Will the Menstrualcramp run...and flow?

Indiana--Now that the senate blue dog founder Evan Bayh has been outed (the public is apparently slow on the uptake, I noticed long ago) as being roundly conservative, thanks mostly to the health care battle going on in Congress and has announced he won't be running for reelection, some of the Hoosier state's progressives are looking...well, probably in the wrong place. It's a good idea in theory to nominate/draft pop singer John Mellencamp, but I really don't think he's qualified.

Not so long ago, Bayh was a "good guy."

A fellow Hoosier and friend from college put it well on Facebook: "I think he'd just sit there chain-smoking and going "HEY! HEY!" every once in a while. Maybe an occasional harmonica solo." At least he featured Edith Massey of Pink Flamingos fame in one of his videos...but he made-out with her, and let's be honest, that's just wrong.

Will the Indiana GOP (aka NSDAP) drag this part of his past into the political roundhouse theater (a barn, this is Indiana)? The world may never know. At this writ(h)ing, there's no comments on all this high-falutin' talk over whether he's going to run or even flow into a senatorial candidacy by June of this year. Ah, but the left and the right are shitting all over themselves about whether he will or won't (my take is that he won't). (F)Alternet had some really superficial and inarticulate things to say today, somehow drawing a supplement to the writer's paycheck as a result:

So, could Mellencamp perform in the U.S. Senate?

Could he be the right replacement for retiring Senator Evan Bayh, D-Indiana?

Forget the blah-blah-blah about celebrities in politics. We crossed that bridge decades ago.

The question is whether this celebrity makes the right connections with this state.

Mellencamp certainly has the home-state credibility. Few rockers have been so closely associated with a state as Mellencamp with Indiana.

Mellencamp has a history of issue-oriented political engagement that is the rival of any of the Democratic politicians who are being considered as possible Bayh replacements.

And Mellencamp has something else. He has a record of standing up for disenfranchised and disenchanted working-class families in places like his hometown of Seymour, Indiana.

In other words, he's worthy of the consideration that has led to talk of a "Draft John Mellencamp" movement. In fact, he might be just enough of an outlier to energize base votes and to make independent voters look again at the Democratic column. ("Senator Mellencamp?," Alternet, 02.17.2010)

They also mention that John's "friends with Bill Clinton," which to these eyes and ears is roundly wrong-headed on his part if it's true. If Clinton was ever a "friend" of the poor, I'm Abraham Lincoln. He's not going to run. Who would want to after the most recent generation of incumbents left such a titanic mess? Mellencamp prefers the quiet life on his property outside of Bloomington, Indiana, in Seymour. Cross your own bridges, we play euchre in Indiana, m-kay?

But where did this meme begin? Facebook, where else? It sure wasn't poor old Myspace. I have a number of friends on there nay-saying about the social networking site's influence, but this is a good example that they're not entirely correct, but they're probably used to it:

A Facebook group is looking to draft singer John Mellencamp to replace departing Democratic Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.
It's adding fuel to the fire of speculation that he'll launch a bid.

He would join a growing number of Democrats considering a run following Bayh's surprise announcement he will not seek reelection. ("Facebook Page Fuels Mellencamp Senate Speculation," mystateline.com, 02.17.2010)

FB is a good way to get a meme going and that's a real power--so much so that Fox News panicked shortly after noticing the existence of the group and did a spot on Mellencamp being "too left." In a sense, that's pulling-the-strings of the string-pullers, a real tug-of-war to control the narrative, even if accidentally. But will he run? Should be run? I know, all this "blah-blah-blah" over celebrities running, but I was never a conformist, so that meme can go jump in a lake with everyone else, it's not fixing anything. We have covered bridges in Indiana.

And, hey, why not let Fox News have the last word since they usually insist on it?

...Speculation is swirling [around the bowl, or is it 'bowel'?] that the liberal Mellencamp may put down his guitar and run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Evan Bayh. ...

The Democratic state central committee now has until June 30 to pick someone to replace Bayh on the ballot.

U.S. Reps. Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth are among the other names being floated. But so far, Mellencamp's name is drawing the most attention.

