be such a high-priority target, it would be an unacceptable risk to him (and his platoon). This sounds logical on its surface because (yes, indeedy) the mustachioed enemy would be chomping at the bit to display the Prince's skull on a stake, an effective technique used by the Prince's own great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather when his marriages inevitably became a tad "rocky."



But upon further review (and a rudimentary grasp of basic mathematics), it is logical to conclude that an increased risk to Harry's group would, by definition, lessen the overall threat elsewhere. Given there are a fixed number of "enemy combatants" (i.e. bad guys who streamed into Iraq only after the country was occupied) it stands to reason that Harry, the red-headed scamp, would not pose an increased security concern to the fighting force as a whole. And that, math aficionados, completely negates the British government's entire silly premise.

Wouldn't the TRUTH be refreshing every once in a while? A politician revealing an unpopular TRUTH?! I'd be happier than a poo-flinging monkey if the stuffy British spokesman strode to the microphone, cleared his throat and instead explained:

Prince Harry will be going nowhere near the middle east because he comes from a very powerful family of unelected origin. We would no sooner send this freckled imp into a war zone than we would send our OWN sons and daughters. While we are perfectly comfortable sending other families' children into an un-winnable war of dubious origin, when it comes to personal risk of any sort, well....we really don't do that...because we don't have to. In conclusion, it is typically those with few other options who are forced to fight and die. But if the war becomes truly hopeless we are more than eager to let the debacle continue rather than admit any failure. Good day and God bless.

These political bastards might be a little more careful about sending youngsters to war if there was even a 5% chance that their own fighting-age sons and daughters would be forced to serve. How many U.S. Senators (listening, Hillary?) would have voted for the Iraq invasion four years ago if their comfortable children might have been yanked from Dartmouth or Princeton and been asked to serve in Iraq for even a month? It is a sad reality that the very people who decide whether to attack a country are those who have nothing to lose (other than political points). Yes, a few Senators (like Jim Webb, VA) have sons or daughters in Iraq but they all seem to want a quick withdrawal. What a surprise! Personal risk certainly compels folks to think things through.

Prince Harry pretends to be deeply disappointed by his government's decision. But of course he is still free to fight in Iraq. Roughly 40,000 of the combined British and American fighting force is made up of "soldiers of fortune," hired guns not directly affiliated with the military. Harry can simply explain, "This war is critical and I must fight. I am dismissing the long-irrelevant monarchy as well as this prejudicial decision by my government and heading to Iraq in June." This would certainly prove his commitment to fighting. But don't hold your breath.

Our fearless Commander in Chimp constantly reminds Americans that the terrorists will "follow us home" the moment we leave Iraq. Sagely, he explains that we cannot leave until the job is done. He insists that this is a war that must be won. Yet he's never suggested that one of his own daughters might hop off her bar stool and devote a month (not 15 months, like the others!) of her time to fighting the Iraqi insurgency. Bush has never suggested that any influential people sacrifice in order to help win this critical war. Until the "elite" are forced to share a tiny percentage of the "ultimate risk," they will continue to vote on the side of money and power. But...

"The wealthy take up arms only when the impoverished rebel against them." -G. Ehringer

The occupation of Iraq was nothing more than an attempt to make certain Americans more rich and powerful at a time when slack-jawed Americans were eager to support an attack on any country full of light-brown-skinned people. And if we had prevailed (we never will), virtually no one in this country would have the balls to declare, "WE STILL HAD NO RIGHT TO SEND OUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS TO FIGHT AND DIE IN A COUNTRY THAT NEVER THREATENED US!" Cuz' everyone likes a winner.

Those Americans who are against the war (about 200,000,000 of us, all of whom financially support this war) and do absolutely nothing to help end it, are accessories to murder.

In conclusion, I urge each and every one of you to stay well hydrated.

-pcr

Why So Bitter?

