I've been resisting. . .

. . .commenting on Bill O'Reilly's issues because, well, I've been waiting for the wiseass smirk to disappear from my face. You see, I indirectly predicted something like this would happen with him a few weeks ago, over at Ldot. I compared him to Lonesome Rhodes, Andy Griffith's character from one of my favorite films, A Face in the Crowd. Oddly enough, a little while after posting that comment, one appeared in response, which said something like, "The question is, who's going to play Patricia O'Neal's part." I wish I could remember the username of the poster.

I'm sure I wasn't the first person to draw a parallel between O'Reilly and the classic character. But, I'm given to fits of smugness when I'm so incredibly, devastatingly correct, original or not.

In all honesty, I've read very little about the story. I've picked up a few snippets here and there, but only enough to divine the fact that O'Reilly is a bit of a pottymouth, and that the smugness I feel right now is an everyday thing for him. But, I don't delight in his ordeal, despite that smugness. I never worked up enough of an opinion about the man to feel anything other than a sense of shame that the people around him are having to deal with the aftermath. Also, there is the possibility that it's all a set-up.

Set-up, or not, Bill O'Reilly has no one but himself to blame for the situation he's in, and I'm sure he'll be forthcoming about that, someday. There are a lot of people like Anne Lewis, Gene Lyons, Joe Conason, and Al Franken -- each with footlockers full of bones to pick with him; remnants of the Lewinsky era. In that sense, his current predicament virtually mirrors that of Bill Clinton. Ostensibly smart men making stupid, silly mistakes.

That's not to say that the two men's transgressions are on an equal scale, however. There will be no anti-Semitic leftwing consipiracies coming out in the wake of this scandal, pointing to a Zionist plot to control the US government by planting a young Jewish girl in close proximity to the president -- known to have a weakness for them. There will be no frivolous assertions of executive privilege, or perp walks. The biggest impact is likely be on late night comedy programming, liberal parody websites, and O'Reilly's ratings, of course.

My advice to O'Reilly devotees: Just shake your head, look at your shoes, and laugh for the next few weeks.

UPDATE: Make that Patricia Neal. I'm not very good at being a film buff.

UPDATE:
I do admit, my take is all based on conjecture and speculation. There's no point in denying that. Dead to rights. Since I haven't heard the tapes, or anything other than an allegation, and a denial, I can't possibly know if it's true, or really an extortion attempt.

The facade begins. . .

. . .to fall away, over at Andrew Sullivan's blog.

But long-term, the Republican bluff has been called. The GOP is run, in part, by gay men and women, its families are full of gay people, and yet it is institutionally opposed to even the most basic protections for gay couples. You can keep up a policy based on rank hypocrisy for only so long. And then it tumbles like a house of cards. Kerry just pulled one card from out of the bottom of the heap. Watch the edifice of double standards slowly implode. Gay people and their supporters will no longer acquiesce in this charade. Why on earth should we?

When I read things like this from Andrew, it's hard to escape the notion that gay marriage -- if not the only reason for his hostility toward the Bush administration -- is certainly an adequate one in his mind. Fair enough. But, to persist in perpetuating the impression that he's still "on the fence" with regard to his vote smacks of self-flattering coyness in light of words like the above. I simply can't imagine that, given a more liberal stance on the issue of gay marriage in the Bush administration, Andrew would be remotely considering casting his vote for Kerry.

It seems he would have us believe that opposition to the FMA is neither a necessary, nor sufficient condition for his support. But, when he writes things like that, it seems hard to come to any other conclusion.

Does anyone know. . .

. . .if Michael Kinsley has recently developed an affinity for cold medicine? His piece in the Washington Post certainly appears to indicate the presence of some sort of psychoactive. His analogy crumbles like Michael Moore's washcloth, right about here:

President Bush: "My opponent, you see, wrote -- or he helped to write -- this document, this so-called Declaration of Independence. And in it, see, he says something about how we hold these truths to be self-evident. Now, self-evident is just a fancy word -- or actually it's two words: Of course I know that! I can count! -- it's just a fancy way of saying you don't have to say anything because folks already know it.