Mellencamp's publicist did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

("Speculation Swirls Around Potential Senate Bid by Rocker John Mellencamp," Foxnews.com, 02.17.2010)

Interestingly, and in character, the online article is significantly more toned down from the bluster and hyperbole of the TV version telecast today on Fox. But really, just because it sounds like a great idea doesn't mean that it is. Take a look at California after several years of Arnold Schwarzenegger and the GOP. At least they used the proper word in all of this, "speculation." I should add that I like his paintings, they're very good. M-kay?

"Fox preemptive strike against Mellencamp: ‘He’s way over there’," Rawstory, 02.17.2010: http://rawstory.com/2010/02/fox-preemptive-strike-mellencamp/

"Senator Mellencamp?", Alternet, 02.17.2010: http://www.alternet.org/news/145714/senator_mellencamp_grassroots_movement_swells_for_rocker_to_run_of_bayh%27s_indiana_seat

"Facebook Page Fuels Mellencamp Senate Speculation," mystateline.com, 02.17.2010: http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=138222

The man's site: http://www.mellencamp.com/

"Speculation Swirls Around Potential Senate Bid by Rocker John Mellencamp," Foxnews.com, 02.17.2010: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/17/speculation-swirls-potential-mellencamp-senate-bid/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529

Obama Justice Department ends raids on medical marijuana facilities

Washington D.C.--There's a new sheriff in town. Once again, we're seeing valid and significant change that we would never have seen under a Republican president and/or a Congress dominated by them. As Attorney General Eric Holder stated yesterday, it's "now policy."

For those who are cynical about the incoming administration (only in office now a little over a month, a bit premature and telling of the cynics), this is good news and a real change as well as a move away from wasteful government spending for law enforcement programs that do more harm to our society than good.

Marijuana drug pigs had their "last hurrah" at the end of January before the Obama administration could do anything to stop it, just three days after the new president's inauguration. Thirteen states have now legalized the licensing of production, distribution, and use of medical marijuana. It's not going to stop there, and the ranks of the police are turning against past drug interdiction policies.

The last two states to recently legalize medical marijuana were Michigan and Massachusetts in November of last year during the national and state elections. In Massachusetts, the police union initially lobbied against the legislation but have been coming around to the new reality. Nobody said change was easy to adjust to, but they're doing it in Massachusetts right now, and in several other states.

As part of Drug War policy, appointed "Drug Czars" who run the ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) are supposed to lie--yes lie--about the properties, medical uses and beneficial or benign attributes of marijuana. From Section 704 of the Reauthorization Act of 1998:

...[The Director of Drug Control Policy] ...(11) may serve as spokesperson of the Administration on drug issues; (12) shall ensure that no Federal funds appropriated to the Office of National Drug Control Policy shall be expended for any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812) and take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form) that-- (A) is listed in schedule I of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812); and
(B) has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration;...

Incredibly, federal drug control agents and officials can even use government funds to meddle in local and state elections to effect the outcomes of any marijuana legalisation proposition up for vote during elections, a clear violation of the Hatch Act, but we don't need no stinkin' badges anyway.

Remember that this was passed under a Republican controlled Congress at the time back in their salad days of 1998. The Clinton administration did little to oppose it, but they were trying to save themselves over a lie told under oath about a blowjob, it being a national priority and obsession of the GOP at the time. If you don't like the government meddling in your lives, and you want a government that does less of it in general, hitting rightist and reactionary advocates of these drug policies is a good place to start. The time is ripe since they're losing on all fronts.

Sitting on our laurels isn't going to be a smart move for anti-prohibition forces and the point will be to keep pushing (back) until significant victory and precedent are achieved. All this aside, this is a state's rights issue, period. The incoming Obama administration supports this contention and the legitimacy of medical marijuana for those with terminal illnesses who need it desperately, and this isn't even mentioning all the green uses (including the production of needed biomass, food, and energy) from the cannabis plant. The Drug War is the finest and most obvious example of wasteful spending outside of the F-22 fighter and the failed "Star Wars" program, but in America, if it's broken, don't fix it.

But it really is a state rights issue. This is where I agree with Libertarians...but that's about it, and I'm hardly alone. For those who want to live in a police state, I advise relocation to Colombia or Russia, their authoritarian digs should be to your tastes. Our drug laws were originally crafted to legally harass people of color--Blacks and Hispanics in-particular. The support was bipartisan, but as is their wont, and when there are rights to be rolled back, the Republican Party tends to be leading the charge.

