Blue Collar Muse

Thoughts and Observations from “Right” in the Middle   

8 March 2007

President Newt …

World Net Daily reported earlier tonight that a radio interview of House Speaker Newt Gingrich by James Dobson of Focus on the Family will air tomorrow.

As reported at WND, Dr. Dobson asks Speaker Gingrich to address the issue of his marital infidelity and how he reconciles his actions with a professed faith in Christ. Dobson asks,

DOBSON: Let me ask you about your family life. This is very, very personal and delicate and I appreciate your willingness to address it again. But you’ve been married three times under some circumstances that disappointed some of your supporters. And there are some questions associated with that era that remain unanswered with regard to an affair or maybe more than one. Would you take a run at that for our listeners?

For the Speaker’s answer, I’ll encourage you to click to WND and the story at Gingrich: ‘I sought God’s forgiveness’.

While Newt has not declared his intention to run for President many believe that he will a bit later in the election season cycle. I have to admit that my first reaction when reading this article was that he was sounding like someone wanting to run and addressing some known weaknesses in his candidacy.

I don’t mean to imply that his thoughts and feelings as expressed in the interview are false and are being expressed only to make him a viable candidate. It’s just interesting that he could have addressed these things (and to an extent he has) years ago. 20 months from the election seems an interesting time to begin this dialogue if he is not considering running.

Final thought - of all the declared candidates for President, I’d vote for Newt over any three of them put together.

Hoping he decides to run …


7 March 2007

Saying No to Net Neutrality …

Posted in: Blogroll, Conservative, Business, Liberal, Internet Issues, Net Neutrality — Blue Collar Muse @ 6:32 pm

Lately I’ve been reading about Net Neutrality (NN). I’m still learning the issues and am not quite up to expounding on its finer points. Net Competition and Precursor Blog do a great job of that. I can say, however, if Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards and Nancy Pelosi are FOR something, I’ll pretty much reflexively run the other way. I’ll examine what’s chasing me to determine whether or not it’s a real threat, but I’ll be doing that while moving.

The important thing to remember in NN discussions is that the name is misleading. That’s to be expected since the Left coined the name. Who wouldn’t be for a truly neutral internet? I sure would. Give all sides equal access and may the best side win. But NN has little to do with making the internet a level playing field. Like the Fairness in Broadcasting issue, it’s all about control.

The Left wants control of the ‘Net. For themselves, of course. We can’t have the unwashed masses, especially not unwashed Right wing masses, controlling things. They want NN. The Right is content to let the market decide. That may lead to fender benders and interesting detours on the Information Super-highway but it also generates some amazing shortcuts! They don’t want NN.

Looking at things from a macro level like this is often clarifying for me. Take the simmering controversy over at for example. The issue is covered in depth in a great post over at SearchEngineLand.

Briefly, Digg is a phenomenal social networking tool letting netizens share stories they like with one another by ‘digg’-ing them or voting for them. To keep things neat and tidy, Digg also allows members to ‘bury’ stories that are inaccurate, are duplicates, are spam or that contain broken links. This purpose is clearly stated in ‘How Digg Works’ and is a fine example of a truly neutral net.

However, people discovered the ‘bury’ option can also be used to deflate a story’s ranking. Not because they think it’s spam, but because they disagree with its content. ‘Bury’ can be used by informational death squads to ‘disappear’ ideologies they oppose. There’s some disagreement as to whether or not this is actually happening but if you follow the discussion on the ‘Bury Brigade’, the evidence is growing. This is NN in action. Not only can anyone build, anyone can destroy, as well.

How does one fix this? Well if NN becomes the law of the land, it might be difficult. The way NN provisions work, it would be possible to establish Digg as the only site of its kind. It’s big and does the job so why waste resources duplicating that service? If someone wants to start a new site, let them start a site that does something different. There would be no competition. That sort of ploy is liberalism at its worst! We’ve seen it at work in discussions of church and state, the welfare state and state’s rights.

Instead, we ought to oppose NN and let the market decide. Let Digg know we’ve found a problem and get them looking at ways to fix it. See if Digg responds or not and decide if we want to keep digging Digg. If not, we head over to to support them.

This process is actually happening to Google’s empire. I personally, and many others I know, have as little to do with Google as possible. We use instead of, instead of, hotmail instead of Gmail. I don’t wish Google ill, I simply give my business and money to others because Google and I don’t see eye to eye. Thanks to NOT having NN, there are plenty of options for me to choose from.

So, I’ll be keeping my eye on I’ll spend time encouraging them to achieve true neutrality. If they can’t or won’t, I’ll be moving on. When their number of hits drops off or their membership becomes so incestuous as to be revolting, they may stop to ask why. But maybe not. Or maybe it will be too late. This is, after all, a competition. And as I said at first, give all sides equal access and may the best side win.