UPDATE: Others who read the story came away with a different impression than I did. I suppose I could be a little knee-jerky -- it wouldn't be the first time. Maybe I'm missing a larger joke.

Aussiegirl has updated. . .

. . .with another crisply written article -- this one about the Mary Cheney debate incident. Check it out. You won't regret it

"So - what's behind this? Is it as some suggest an attempt to suppress the Christian conservative vote, by reminding voters who may not know it already that (GASP!!) the Cheney's have a gay daughter? If that is the case then they completely misunderstand the nature of Christian faith, which hates the sin but loves the sinner. And they underestimate the compassion and lack of prejudice that Christians are taught to have. It is a foundation of the faith to 'judge not, lest ye be judged' and 'love your neighbor as yourself'. Most conservatives at this point feel only compassion and outrage on behalf of the victimized Cheneys. "

Y'all can thank me for my relentless pestering of Aussiegirl to enter the blogging fray by clicking on one of my Google ads when you come back from her blog.

One month ago. . .

. . .yesteday The Pajama Pack was born. Since that time, I've been immensely gratified at the way the whole blog is developing. It hasn't been easy, and I've missed a few hours of sweet, precious sleep over the past 31 days, but I can't say how much I've enjoyed it.

That's not to say there haven't been moments of annoyance. But, if I'm going to spend my time; (1)discussing politics, (2)using a PC, and (3) actively seeking out things that annoy me, I guess that comes with the territory. And, in comparison to the enjoyment I get, it amounts to less than a hangnail on the baby toe.

The hits are starting to add up, and that's been a pleasant surprise, given the age of the blog and the relative dearth of promotion I've done. No doubt, it's an immense help to land on Lucianne's front page on your inaugural voyage.

I'm still eagerly soliciting advice and suggestions with regard to content and subject matter. I get lots of recommendations from fellow bloggers and readers, sometimes several per day. So, if I don't use a particular item, chances are it's because the suggestion got lost in a shuffle between three separate email accounts I keep in order to have some sense of sanity with regard to organization. Obviously, sometimes my means of dealing with it falls short.

As always, I try to respond to emails within 24 hours whenever possible. So, if you contact me and don't hear back within a couple of days, please get in touch with me again. I'm still getting used to the threaded interface with G-mail, so there's a good chance I read your email, but that I got sidetracked before answering it, and simply lost your message in the stack. Some days around the cabana are busier than others .

That is all.

I'm noticing. . .

. . .quite a few hits coming from Right Wing News, for which I'm boundlessly grateful. It's a great site which, even at this very moment, has a picture of Ann Coulter on the main page. I don't know about anyone else, but that's just about all the justification I need to visit a site.

Many thanks and a reciprocal link in the blogroll to RightWingNews.com!

Ldotter buckeye bd. . .

. . .has a great tribute to P.G. Wodehouse at The American Thinker. I can't claim any familiarity with Wodehouse, unfortunately, having never read any of his work.

But, I can claim familiarity with buckeye's posts at Ldot. In fact, it was those posts that led me to contact the author in an attempt to convince him into starting up a blog. Little did I know.

Passed along. . .

. . .by a longtime Ldotter, here's a rather pointed appraisal of the Kerry/Edwards "Who, me!?" campaign tactic that hits the target squarely:

I think Edwards is a person who has no capacity for empathy or guilt. What other kind of person could look the parents of a dead or deformed child in the eyes while pocketing forty percent of their multi-million-dollar verdict, plus inflated expenses? It takes a special kind of human vulture to do a thing like that. No one should be surprised that he had the gall to play the lesbian card.

Hat tip!

Wolfgang von Skeptik. . .

