·support our
troops, support Bush, support Cheney, support victory in Iraq, support victory in Afghanistan,
Clinton Liebrary, http://PoliSat.Com
, PoliSatDOTcom, Salute America's Heroes, Fallen Heroes Fund, oppose Gore's Global Warming theory, support milblogs, Michael Yon, Pat Dollard, BlackFive, MilBlogs, MilBlogging, Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, HotAir.Com, JawaReport, PajamasMedia , VictoryCaucus , VetsForFreedom ,
FreedomsWatch , DayByDayCartoon , WrennCom.Com , Video , Political Satire, Politics, News, oppose MoveOn.Org, oppose Code Pink, oppose DailyKos, oppose ANSWER, support PoliSat.Com, support WrennCom.Com, ·
Archives-- Installments for
February 1 through 10, 2005, starting below in reverse chronological order.
Feb.
9, 2005--
Send
your favorite political "significant other" a Vermont Jackass for Valentine when you send
your paramour a Vermont Teddy Bear.
The now ubiquitous "Send you girlfriend a Vermont Teddy Bear for Valentine" commercial has
created a demand for a comparable service for politics. Thus was born "Send your favorite
political 'significant other' a Vermont Jackass for Valentine." (Copyright
2005) It's not limited to Democrats. Republicans want all Democrats to receive the
same gift-- a Vermont Jackass. In fact, Republicans will be sending them to each other (using,
of course, the Links Box at the end of this installment.)
There will be "celebration" in "the Republican Street." No word yet on
what will happen in "the Democratic Street," because they're as unpredictable as what the
media describe as the "Arab Street." Needless to say, however, there's no
doubt this Valentine to Democrats will reveal what everyone has known-- the "Blue States"
are really "Pink States," and the "Red States" are really "Blue
States" and had been so in every election since the 1960's until the year 2000 when the media
decided to switch the colors because they wanted to reverse the subliminal implication of the
left-leaning states being identified as "red."
A "Send your boyfriend a Vermont Rabbit" (copyright 2005) campaign by PoliSat.Com is now
in production to satisfy another demand that has been stimulated by the Vermont Teddy Bear
commercial. PoliSat.Com is feverishly in the process of trying to meet the demand for a comparable ad
designed to entice women to send special gifts to their boyfriends. Thus, PoliSat.Com will
soon unveil the Vermont Rabbit Valentine. No doubt you think you know why PoliSat.Com will
feature a "rabbit" for this service, but you would be wrong. That means you'll have
to "stay tuned" to learn why the symbol will be a rabbit. (Hint-- it has
nothing to do with the multiplication habits for which rabbits are most noted.)
Condoleeza
Rice's speech today in France leaves the first of many giant footprints on the landscape of history;
Rice and Bush focus on posterity rather than "legacy."
Commentary-- Few of Condoleeza Rice's critics will realize that today they witnessed a giant stride
across the stage of history. Her speech to the French will fall mostly on deaf ears for now,
just as many of Churchill's speeches fell on deaf ears in the 1930's. In the long march of
history, she is playing a pivotal role as a major architect of a foreign policy that will be greatly
appreciated by posterity. Unlike most politicians, her (and George Bush's) focus is not on the
self-absorbed concept of a "legacy" on which most pundits also tend to focus; rather, it's
on posterity.
Richard Nixon may have been focusing on his "legacy" in opening the door to China, but
despite his many flaws, he was obviously more focused on posterity, which is why-- despite those
flaws-- history will remember him as a pivotal figure in history whose beneficial effects on
posterity far outweigh the burden of Watergate. Critics of George Bush and Condi Rice (and
Rumsfeld and Cheney) are too shortsighted to see that their toppling Saddam Hussein too soon
rather than too late was a great accomplishment rather than a failure.
In
writing the hist'ry of men,
it's clear when the writing begins
throughout hist'ry's years
there rarely appears
a giant who strides among men. And
rarely the writers of news
perceive that the future will view
the footprints in news
that hist'ry will view
as footprints of giants in news. The
"experts" who cannot eschew
critiques microscopic in view
see history's fixtures
like pixels in pictures
as parts, not a whole, to be viewed.
The
pygmies who stride among men
can't see where horizons extend,
so Teddy and Jacques
and Kerry cannot
perceive who's a giant to them. But
giants who stride among men
have vision designed to extend
from close microscopic
to broad macroscopic
to see what the future portends. So
who is a giant au fait to see routes of hist'ry to take
with stature enough
for vision above
the Fog? Condoleeza at State. In case you prefer the design of comments that nat'rually rhyme, read-on for this text repeated and set according to rhythm and rhyme.