Compatriots,

Some citizens have noted that my BLOG entries have been rather bitter and pessimistic of late. It was even suggested that, among other things, I should "lighten up," "get a life," or "shut the fuck up." Interesting notions all, and I shall carefully consider each and every one of them during an unrushed period of introspection and a well-honed dismissal of prayer. I think it's wise, as part of one's personal evolution, to consider any and all suggestions that may come your way. Even if your life is quite happy and your days generally consist of following your heart.

Yesterday, as I was selling comical stickers (which were disrespectful to Republicans) in Times Square, a nice man demanded that I "accept Jesus Christ" as my personal savior. I suppose he could tell by my distaste of certain politicians that I needed Jesus to make me complete. Perhaps I had something to gain by listening. I asked him to give me any proof whatsoever that Jesus Christ (not WMD's) existed and he smiled warmly at me, as though I were a retarded child playing with colorful yarn. He responded, "The Bible is the word of God and proof that Jesus existed" and seemed to consider patting me on the head. I queried, "But where's the proof, any proof, that the Bible is the word of God?" Moving on, the fellow crisply suggested that I "get right with the Lord or burn in Hell." Well that sounds unpleasant so I shall indeed look into this "Jesus tale" and see if this bearded fellow can make me happier. If only I could convince myself that he actually existed (like unicorns and angels). Sadly, I did not get a chance to ask the pedestrian how Jesus could possibly become my personal savior when he already seems to be the savior of millions of Christians worldwide. But I cannot discount the possibility that Jesus will eventually become my non-personal savior and indeed make me happier. After all, happiness is the key, not bitterness.

Another helpful gentleman in Times Square roared, "Go back to the Soviet Union, you communist!" Since I had never traveled to this land to begin with, I found the suggestion confusing. Also baffling was the man's implication that I was capable of traveling back in time fifteen years in order to visit this (now-democratic) land which now goes by another name(s). He also clamored "support the troops, asshole!" patiently teaching me that if one's nation is at war it is our patriotic duty to support said war regardless of reasons for engagement or likelihood of success. If I fully grasp this lesson, will I be a less bitter, more optimistic chap? If I simply accept, at all times, what our elected politicians suggest, will it bring me inner calm? By cracky, now that's worth exploring. More introspection without prayer lies ahead.

But some of my encounters have not been of a conflicted nature. A woman I met (I'll call her "Abbe") was, among others, supportive of my thoughts and I, in turn, enjoyed her wise views very much. Drawn to this free-thinking, dynamic, liberal woman, I was fortunate enough to speak with her again and again over a period of several weeks (with a remarkable "cordless phone"). It was quietly confirmed that our opinions, even the aggressive ones, are perfectly acceptable and "letting them out" can be a rich, rewarding experience. Indeed, such views can even serve to draw people closer and closer together! Yes, here's yet another potential path to happiness I would be wise to continue exploring while carefully avoiding prayer.

So there's plenty to think about. A spiritual retreat is surely in order this month. But where to go? Hmmmm. Seattle, I've heard, is a great place to visit in order to explore personal growth and happiness without prayer. Yes, I shall go to Seattle.

In conclusion, I was again recently reminded that embracing anger actually keeps one from becoming bitter. It has been written that rage and depression are nothing more than "anger turned inward." So true. In fact, if you just speak your mind, wonderful people like "Abbe" (real name "Abbe") may just take an interest in you. And that, that my friends, can make you happy. Even more so than pie. And without prayer.

hi.



I feel good,
pcr

A Letter From Karl Rove.

From: The Subconscious of Karl Rove
To: Fellow Republicans

"Christian" Gentlemen and Ladies,

Two words: "Fear Not." The Republican party is NOT in its last throes (ha, ha, remember that gem?) and our future is bright. Certainly not our near future (there will be no Republican President in 08') but our long-term future, beginning four years later. So relax.