The first step in that process is to ‘Just Say No’ to Net Neutrality.

Not all that neutral on the issue of Net Neutrality …


6 March 2007

Moving Towards a Movement …

Posted in: Blogroll, Humor, Conservative, Individual Responsibility, Politics — Blue Collar Muse @ 6:25 am

Over at Eric Odom’s Blog there’s a great post titled ‘Conservatives Need to Stop Protecting the Wolves’. He says what I’ve been thinking for awhile only he says it better. Among other things, Eric writes:

…one of the most common things I was lectured on by party insiders while on the campaign trail is the “11th Commandment”. The commandment is mentioned by state GOP parties across the country in an attempt to get true Conservatives to back off of the GOP machine and give them some breathing room. The commandment is very simple. “Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican”.

When will we knock it off and start holding these people accountable for allowing the fabric of our great country to be ripped to shreds? When will we rally and demand Reagan style government OR ELSE?

I think the “11th Commandment” needs to be changed. I think it should read “Thou Shalt not speak ill of a fellow CONSERVATIVE”.

Liberals in sheep’s clothing are running rampant in our once great party, and I for one am sick and tired of us sticking up for them.

My blogging style is about to change. Nuff said.

Lest you think Eric and I are just a couple of snotting, whiny babies over in our lil’ corner of the Internet playpen, check out Richard Viguerie’s site, ‘Conservatives Betrayed’, and the results of a poll he took of visitors to his website and subscribers to his email newsletter.  Similar results were obtained polling CPAC attendees last week in Washington DC.  Richard asked:

Who was responsible for the Republicans’ disastrous defeats, including loss of control of the House and Senate, in the 2006 elections? Give us your choices of the top 10 people, groups, or factors that deserve the most blame for this debacle.

There were 31 options to choose from. The results may surprise you. There were 1055 self identified Republicans that responded. Of these, 810 or 76.77%, listed. “Conservative leaders who kept silent when the GOP became the party of Big Government.” as a reason, making it the #1 answer. Answer #6 of 10 is even more revealing. 497 or 47.1% of respondents chose “Conservative MEDIA that kept silent while the GOP became the party of Big Government” (emphasis added). Put bluntly, politically active players on the Right are of the opinion that NOT violating the 11th Commandment cost us big in November 2006. Many of them are promising that will not happen again.

Eric is one of them.

So am I.

So, what can one or two guys do? I’ll answer that by parodying someone likely located a tad farther left on the political spectrum than myself. Sung to the tune of ‘Alice’s Restaurant’, I give you ‘Eric Odom’s Blog’ (with apologies to Arlo) …

And the only reason I’m singing you this song now is cause you may know somebody in a similar situation, or you may be in a similar situation, and if you’re in a situation like that there’s only one thing you can do and that’s walk up to the GOP wherever you are, just walk up, say, “GOP, you can get anything you want, at Eric Odom’s Blog.”. And walk out.

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he’s really sick and they won’t listen. And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they’re both faggots and they won’t listen to either of them. And if three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin’ a bar of Eric Odom’s Blog and walking out? They may think it’s an organization. And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin’ a bar of Eric Odom’s Blog and walking out? And friends, they may think it’s a movement.

And that’s what it is, the Eric Odom’s Blog Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it come’s around on the guitar. With feeling …

You can get anything you want at Eric Odom’s Blog!

Hoping the guys from the Group W bench don’t show up to break my legs …


5 March 2007

A Cherry for the Chocolate City’s Sundae …

Posted in: Humor, Individual Responsibility, Business, Liberal, Politics — Blue Collar Muse @ 7:14 am

On August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina swept ashore and swept away the lives and livelihoods of tens of thousands of America’s Gulf Coast residents. In the days that followed, massive sums of money poured in from governments, corporations and citizens to help alleviate the suffering caused by the storm. 18 months later, there are still funds heading to the Gulf Coast as it continues the rebuilding process.

Unfortunately, with billions at stake, some cannot resist padding or fabricating losses to get more than their share of relief funds. Given the darker parts of human nature, we should not be surprised.

Just how bad is it? By December of 2005, the Wall Street Journal reported the number of federal fraud cases exceeded 1,000 as criminals filed bogus claims against funds earmarked for disaster relief. By December of 2006, fraud by these individuals topped the $1 billion mark and CBS news reported that figure could swell to $2 billion in 2007 as corporate contracts were let where fraud would involve larger amounts.

Generally speaking, criminals make at least token efforts to conceal their activities. After all, penalties for fraud involve fines and jail time that would seriously cut into their efforts at spending their swag.

Imagine my surprise, then, when I read the story World Net Daily linked to from reporting on what may be the single largest attempt at fraud ever, let alone the largest involving Katrina. And it appears to be being done, as my country friends would say, “Right out in the open in front of God and everybody!”