. . .has updated with a story on some Kerry campaign fundraising questions that need to be answered, or at least pursued in the blogosphere. If the facts in the story stand up, it needs a closer look, if only to see exactly how seriously John Kerry takes Iran as a threat:

Top among the pro-regime fund-raisers who have contributed to the Kerry campaign is a recent Iranian immigrant in California named Susan Akbarpour.
Miss Akbarpour came to this country in 1997, claiming to be a political refugee. In seeking asylum, she told U.S. authorities she feared she would be persecuted if she was forced to return to Iran. And yet, in court records I examined in California and described in this month's American Spectator, Miss Akbarpour maintained a privileged relationship with government agencies of the Islamic Republic, even after she came the United States. (Her lawyers deny this, but in the settlement agreement the disputed document is allowed to stand).
Here in the United States, Miss Akbarpour has become an outspoken public supporter of the regime — odd behavior for someone who claims to have been persecuted in Iran. She has been one of the privileged few admitted to closed-door meetings with regime officials visiting the United States, and has been videotaped by Iranian television reporters in Los Angeles screaming at pro-freedom demonstrators. As part of her effort to build a pro-regime lobby among Iranian-American high-tech executives, she has hosted conferences to promote venture capital investment in Iran, though the Clinton administration made it illegal for U.S. citizens and permanent residents to invest in Iran.
The Kerry campaign credits Miss Akbarpour and her new husband, Faraj Aalaie, with each raising $50,000 to $100,000 for the presidential campaign.

Congrats on getting back on the horse, WvS!

At the risk of pugnacity. . .

. . .I'm going to keep the discussion alive a little longer:

In order to believe that John Kerry had nothing but the best of intentions in bringing up Mary Cheney, you have to believe that John Kerry said something in the final presidential debate without regard to the political consequences. You have to believe that it was an issue that hadn't been discussed among his advisors, regarding how to respond when confronted with the gay marriage issue. You have to believe that the question had taken him by surprise, and that no one had told him to be careful in how he referred to Mary Cheney in the context of the issue.

And furthermore. . .

. . .one would have to believe that the campaign capable of this outrage is somehow above using Mary Cheney as a political wedge issue.

Symbolism ruled the skies. . .

. . .when John Edwards attempted to leave Clevelandtoday. Found the story over at Lucianne.com, as I so often do. Hat tip Lucianne!

A CabanaBoy/blondie production.
 

I'd prefer to gloss over. . .

. . .the fact that I still haven't given an overall take on the debate, even though I said I would do so the following day. Sorry about that. If you email me, I'll be more than happy to refund the ticket price.

I'm hoping to post more tonight. I guess it all depends on the news and my creativity.

Let's hope for news.

A CabanaBoy/blondie production

Just found a hit. . .

. . .referred from Sister Toldjah, and found that I'm on her blogroll. I always appreciate that, and am more than happy to blogroll in kind. Check it out.

Many thanks, Sister. Really like the blog!

UPDATE: It seems that the afforementioned Sister Toldjah is an Ldotter, and should be blogrolled accordingly. Not to worry -- I'm getting right on that.

Wolfgang von Skeptik. . .

. . .has updated with a piece that ought to get the attention of gun-owners. Message: John Kerry is most emphatically not your friend.

Remember that – based on the most painstakingly objective legal and historical research – the true meanings of the Second Amendment and an “assault” weapons ban are mutually exclusive. One cannot support both. Thus Kerry shows himself to be, quite simply, not only a liar, but a liar who would wantonly leave America defenseless, both at home and abroad.

Andrew is blinded. . .

. . .by rage at the GOP, and the Christian Right, more particularly. He uses this as a defense for Kerry's remarks concerning Dick Cheney's daughter:

Candidates mention their families all the time. An entire question last night was devoted to the relationship between men and their wives and daughters. Mentioning Mary Cheney is no more and no less offensive than that. What is offensive is denying gay couples equal rights in the constitution itself. Why don't conservatives get exercized about that?