Admittedly, the war in Iraq did not turn out at ALL like we planned. You must admit that four years ago it was brilliant that we claimed Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat, but not until after 9/11, when Americans were content to blame any people who had light-brown skin and names typically containing at least three "K's." Even though Iraq had as much to do with 9/11 as Peru, the morons actually fell for it. Ah, good memories.

But alas, it didn't work out and plenty of naysayers now claim we are in trouble. They say this Iraqi debacle will set back our agenda for decades. WRONG! Let me explain. In twenty months a Democrat will take over the White House (yawn). It will be that negro fellow, the lesbian Clinton, or that tree hugger, Al Gore. In order to become President, the eventual winner must guarantee a quick pull-out from Iraq as soon as he/she takes office. All we have to do is keep insisting that victory in Iraq must not come with a deadline and it will fall on the Democrats to end this war.

Well, my wealthy friends, at THIS point we can blame them for any terrorism that may follow (for decades!) by simply shrugging and saying, "The Democrats were the ones who insisted on cutting and running." And you know what?! A large percentage of the country (the same folks who actually believed the entire "uranium from Africa" fantasy) will actually believe it! Remember, they quickly forgot that 9/11 happened on our watch, months after we were told that Bin Laden was planning an imminent attack on American soil and we did nothing. So for now, even though it has been clear for three years that America has no chance of prevailing in Iraq, we will allow Americans to continue dying in a country that never threatened us. It's for the greater good. But remember, before mourning these thousands of dead Americans, that none of OUR sons and daughters need to sacrifice in any way. And the sacrifice of those who are fighting for the U.S.? Consider it as their opportunity to assure the success of the Republican party once again in 2012. A noble sacrifice, indeed.

Also, as far as "losing in Iraq," let's not be so hasty with our assessments. American contractors in Iraq (usually supporting Republican politicians) have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars on (ha, ha) no-bid contracts. You have no idea how much money Dick Cheney has made over the past four years through Halliburton! Do you think he might share that loot with Republicans in the future? Does a liberal serve valiantly in Vietnam and get effectively smeared by those who had 7 deferments or went AWOL from the National Guard? Man, I love that one. Hard to declare a war a loss when you profit like this, am I RIGHT?!

So we lay low for four years, blame the Democrats for not having the stomach for war and prepare for the next election. But we will not be docile on conservative issues. After all, the Supreme Court just passed a law forbidding third-trimester abortions (watch out Roe -v- Wade!). Most Americans actually believed us when we implied that these abortions are essentially demanded by slutty hippie women who decide, after eight months of pregnancy, to yank out the squirming, perfectly healthy babies from their wombs. Ha, ha. So few people realize that the vast, vast majority of these babies are horrifically damaged. Brains growing outside of skulls, massive skeletal disorders, and future lives of unimaginable suffering. I imagine if America knew that third-trimester abortions are performed almost exclusively after gut-wrenching personal decisions by anguished parents who want to end immense suffering, they would NEVER support our agenda. But thankfully they are not educated.

And remember, Republicans, education is our worst enemy. Keep pushing that Bible stuff (and other fairy tales) on the kids. The younger the better. The earth is 6,000 years old? You betcha!' Homosexuality is a sin? Oh yeah, but don't mention gluttony! Seventy percent of the Earth is going to hell because they don't accept Jesus? Sure, why not? People in red states will believe anything! After all, they actually believe in ANGELS!

So chin up, Republicans. We may have lost the (Iraq) battle but we will win the war. The Dems will once again be labeled cowards whenever they pull the troops out, women's bodies will (more and more) be regulated by Republican men, and the cash (the sweet, sweet cash) will continue to roll in.

Life is still good.



-K. Rove

Selective Prejudice.

People reading my formed words (with a special shout-out to "Abbe"),

Well, it's been a couple of weeks since the VA Tech massacre and I've heard plenty of blame to go around. I've heard NRA-types and pacifists shrieking at each other. I've heard psychologists (aka "crazy hippies") preaching the importance of inclusion. And I've seen meat-eaters and vegans engaged in ultimate fighting while Metallica blares from the speakers. Admittedly, this one confuses me.