Giant
Among Men.
In
writing the hist'ry of men,
it's clear when the writing begins
throughout hist'ry's years
there rarely appears
a giant who strides among men.
And
rarely the writers of news
perceive that the future will view
the footprints in news
that hist'ry will view
as footprints of giants in news.
The
"experts" who cannot eschew
critiques microscopic in view
see history's fixtures
like pixels in pictures
as parts, not a whole, to be viewed.
The
pygmies who stride among men
can't see where horizons extend,
so Teddy and Jacques
and Kerry cannot
perceive who's a giant to them.
But
giants who stride among men
have vision designed to extend
from close microscopic
to broad macroscopic
to see what the future portends.
So
who is a giant au fait
to see routes of hist'ry to take
with stature enough
for vision above
the Fog? Condoleeza at State.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Links
Box for:
Feb.
8, 2005 #01 Daily Update at PoliSat.Com,
where satire is alwayscommentary, but commentaryisn't always satire.™
Go-Daddy's Go-Naddys in Super-Bowl ads
confuse Ted Kennedy, delight Bill Clinton, mesmerize Arnold Schwarzenegger, surprise John Ashcroft and
rekindle lust in Jimmy Carter's
heart.
Here's the animation about the Go-Daddy ad intended to satirize the Janet Jackson episode in last
year's Super Bowl as well as satirizing the Senate. Did it work? It confused Ted
Kennedy, delighted Bill Clinton, mesmerized Arnold Schwarzeneger, surprised John Ashcroft and
rekindled lust in Jimmy Carter's heart.
How was it different from the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" it parodies while also
satirizing those who found the Janet Jackson episode objectionable? The Janet Jackson episode
staged for a program known to be one which parents have traditionally allowed their children to
watch featured a musical "encounter" in which the male singer was to symbolically, if not
actually, "rip" off part or all of the female's blouse. That's far different than
displaying women in bikinis or otherwise skimpy outfits-- that's common fare at the beach, a public
place where most parents also take their children. That's even far different from bikini-clad
women "mud-wrestling." What's amazing is that so many people (including Go-Daddy's
parody) still obtusely treat the controversy over the Janet Jackson episode as though it were merely
about an over-exposed breast as though people who found it objectionable would be comfortable in the
Taliban.
One need not be a prude to recognize this difference-- it's not rocket science. It's difficult
to understand only in the minds of those who also think objections to public funding of such forms
of "art" as smearing one's self with chocolate are the same as
"censorship." One need not be a constitutional scholar to also recognize the
difference between public broadcast on publicly-licensed airwaves and cable, video-tapes, movies,
etc. in order to understand that favoring limitations on the former are qualitatively different than
on the latter.
Do I enjoy sassy entertainment? Of course, as do most other parents. Do I want to
experience it in the midst of a publicly-broadcast television program which by tradition I would
allow young children to watch? Of course not.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com.
Links
Box for:
Feb.
7, 2005 #01 Daily Update at PoliSat.Com,
where satire is alwayscommentary, but commentaryisn't always satire.™
For
links to the latest Daily Updates, Animations, Song-Parodies, Limericks, Palindromes, Archives, Site-Index/Search, go to http://PoliSat.Com.
Feb.
5 & 6, 2005-- No Update.
Feb.
4, 2005--
Chris
Matthews insults Byron Norwood's grief-stricken mother by opining that she collaborated with White
House to "set up" being hugged at State of the Union address by an Iraqi woman, Mrs. al
Suhail.
Opponents
of Dubya have thrust
themselves into contests for crust
between and amongst
political monks--
the No-Ands, the Yes-Buts and Butts. The
No-Ands say "No" and much more
in language to starkly deplore
the motives of those
whose views they oppose--
They're Boxer, and Teddy and Moore. The
Yes-Buts say "Yes" as a way
to preface the "buts" they will say
in language to addle
in efforts to straddle
the gulf between "ayes" and the "nays." Of
those who fire Yes-Buts' artillery--
a "yes" to fuse "but" words to pillory
opponents with tar--
the leaders so far
are Edwards and Kerry and Hillary. Among those competing for crust, the third group comprises
the Butts-- the folks who project the flaws they possess on others and thus show they're Butts.