Well, here's what Kerry said on the matter:

We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

Can you imagine what Andrew would have said about those words had they come out of Pat Buchanan's mouth in a primary debate? The term "gay-baiting" would have appeared within the first three sentences of a long, extremely critical piece.

If Andrew truly considers the gay marriage issue as one of human rights, then he must surely grant some parallels with the Civil Rights movement of the 60's. In which case, he should ask himself what conclusion a reasonable person would draw if, for example, John F. Kennedy had a daughter who was dating a black man, and Richard Nixon brought it up during a debate.

So, it's come down to this:

. . .one last debate, one last chance at liveblogging, and a little under three weeks until Election Day. The only thing that can really come out of this is disaster for one of the candidates. I simply can't imagine anything being said that could win over a large number of voters to either side. However, I can easily imagine something being said that could cost one of the candidates a lot of votes.

With that said, I've been proven very wrong more than once. So, here goes:

8:10 PM -- two phonecalls already.

Pres -- A plan is not a litany of complaints...good.

The President is looking a little off-stride, so far.

Lowering corporate taxes? Kerry?

Kerry -- Tasteless to refer to Dick Cheney's daughter.

Kerry's healthcare "plan" was quite rambling and incoherent/

Pres -- A shot at the "leading media organizations".

Kerry -- Calling a summit on Social Security -- later on, when it gets in trouble.

Kerry supported amnesty for illegal aliens in 2003. Didn't know that.

Schieffer could not have thrown a fatter pitch on the minimum wage law.

Pres -- Giving a great response on the question of his faith. There's a genuineness there that is in unbelievably stark contrast to that of Kerry.

Kerry -- Never seen so many members "locked out of meetings". Were you "locked out" of the Senate Intelligence meetings, Senator Kerry?

Kerry -- Married up? That didn't look too good to all those women out there.

Integrity, integrity, integrity? What a warm last thought from mom.

The president closed strongly. Kerry said nothing memorable, other than the fact that he "married up".

Once again, no knockout blows, but a strong, very personal performance by the President. I think his answer on the question of faith may have been the highlight of the night.

The blogging. . .

. . .has been thin lately, I notice. I'll try to do better in the next few days -- starting tonight.

I'm going to try my hand at liveblogging for the third time. I did a little better last time than I did the previous, so I just might improve this time. In fact, I feel like my liveblogging skills have tracked pretty closely with the President's debate performances in this campaign. Could be it's just a matter of establishing a groove.

At some point during the night (most likely following the debate), I'm going to be doing some work on a friend's computer, which will limit my ability to blog, but I will be off and on. So, check back in before the night's over.

However, I'm planning to hold off on my overall take on the debate until tomorrow. Rather than try to bang out an immediate response, I want to give it some thought. I have class in the morning, but it's a short day, so I'll be able to start my analysis (or ramblings, if it please) sometime in the early afternoon, Central Flyover Time.

I don't have cable, so I won't be cheating to see what the highly-paid yammerers are going on and on about.

And all of this is completely conditional. I could very well flip-flop on the whole matter, and bang out a thesis if the muse strikes.

A CabanaBoy/blondie production
 

Captain's Quarters. . .

. . .is another of one of the best blogs on the web. Of course, if you're here, you probably already knew that. But, just in case you didn't, here's the lowdown on an unnerving decision by Senator Mark Dayton, D-MN, to close his Washington offices until after Election Day, based on some relatively innocuous intelligence.

But, what did he say about the President's decision to go into Iraq based on intelligence that everybody agreed upon, unlike the intelligence he used?

"In my best judgment, from all the intelligence that was presented to me over a 5-year period of time, the case against Iraq was inconclusive and unconvincing. Furthermore, it was presented to us by our top intelligence officials as incomplete and inconclusive."