It's fitting that when we finally got a president of color, the walls began to fall regarding drug prohibition, ultimately race and class-based laws primarily for the purpose of arbitrary antidemocratic social control. Just over 75 years ago, the walls came down with alcohol prohibition in the face of an unprecedented economic crisis and sustained calls for its end. We live in similar times and in a much less "racialist" culture. There are other problems to address. Bluntly-put, we need the revenue. It's time to legalize and regulate (including taxation) of all psychoactive drugs, and a time to move towards treatment and away from the militarization of our police departments.

Cops Against Prohibition:

http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

The Reauthorization Act of 1998:

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/98reauthorization.html

AG Holder's statement yesterday in a Q&A:

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15821

The coming meeting at the White House of all living presidents, Dick Cheney...and Donald Rumsfeld

Washington D.C.--George H.W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney...and Donald Rumsfeld are meeting at the White House in what's a very rare occasion indeed. The meeting is being announced as having the ostensible purpose of "helping President-elect Barack Obama in his transition" in extraordinary times. OK, I can buy that--but why Rummy?

The meeting is scheduled to take place on January 7th, 2009, with just thirteen days left in second presidential term of George W. Bush.

I think there's a very strong possibility that they're going to start talking about international law and the issue of war crimes and human rights abuses emanating from the Bush II administration's conduct in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the war on terror domestically and internationally. This would mean Donald Rumsfeld's role in abuses, as well as Dick Cheney's, and perhaps the roles of others in Bush II foreign policy.

Jimmy Carter is bound to have some comments ready on human rights, which he'll be sure to whisper so that he might be overheard. Bill Clinton? He'll smile a lot and slap a lot of backs. I'm sure he'll have some constructive advice for the president-elect.

Rumsfeld's role in creating a "smooth transition" for the incoming Obama administration has a hollow-ring to it, he's a wild card here in some way. The story is being put out there that Cheney and Rumsfeld are being brought in to advise the incoming administration--Rumsfeld was President Gerald Ford's (still dead, so he won't be able to make it) chief of staff, Cheney succeeded him.

Both are well-known friends and associates.

Certainly, they're going to acquaint the incoming President-elect with "the ropes" of running an administration, although considering the disastrous ones that they all led or served under cannot be good examples. But, nothing teaches better than failure so they should have a lot to offer. Still, it nags-the-question: why Rumsfeld? War crimes issues? Executive privilege and legal issues? Who to fire at the Pentagon? Surely, these are going to be some of the topics. It's a very curious meeting. Will it be a "Mad Hatter's Tea Party"?

With Henry Kissinger having advised the current-and-outgoing president in the last few years, it just looks like another indicator of a lack of leadership in the White House, a final collapse, the crashing of a facade. We've been leaderless for a very long time.

WE TOLD YOU SO: SERBIA CLEARED OF GENOCIDE CHARGES BY THE HAGUE

"At the same time, though, where are the leaders of the international community who also helped to bring events in the Balkans about? Have we ever heard one word of apology or acknowledgment of failure or responsibility from anyone in leadership positions of Unprofor, the United Nations or the major governments that they got it wrong?"

--William D. Montgomery, former special representative of the U.S. president and secretary of state for Bosnian Peace Implementation in 1996-97. Also, U.S. ambassador to Croatia from 1998 to 2000 and ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro from 2000 to 2004. (IHT, 07.12.2005)


The Hague, The Netherlands--In a vote of 13-2, Serbia has been cleared of charges of genocide surrounding the Bosnian conflict of 1992-1995, with only 50 protesters outside of the court calling-for a guilty verdict. Where were you, almighty moralists and apologists for NATO? Nowhere near the Hague, that's for certain.

NATO (through German diplomatic channels) allowed for Croatia and Slovenia to break away from Yugoslavia, a move that was strongly-opposed by Serbs, and which likely would have prevented the cataclysm that ensued. Yet, looking at the reporting today, the West's role in all of this is imperceptible:

Bosnia's Muslims and Croats followed Slovenia and Croatia in breaking away from Yugoslavia in April 1992, against the wishes of Bosnian Serbs, who were left as a one-third minority in what had previously been a Yugoslav republic ruled from Belgrade. This triggered a war in which at least 100,000 people were killed. Backed by the Yugoslav army, the Serbs captured two-thirds of Bosnia and besieged Sarajevo. Tens of thousands of non-Serbs were killed and hundreds of thousands forced from their homes. (Reuters, 02.26.2007)

It must be an unpleasant an disorienting feeling to be someone who swallowed the line that it was all about the Serbs, when KLA (later to become Al-Qaida) was and is involved-in similar depredations.