The lead to place first in this last group was taken by Hardball's Chris Matthews projecting
his own self-servingness on a grief-stricken Momº¹
for a "thank you." In comments by Chris to dissect the State of the Union address,
he crassly opined the "Mom" had contrived with Bush for a hug from a guest. Safia Taleb al
Suhail,
who suffered a sim'lar travail to that of the Mom in losing her son, with hugs let her thanks be
unveiled. Projecting his M.O. upon the heart of the grief-stricken Mom, he crassly implied the
Mom had contrived with Bush for such "hug" for her son.
This isn't the first time that Chris exuded the odor of fish by words to impugn the motives of who
sings not from same page as Chris. In cov'ring the VeePee debate, a claim Dick denied in
debate was falsely described by Chris as a "lie" by splicing a Meet the Press
tape. Since news-links in time will decay, for text of the transcript displayed for you to
digest, go here·º²
where the text by PoliSat-Com is displayed. In case you prefer the design of comments that
nat'rually rhyme, read-on for this text repeated and set according to rhythm and rhyme.
The
No-Ands, the Yes-Buts and Butts.
Opponents
of Dubya have thrust
themselves into contests for crust
between and amongst
political monks--
the No-Ands, the Yes-Buts and Butts.
The
No-Ands say "No" and much more
in language to starkly deplore
the motives of those
whose views they oppose--
They're Boxer, and Teddy and Moore.
The
Yes-Buts say "Yes" as a way
to preface the "buts" they will say
in language to addle
in efforts to straddle
the gulf between "ayes" and the "nays."
Of
those who fire Yes-Buts' artillery--
a "yes" to fuse "but" words to pillory
opponents with tar--
the leaders so far
are Edwards and Kerry and Hillary.
Among
those competing for crust,
the third group comprises the Butts--
the folks who project
the flaws they possess
on others and thus show they're Butts.
The
lead to place first in this last group
was taken by Hardball's Chris Matthews
projecting his own
self-servingness on
a grief-stricken Momº¹ for a
"thank you."
In
comments by Chris to dissect
the State of the Union address,
he crassly opined
the "Mom" had contrived
with Bush for a hug from a guest.
Safia Taleb al Suhail,
who suffered a sim'lar travail
to that of the Mom
in losing her son,
with hugs let her thanks be unveiled.
Projecting
his M.O. upon
the heart of the grief-stricken Mom,
he crassly implied
the Mom had contrived
with Bush for such "hug" for her son.
This
isn't the first time that Chris
exuded the odor of fish
by words to impugn
the motives of who
sings not from same page as Chris.
In
cov'ring the VeePee debate,
a claim Dick denied in debate
was falsely described
by Chris as a "lie"
by splicing a Meet the Press tape.
Since
news-links in time will decay,
for text of the transcript displayed
for you to digest,
go here·º²
where the text
by PoliSat-Com is displayed.
Having held Matthews in high esteem until he went on his blindly partisan, anti-NeoCon jihad, I am
hopeful that at some point in the future he will reacquire sufficient astuteness and shed sufficient
political blindness to remove himself from the group of Butts.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com
_______________
Footnotes
º¹·In response to a letter from Janet and William Norwood,
whose 25-year-old Marine son was killed by a sniper in the operation remove terrorists from
Fallujah, Iraq, Bush invited them to attend the State of the Union speech on Feb. 2, 2005, to enable
him to honor them for their sacrifice. He also invited Safia Taleb al Suhail, an Iraqi woman
active in the movement for democracy in Iraq whose father had been murdered by Saddam Hussein's
secret police. After Bush had recognized Safia Taleb al Suhail, he recognized the Norwoods.
During the applause to honor the Norwoods for their sacrifice, al Suhail turned and reached-up to
hug Mrs. Norwood. Afterward, Chris Matthews opined that rather than being spontaneous hub had
been "set up" by the White House by agreement between the two women. It's a free
country, which means Matthews is free to show himself to be a Butt. Which news commentator
will be next to try to out-do Matthews by trying to limbo even lower under the bar of decency
than Matthews?
Ted
Kennedy's view of Interrogation 102 as "torture" at Gitmo using beautiful female
interrogators in thongs for interrogating detainees.
Recently, a book alleges that use of beautiful females in thongs as interrogators at Gitmo as a
form of psychological warfare against al Qaeda detainees constitutes "torture." What
would Ted Kennedy say? Though
Ted claims there's "torture" at Gitmo
abusing Islamic libidos,
it features what Teddy
enjoys: gals in teddies
in conduct arousing libidos. So,
what's for his claim the main prong?