"I think this hunt for the weapons of mass destruction, like the hunt for Red October, is a huge red herring that's distracting resources and personnel in Iraq for what should be under way, which is to win this engagement"

“Yet, this Congress is being urged to pre-approve a blank check for the President to do whatever, whenever, and wherever, and we are being criticized for not voting on it already. In the absence of an immediate threat to our national security, it is foolish and foolhardy to make this rush to judgment. It is being orchestrated by people who see their political advantage in an accelerated timetable. That is a shameful reason to hurry decisions of this magnitude. I pray they will be the right decisions anyway.”

In September 2002, Maureen Dowd of The New York Times wrote: “When U.S. Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota asked the defense chief on Thursday: ‘What is compelling us to now make a precipitous decision and take precipitous actions?’ an exasperated Rumsfeld sputtered: ‘What’s different? What’s different is 3,000 people were killed’…”The casus belli is casuistry belli: We can’t cuff Saddam to 9/11, but we’ll clip Saddam because of 9/11.”

Whatever his explanation, he doesn't look good. He's either crazy or craven.

Due to problems. . .

. . .with PayPal over the past few days, I've decided to extend the MsFalconersCabanaBoy Relief Fund drive contest right up 'til 11:59 on December 24. But that's no reason to wait. Be the first to donate $250,000, even if you have to do it in small increments.

Every little bit helps. And remember: Dan Rather makes a whole lot more than $250,000 a year. You call that justice?

Many thanks. . .

. . .for the link and the hat tip from Kitty Litter yesterday. It made for a nice bump, and I always appreciate that.

Regards to Kerry Haters as well, whom I may have forgotten to acknowledge for an earlier link.

They're both excellent blogs and well worth clicking. They broke the Cambodia story months before any other outlet ever bothered to look into it. Up until then, the whole story was a mere knowable unknown.

The Anchoress. . .

. . .has updated with a couple of posts, one of which contains the following remarks, which make a point that doesn't seem to be made often enough:

"Let's say it one more time: The Bush Administration was the first administration to provide federal funding for stem cell research. There is NO BAN on stem cell research. There is no BAN on embryonic stem cell research within the private sector, there is a restriction on the use of federal money on embryonic stem cell research which moves outside of those lines already established in 2001. President Bush is NOT against science."

Now is the time for the administration to make this point just as succinctly, while people are still listening. It won't matter if they make the point in a few days. By then, people will be focused on something else entirely.

Sorry for the delay. . .

. . .in posting. I was in class all day, and decided to sit down for a while and have some coffee when I got home. Is that so much to ask!?

I'll try to get something going in the next few minutes. I think I may have some good pictures before the night's over, as well.

Wolfgang von Skeptik. . .

. . .has updated with some takes on recent coverage of issues where the Democrats are taking advantage of the know-nothingism that exists within its base, and using it to recruit young voters into their ranks.

"Malkin. . .attributes the ultimately deadly disaster to government price controls – but that does not address the infinite folly of outsourcing the production. Perhaps the culpable officials don’t believe we are at war. Or perhaps – since this is the same nation that during the Clinton years shut down all but one of its ordnance plants and thus recently had to outsource the production of 5.56mm and 7.62 mm ball ammunition merely to keep up with the wartime demand – the officials simply don’t give a damn. Or maybe they are exceptionally dense – so much so they haven’t yet learned one of the basic lessons of World War II: the longer the supply line, the more vulnerable it is to enemy action."

This is why. . .

. . .John Howard John Howard won so decisively. And you want folks like this on your side in the War on Terror.

I've finally changed. . .

. . .the posting settings so that comments can only be made by members of the blog. If you'd like to comment, please email me at the address in the sidebar, where it says "Email the Pajama Pack" and I'll add you to the team. Unfortunately, that's the only way I can really restrict access.

Thanks!

Note to Ghost Dansing. . .

. . .all it takes is the single click of a little picture of a trashcan to remove your post. And, if it keeps happening, all it takes is the changing of one little setting so that you'll no longer be able to post, period.

So, you might want to consider that before you waste your time typing out your next post. I'm notified whenever a comment is posted, and yours will be deleted before even I have a chance to read it -- much less, anyone else.