Cognitive-dissonance is natural, however, and earned for those who wholeheartedly-embraced this notion, ignoring the facts, and accepting the hyperbole. Now you all have a tiny-piece of what it felt like to be a German after WWII.

The article still fails to mention that over 200,000 Eastern Orthodox Serbs were relocated forcibly during the conflict thanks to NATO policies, but our crimes don't exist. The Hague has done a disservice by ignoring these facts. But, if you follow the media closely, this isn't new. This is my favorite-part of the ruling:

The Serbian leaders "should have made the best effort within their power to try and prevent the tragic events then taking shape," in the U.N. enclave, the scale of which "might have been surmised," the ruling said. However, it rejected Bosnia's claim for monetary reparations. ...Serbia's claim that it was powerless to prevent the massacres "hardly tallies with their known influence" over the Bosnian Serb army, said the ruling. The ruling did not specify what Serbia could have done. (AP, 02.26.2007)

I think we know what Serbia could have done--attack the UN, NATO, and the KLA. That's fair, isn't it? Considering the total chaos of the conflict, it's unsurprising that the Hague "did not specify", because that would reveal Western-involvement in funding the KLA (particularly by the US State Department).

Again, our crimes don't exist...unless you do some digging in the margins of the known record of what occurred.

But, according to most in America, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the bombings of Dresden, Munich, and the fire-bombings of Tokyo and nearly every Japanese city during WWII by Allied forces, were not war crimes. Yet, the reality is, there were. A winner's justice is never justice. The UN, and all the members of NATO are equally responsible for the what occurred during the Bosnian war, and inflicted heavier-casualties during the 1999 aerial-bombings.

During that same period, President William Jefferson Clinton's administration was committing a calculated act of genocide against Iraqi citizens through the no-fly zone, and aerial-bombardment of crucial infrastructure. This makes him and everyone who was involved in the expediting of these acts war criminals.

As a result of this, approximately 500,000 Iraqi children--almost an entire generation--died. Coupled with the invasion of Iraq--the thousands of murders, the cultural-looting, torture, rape, and more, we have all the ingredients of genocide as an ongoing-policy of the United States towards Iraq. That's attempted genocide, folks.

Someone should ask Rahm Emanuel why he did nothing to dissuade the president and the State Department from this course, and why he isn't today. But these facts escape most of the public, and certainly the majority of the intelligentsia in the West.

There is blood on our hands, and today's verdict--while fairer than expected--was still shot-through with irony and a hollowness that is typical of our daily rationalizations. We're not learning, as much as we would like to convince ourselves that we are. These are the seeds of our own destruction that might come sooner than we think, unless we change our foreign policy in a radical sense. This will require more involvement by the public.

Revised 08.31.2008

Reuter-rooters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070226/wl_nm/bosnia_serbia_srebrenica_dc

Our Beloved AP: http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2007/02/26/ap/headlines/d8nhcsl00.txt

MISS BIG FAKE BOOBIES, SREBRENICA, IRAQ, AND OJ

"The bombing of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 allegedly to stop ethnic cleansing and prevent the Balkans from becoming once again the powder keg of Europe has backfired. Kosovo has become exclusively an Albanian province with the exception of a few stalwart Serbians in the Mitrovica area who live surrounded by barbed wire and are threatened daily with murder and mayhem by their Albanian neighbours. The Balkans, since the end of the bombing, have been in constant turmoil caused by the KLA terrorist activities." --James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, 1990-1992.

“It's very expensive to be me. It's terrible the things I have to do to be me.” --Anna Nicole Smith


Our Apologist Mainstream Media--Remember the O.J. trial? I do, and I want that memory erased for good. Give me some of that Total Recall erasing, like it was never there. It's good that her tits are big enough to hide the rapidly disintegrating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about "the Juice"?