Surprisingly, I have come to (essentially) agree with the NRA when they say, "Guns don't kill people, insane NRA members kill people." As Michael Moore pointed out in his brilliant documentary "Bowling For Columbine," Canada has far more guns per capita than we do but far, far fewer murders per capita. A more civilized, empathetic culture? Yep. Guns are illegal in Japan and there are virtually zero murders. But is it really so hard for a determined Japanese citizen to get a gun? Doubt it. Canada (many guns) and Japan (few guns) both have a tiny fraction of the murders we endure in the U.S. because, well, they CHOOSE not to kill each other when they get grouchy. It is American society, not guns, that causes this nightmare. I am not particularly knowledgeable on WHY we are such a violent people but I think it has something to do with the "We're number one, greatest country on earth" bullshit we stuff into our kids' heads at an early age. The same age as Kim Jong Il convinces the North Korean kids that he is God. I would welcome any thoughts from readers.

Many people have argued that we need to make campuses safer. That certainly is worth exploring. But how much safer is debatable. Nobody supports the idea of huge walls around campuses and iris scans at every door. Society as a whole agrees that risk, safety, and freedom must be balanced. Some would say (and conservatives supporting Bush have suggested it) that greater safety is what's most important. Worried about phone taps? Why, if you have nothing to hide? Opposed to subway searches? Don't pack a bomb! Of course both sides have valid arguments. For instance, few liberals argue against the legality of suitcase searches at airports. It's an invasion of privacy, sure, but acceptable to (almost) all. When Benjamin Franklin wrote, "Those who would sacrifice freedom for temporary security deserve neither," he probably didn't consider the emegence of Al Qaeda but he very well may have envisioned the actions of our current administration. Gray areas, my friends. By the way, is that the way you spell "gray?" "Grey?" Who cares.

But those who ALWAYS argue on the side of safety are ALWAYS fools. "If it makes us safer, do it!" is just nonsense. I ask these mouth-breathers why we then simply don't reduce the national speed limit to 22 miles per hour and save tens of thousands of lives. They then seem to be in a hurry to get somewhere and the discussion abruptly ends. Compromise, compromise. Safety and freedom. So most people (probably most at VA Tech) would prefer that college campuses remain open and accessible and everyone (just like interstate drivers) will TAKE THEIR CHANCES! It's part of a free society, an acceptable risk if you will.

Changing gears. Many people have been blaming rappers for promoting violence and disrespect for authority. Guys like Bill ("Peabody Award") O'Reilly routinely blame rap artists like 50 Cent and Ludacris for fomenting violence. Yet they never blame (white) folks like Martin Scorcese, Brian DePalma, and Vin Diesel. "What the HELL are you talking about?!" you may roar, Jumbo Snickers bar in hand. Well Scorcese and DePalma routinely direct vicious movies and Vin Diesel (often) portrays violent characters. But most of us (correctly) absolve them of any blame for society's ills because they are just portraying characters. It's art, good or bad. And yet when a guy like Ludacris leads a crime-free life and only portrays a vicious character to sell CD's, racists like O'Reilly are quick to assign blame. Inconsistent, faulty logic (from the bloated phone pervert).

But blaming any rappers, directors, actors or producers of violent video games is ludicrous (tee hee!) in itself. In Asian cultures (remember, no gun violence) their citizens absorb far more violence and pornography than we do and (voila!) there's no corresponding criminal impact on the streets to speak of. It's so easy to lay blame and lump others together in groups, but where's the supporting evidence? I encounter countless Americans who support this (illegal) Iraq war because of what "they" did to us on 9/11. When I ask who "they" are, conservatives (consistently) answer "the Muslims." And yet nobody blamed "Christians" for what Timothy McVeigh or David Koresh did. Scream all you will about Janet Reno but SHE did not ignite the Branch Davidian house. Crazy Christians did. We never seem to lump ourselves together in a "negative group" if part of our group does wrong.