Interrogatees treated "wrong"
by being required--
while bound-- to admire
interrogators wearing thongs.
On
hearing such news about Gitmo,
to Gitmo al Qaedas in speedos
will come from redoubts,
break-in 'stead of out,
and seek-out erotic placebos. They'll
claim on arrival at Gitmo
possession of terrorist info
in hopes they will be
interrogatees
of Desperate Housewives at Gitmo. It's
thanks to those patriot "wives"
that Rumsfeld's enhanced and revised
the "girl-card" campaign
for washing the brains
of horny al Qaedas with eyes.
Those
"cards" displayed pictures to further
the goal of increasing deserters
from terrorists' ranks
with feminine Yanks
in poses as "girlies" in burkas. 'Twas
Fall of Two-Thousand-and-Two
when "girlies in burkas" debuted,
on which satire done
by PoliSat-Com
is hereº¹
in the Archives of views. The
new "cards" are I-Pod placebos
to lure more al Qaeda to Gitmo
with hopes they will be
interrogatees
of Desperate Housewives at Gitmo.
Interrogation
102.
Though
Ted claims there's "torture" at Gitmo
abusing Islamic libidos,
it features what Teddy
enjoys: gals in teddies
in conduct arousing libidos.
So,
what's for his claim the main prong?
Interrogatees treated "wrong"
by being required--
while bound-- to admire
interrogators wearing thongs.
On
hearing such news about Gitmo,
to Gitmo al Qaedas in speedos
will come from redoubts,
break-in 'stead of out,
and seek-out erotic placebos.
They'll
claim on arrival at Gitmo
possession of terrorist info
in hopes they will be
interrogatees
of Desperate Housewives at Gitmo.
It's
thanks to those patriot "wives"
that Rumsfeld's enhanced and revised
the "girl-card" campaign
for washing the brains
of horny al Qaedas with eyes.
Those
"cards" displayed pictures to further
the goal of increasing deserters
from terrorists' ranks
with feminine Yanks
in poses as "girlies" in burkas.
'Twas
Fall of Two-Thousand-and-Two
when "girlies in burkas" debuted,
on which satire done
by PoliSat-Com
is hereº¹
in the Archives of views.
The
new "cards" are I-Pod placebos
to lure more al Qaeda to Gitmo
with hopes they will be
interrogatees
of Desperate Housewives at Gitmo.
Finally, in case you missed it, here's the "Interrogation 101" animation (click image at
the right) and here's the
link to the May 18, 2004, installment which "Interrogation 101"
illustrates. Apparently, Ted Kennedy wants interrogation of terrorists to be limited to the
kinds of respectful, subservient questioning he undoubtedly received in 1969. To accord
terrorists at Gitmo the same treatment Teddy received would require the Department of Defense to
construct a political-consulting compound as an intermediate destination for captured terrorists en
route to Gitmo to enable them to get advice from political experts (such as Ramsay Clark) before
being processed into Gitmo for interrogation.
Washington Times Cartoonist Bill Garner garners honor from PoliSat.Com for 2005-01-30 Editorial Cartoon on Ted Kennedy.
Occasionally, an editorial cartoon expresses such profound insights that it deserves special
recognition. Bill Garner's Jan. 30, 2005, Editorial cartoon is such a cartoon.
An
Honor Garnered by Garner.
A
DeeCee cartoonist named Garner
has garnered satirical honors
from PoliSat-Com
for insight upon
the stripe of the Prince of Dishonor.
The
'toon about Teddy abounds
with insight so sharp and profound
on instincts displayed
by self-absorbed knaves
themselves who've in callousness drowned.
The
'toon at the right should appear
displayed to the right of this cheer;
however if servers
are clogged by observers,
the link for the 'toon is right here.
If
later this link has "decayed"
by which this cartoon is displayed,
go "washtimes" dot com
where archives are done
for 1-30-'5 as the date.
--Jim
Wrenn, Editor at PoliSat.Com. The link for displaying the cartoon above is the url address*
on the server for the Washington Times, not PoliSat.Com's server. That link may not be
archival in nature; therefore, in the future, the image may cease to display, in which case you can
find it by accessing the Washington Times' Archives, for which the link is here. The
permanent link for this PoliSat.Com Special
Recognition is here. *Here's the full url address: http://images.washtimes.com/photos/full/20050130-113005-6217.jpg.
Daily
Update immediately preceding the one above: Go here or find it in the chronological Index
of Archives here.