That moron was used to hide most of the facts of the Balkans war that the Clinton administration was waging, done primarily to dismantle Yugoslavia as a third-path economy, rather than a "humanitarian-invasion." There is no such thing, it's a fiction.

Where was the media coverage of the invasion of Rwanda during that same period? There wasn't much, because the place wasn't seen as strategically important or valuable at that time. But at least we rewarded Osama Bin Laden with a precinct and gave him a Bosnian passport during the Balkans conflict.

Correct, you're a sucker if thought there was really a systematic ethnic-cleansing in the Balkans. Ours--and other NATO forces, along with mercenaries--murdered more human-beings than the Serbs could ever muster. But, our crimes don't exist, only other countries do that. The one thing

Ironically, we can thank George W. Bush for stripping-away this delusion forever, with his openly-criminal usage of illegal rendition, torture, murder--he's given the game away, and there's no more denying that these tactics are common features of our foreign policy. More revelations are coming.

Look at Dafur: has anyone invaded them to stop a real genocide? War crimes are a part of war, but the atrocities in Srebrenica--all Bosniak Muslims--amounted to the murders of 8,000 people. Sorry, but as bad as this sounds, that's nothing compared to the death tolls in Iraq, and that's just one example of American war crimes. All "ethnic-cleansing" did was to provide a pretext to invade, which NATO knew would occur when Croatia and Slovenia notified them through Germany that they wanted to split from Yugoslavia: "Germany granted recognition to Slovenia and Croatia on 18 December 1991, while other European community members and the US followed suit," states the Nations Encyclopedia.

This is also from www.nationsencyclopedia.com, and is followed by what is the standard line on NATO involvement with this sentence: "The international community stood firmly in support of the preservation of Yugoslavia."

Strange, since everything they did in the run-up to the Balkans war made this an impossibility.

At the same time, though, where are the leaders of the international community who also helped to bring events in the Balkans about? Have we ever heard one word of apology or acknowledgement of failure or responsibility from anyone in leadership positions of Unprofor, the United Nations or the major governments that they got it wrong? ...We are rightly looking for full accountability from the parties in the region. I am sorry that we are not doing the same for ourselves. (William D. Montgomery was special representative of the U.S. president and secretary of state for Bosnian Peace Implementation in 1996-97, U.S. ambassador to Croatia from 1998 to 2000 and ambassador to Serbia and Montenegro from 2000 to 2004.) (IHT, 07.12.2005)

NATO charter members at that time knew full-well that the atrocities were coming, and merely allowed a force of 375 UN peacekeepers to defend the village and its inhabitants. But the Serbs suffered greater-losses at the hands of NATO:

If what happened to Kosovo Albanians and Bosnian Moslems was genocide, what of the treatment of Orthodox Serbs? After NATO's air war, 200,000 were driven from Kosovo. Most who remain cower behind barbed-wire barricades in Mitrovica. Altogether, 2 million Serbs were expelled from Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, and 240 of their churches were destroyed. When this happens to anyone else, it's called ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide. The tragedy has its roots in the early 1990s, when the West decided Bosnians and Croatians were entitled to their own states. (Free Republic, 12.03.2001)

Yeah, but what does this have to do with Anna Nicole Smith and OJ? They provide media "white-outs", a distraction. Yes, you take a the disastrous lives of worthless celebrities who are on-hand at that particular historical moment, and you make them a SHIBBOLETH. Anyone like these vermin will do, just so long as they're vulnerable due to their own behaviors and their infliction on others. Feel inflicted? Manipulated? I do. If O.J.'s head exploded, or he was run-over by a truck, I wouldn't care.

Anna Nicole Smith? Her life was worthless compared to someone who's being put-upon by our troops in Iraq, or anywhere our foreign policy has dominion. That's right: American foreign policy needs people like this to function nowadays, pathetic. And why do think Hillary Clinton won't apologize for her vote on authorizing the use of force in Iraq?

Has her husband ever apologized for the murdering of 500,000 Iraqi children during the 1990s? Taken together, Clinton's and Bush's policies towards Iraq amount to attempts at genocide, yet nobody bats-an-eye. America gets the world it deserves. They get Joe Lieberman (who called Muslim extremists fighting Serbs "freedom fighters") and George W. Bush.