Comments aren't exactly the bread and butter on this blog, so it won't frost my butt in the least to simply turn them off, or require membership for commenting.

Feel free to go and start CabanaBoyWatch. But it's not going to happen on my back.

Kitty. . .

. . .from over at Kitty Litter has given me a link and quite a few hits have come from that.

Many thanks!

Thanks to blondie for pushing the pixels.
 

Rest in Peace Ken Caminiti.

Rest in Peace Christopher Reeve.

Semi-obscure reference of the week

A CabanaBoy/blondie production

A CabanaBoy/blondie production
 

Taken in context. . .

Andrew Sullivan gives the President some credit for his accomplishments in Afghanistan, but it's only a brief flirtation, and seems to have a tone of dismissal about it.

"QUOTE FOR THE DAY: 'In the whole history of Afghanistan this is the first time we come and choose our leader in democratic process and free condition. I feel very proud and I feel very happy,' - an Afghan voter yesterday. Whatever else you feel about president Bush's war leadership, this amazing event is a result of his policies, and belongs to his legacy. More important, of course, it gives this Islamic nation a taste of what the future can bring. Forget the nit-picking. This is a huge step forward in the war."

For some reason, when I read that paragraph, the narrative quality reads it in a manner similar to the way I would say, "Yeah, Bruce Springsteen is a raving pinko, but 'Born to Run' is a pretty good song."

If Andrew is willing to extend credit for this accomplishment in the broader War on Terrorism, I can't understand why he seems less willing to put what he sees as an utter disaster in Iraq in the same context. The President has already accomplished something in Afghanistan that many thought utterly inconceivable. Many on the left will lend no weight to that fact, and no one really expects them to. They're signed, sealed and delivered for anyone with a slight chance of defeating George Bush.

But, Andrew seems to minimize that accomplishment when he considers the broader war -- as if what he sees as an utter failure in Iraq is occurring within a vacuum. If I'm reading Andrew correctly lately, the pace of liberation in Iraq is indicative of profound incompetence. At the same time, if I read the above quoted paragraph without irony, I have to come to the conclusion that Andrew believes that what has been accomplished in Afghanistan is indicative of an administration capable of amazing, historic achievements in the advancement of humanity.

Andrew's disdain with regard to the President's wartime leadership seems not so much to disregard the positive achivements, but rather minimize them in the broader context. And so much rests on the ability to focus on the broader context of the war that I cannot begin to fathom casting a vote for John Kerry, given his historic hostility to defense and intelligence issues.

And John Kerry himself has said that terrorism is priority number one. And, I think he believes what he said. Where I part company with John Kerry is (among other things) on the basis of just how much bigger a priority it is in comparison to all the others. John Kerry seems to believe that it's a priority only to the degree that it doesn't generate international hostility. George Bush's record, to me at least, shows a man who is willing to take an aggressive stance on terrorists and the nations who abet them. He's also willing to accept the international popularity consequences of moving rapidly and risking mistakes, rather than allow a known threat to fester.

Another thing that annoys Andrew is the President's refusal to admit mistakes. Of course, when I read this objection, it sounds like a schoolyard taunt. You know, "Oh yeah? Well, if you're not wearing pink underwear, prove it!" If you ignore the taunt, a few jerks are going to say, "See! We told you he was wearing pink underwear!" If you decide to take the bait, everybody looks and says, "Oh my God! He's standing there in his underwear!"

And the strange thing is, just about everyone else is wearing underwear, and it just might be one of the guys doing the taunting who's wearing the pink ones. So, you're left standing before gaping eyes and pointing fingers for being more honest about being human, while the real pink undie wearer yuks it up with the crowd.

President Bush has already demonstrated "amazing" world leadership, according to Andrew. When has John Kerry demonstrated leadership of any kind, let alone "amazing"? If the war on terror is as big a priority as Senator Kerry says it is, the only conclusion is George Bush.

We are all . . .

. . .judged by the company that we keep.