Being too lazy to edit, I look back at this stream-of-consciousness blog entry and realize I was all over the map. But on another map, several hundred Iraqi citizens died on the same day as 32 students at VA Tech. And I did not hear the President say one word about this tragic loss of life beyond our borders. Clearly it's because "those people" don't count as much as "our people." Because they're not part of "our group." Inexcusable.


American Asshole.

-pcr

Disgraceful.

Americans,

In case you're living in a cable-free cave, by now you've learned of the stunning tragedy at Virginia Tech University. Thirty-three people were slaughtered by a student (Cho Seung-Hui) who apparently did not foresee a bright future for himself and decided to eliminate that possibility for as many others as made possible by semi-automatic weaponry and a lust for blood. This young man was responsible for one of the worst acts of mass murder in U.S. history.

Unless of course you include George Bush and his mischievous pack of scamps. "HOW DARE YOU!!!" you may thunder. Oh, I dare, I dare. You may bristle, "This was enough of a tragedy without it being made into a wider argument against the important war on terror!" Perhaps we should concentrate on one topic at a time, out of respect for the families of the victims in Blacksburg, VA? I disagree strongly. In fact, I believe what I am now writing shows the utmost respect for the grieving families of the lost students and teachers.

The day after the tragedy, on April 17, George Bush flew to VA to preside over the healing "convocation" at the university. He expressed the powerful words written (in their entirety) by his skilled writers and scrunched up his face in a variety of ways indicating sorrow, concern, and (of course) closure & hope. It was a moving presentation, one that no doubt brought comfort to thousands (millions!) of citizens watching. Our President was "there" for the nation when it needed him most. Kudos, Commander in Chief!

But was anyone else troubled that the very man leading the ceremony (G.W. Bush) is responsible for far more unnecessary murders than the grumpy Mr. Seung-Hui? Is anyone else deeply concerned with this ghastly irony?! Let's recall the old adage, "The buck stops here." It is consistently used (in business and politics alike) to suggest that the "boss" is ultimately responsible for the activities of those "beneath him." Yep, that sounds pretty fair, pretty "American," pretty groovy. Deep breath now...

George Bush (along with Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Jon Edwards, John McCain, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, and a host of others) pursued a war in a country that never threatened us! No evidence of weapons of mass destruction, no evidence of any link to terrorists (who threatened America), no evidence at all that Iraq was more of a threat than Finland, New Zealand, or the skeletal remains of famed racehorse Secretariat. No threat. They lied. But ultimately it was Bush's decision to go to war. "The buck stops here."

You may counter, "But at least they wanted to bring democracy to a country that was being tormented by a vicious dictator!" Um-hum. It is always the goal of America to bring freedom to any country inhabited by repressed, anguished citizens. We can all recall with great pride the bang-up job America has done bringing freedom to Rwanda and The Sudan. Such happy, free people, leading lives of joy in their (oil-free) lands! Darfur is now dreamy. God bless America.

Four years after the start of the war we have 3,300 dead Americans and hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi citizens. All unnecessary, each and every death. "But Saddam was murdering his citizens!" you may squeal as I prepare to give you yet another smackdown.....More Iraqis have been killed by George Bush's lethal foolishness in the past four years than in the previous 30 years (under Saddam) combined! You may slice it and dice it any way you wish, but George Bush ("buck stops here") has murdered more innocents than anyone in the history of our country (with the possible exceptions of Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon). George W. Bush. Mass murderer.

.....And after the tragedy at VA Tech HE was the keynote speaker at the convocation there on April 17, 2007. He noted how tragic it was that thirty-three innocents died. Let the healing begin.

Fuck that.



-pcr