Revised 08.31.2008

Free Republic on Bosnia/Croatian war:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/582809/posts

International Herald Tribune on Srebnecia's 10th Anniversary:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/11/opinion/edmont.php

Former Canadian Diplomat James Bisset's Take on the KLA:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BIS111A.html

Nationsencycolpedia.com on Croatia:
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Croatia-HISTORY.html

A Serbian Take on Osama Bin Laden and the War on Terrorism (From 2001):
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST091901.htm

WHY HASN'T OHIO REP. BOB NEY RESIGNED YET?

Washington D.C.--That's a rhetorical question.

The answer is obvious: the GOP will do anything, and I mean anything to keep their majority. Why? To continue shielding the Bush administration. The Democrats don't really want a genuine house-cleaning either because most of them are dirty too.

They are all basically complicit with the Bush administration, and bipartisan goof on their part. Cold busted. The Bush years will be remembered in history for being the time when the public finally had the scales fall from its collective-eyes, and discovered that their political system needed an overhaul.

Ney isn't resigning because Bush and Cheney need him for that margin majority. They have to have to avoid prison, and the fear is becoming palpable throughout the political culture. Even the pundits and ideologues like Bill O'Reilly seem more restrained lately. That's because they had better shut-up. Washington DC's culture has always been one of blackmail, and this whole affair with Foley is a cream dream for politics junkies. Why it didn't occur during Clinton is beyond me, but who cares? It's happening now.

Ari Emanuel: Hypocrite, Asshole.

Ari Emanuel is a well-known "superagent" in Hollywood who has been blogging on Huffingtonpost over the last year, and is often reasonable in his blogs. However, it seems the Israeli invasion of Lebanon has him sipping the Flavor Aide from Jonestown. Huh?

Cut-to-now: Mel Gibson makes anti-Semitic remarks (while intoxicated) after being pulled-over by the Orange County Sheriff's Department, saying such racist gems as, "The Jews have started every war", and "Are you a Jew?!" to the arresting officers. It's obvious he was intoxicated and anti-Semitic, sigh.

Cut-to a close-shot of Ari Emanuel's photo on Huffpo: The "superagent" (this guy must be an unknown arch-nemesis of mine) calls for a banning of Mel Gibson from Hollywood, demanding that people there stop working with Mel altogether--OK, I've caused some mayhem in my days as an arch-fiend, but this is just hypocritical.

"Why?", you ask? Here's why: Ari Emanuel's brother was a "top advisor to President Bill Clinton" during the 1990s. "Soooooo?", you're saying, as you ponder the information. Ahhhh, here's the whole rub, folks, from imdb:

The youngest of three brothers, Mr. Emanuel grew up in [a] Chicago household headed by a pediatrician (his father) and a psychiatric social worker (his mother). He learned to be competitive from his brothers, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, an oncologist and chairman of the department of clinical bioethics at the Warren G. Magnusson Clinical Center at the National Institutes of Health and Rahm Emanuel, a top white house advisor to President Bill Clinton. His career began as an assistant to Robert Lantz, the veteran New York agent who represented Milos Foreman. He moved to Los Angeles in 1987 landing a job in the mail room [Ed.--Where he should have remained, for life.] of the Creative Artists Agency.

Coming from what he felt was a place of moral superiority, Mr. Emanuel rightly criticized Mr. Gibson for his anti-Semitic remarks. If it had ended there, that would have been fine. But no, he didn't end it there.

He called for a removal of Mel Gibson from the Hollywood scene altogether.

"Yeah, but what does that have to do with Clinton's bombing of civilian-infrastructures in 1990s Iraq," you're asking? Simple, the brothers Emanuel probably did nothing in trying to dissuade Clinton from causing the deaths of an entire generation of Iraqi children--nada--and they had direct-access to the president. They're petty and hypocritical regarding their take on Mel Gibson.

Would it have worked? I doubt this, but I would like to know if they ever tried, since they have had direct-access to the halls of power...

[Ed., 11.08.2008: I'd imagine that the Emanuels wanted the air strikes on Iraq in the interests of Israeli security. The problem is, Iraq was never a serious threat to them, and everyone knows it. The only good thing you can say about these two clowns is that they "get the job done." So did Jewish-collaborators at Auschwitz, dragging their brothers and sisters to the gas chambers.]