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, in an apparent effort to make up for losses stemming from his negligence, poor planning and failure to live up to the responsibility New Orleans voters placed in him, has decided the city should sue the US Army Corps of Engineers alleging that, “…poor design and negligence by the corps led to the failure of flood walls and levees.” New Orleans is asking for $77 BILLION in damages.

Not to worry! The feds only designated an original total of $63 billion for Katrina. In the last 18 months Mayor Nagin has surely documented the full extent of New Orleans’ losses and it’s far more than anyone suspected. That’s where the $77 billion figure came from. That’s what you’d think. But you’d be wrong.

According to CNN,

Only $1 billion of the $77 billion the city is seeking from the Army Corps of Engineers is for infrastructure damages it says it suffered because of levee breaches during Hurricane Katrina. The rest is for such things as the city’s tarnished image and tourist industry losses.

The city “looked at everything and just kind of piled it on,” Mayor Ray Nagin said.

“We got some advice from some attorneys to be aggressive with the number, and we’ll see what happens,” he said.

The city attorney’s office also considered such things as “decreases in the city’s image, tourist industry activity and potential business industry, losses in the tax base and generated revenue, and a decrease in the city’s overall population,” in making the assessment, according to a statement from City Hall.

A spokeswoman for the mayor could not explain how the city quantified losses not tied to infrastructure. A 43-page form filed with the corps, reserving the city’s right to sue for $77 billion, also provides little insight. It does not quantify “loss of tax revenue,” for example, and supporting documents for city-owned properties, such as a police crime lab and libraries, omit any estimates of property values or flood-related damages, The Times-Picayune newspaper reported Saturday.

We got some advice from some attorneys?? We just kind of piled it on??

I’ll say this for ‘Hizzoner’ - his future certainly looks bright. Anyone who can devise a credible evacuation plan with the help of federal dollars but fail to implement it due to local inefficiency; follow that up with accusing the federal government of moving slowly to respond to a crisis while refusing to answer for his local lack of effort to protect his city; then, get re-elected as Mayor despite his dereliction of duty; and, finish strong suing the federal government for more without even trying to cover up sloppy local ‘research’ supporting the suit - the sky is the limit for a man like that!

The 2008 election season is still young. If Mayor Nagin can pull this one off, perhaps he can be the Dems counter to Giuliani as “The Mayor we can depend on to come through for us in a time of crisis” and seek the Dems nomination for the Presidency.

Thinking Mayor Nagin should instead be nominated for the part of ‘Nuts’ on the federal Chocolate Sundae New Orleans is becoming …


4 March 2007

Corporate Crud from the Minds at Merck …

Posted in: Individual Responsibility, Business — Blue Collar Muse @ 8:16 am

One of my closest friends is not quite the rabid capitalist that I fancy myself. He’s more of the opinion that corporations are evil, bloodsucking entities who’s sole purpose is the personal enrichment of a few people (known as corporate officers) by offering a product or service cleverly packaged as something of benefit in order to quickly separate consumers from their hard earned dollars and accomplish the aforementioned enriching of corporate officers as expeditiously as possible.

While I cannot, in good conscience, agree that his evaluation of corporate behavior is totally without merit (can you say, “Enron!”? - I thought so …), I am unable to paint all corporate entities the same color with that broad a brush. Still, every now and then, a company waves it’s hand and begs for a chromatic make-over. The latest candidate seems to be Merck.

The drug maker recently announced it developed a vaccine, Gardasil, preventing women from catching some versions of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV). This is significant as the covered HPVs cause about 70% of cervical cancers. Thus, if HPV can be prevented so can the cancers springing from it. At first blush, that’s a grand service, well spent R&D dollars and corporate America at it’s best.

The problems start when Merck begins marketing Gardasil. Key elements of their marketing strategy as reported at The Kaiser Network are as follows:

FDA in July 2006 approved Gardasil for sale and marketing to girls and women ages nine to 26, and CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices later that month voted unanimously to recommend that girls ages 11 and 12 receive the vaccine. Merck last year began lobbying state legislatures to pass laws mandating that middle school age girls receive Gardasil. Merck also supports requiring private insurers to cover Gardasil, which costs $360 and is administered in three injections given over six months, as well as funding for programs that help defray vaccine costs for low-income and uninsured children.

The problems with this approach are legion and began surfacing when Texas Governor Rick Perry (R) recently mandated vaccination of Texas elementary school girls by Fall of 2008. A large number of other states are also considering similar legislation.

The problems with Merck’s approach include but are not limited to:

1) A private corporation wants the government to market and distribute for them. If states pass these propsed laws it would be, practically speaking, illegal not to do business with Merck; 2) Instead of lowering prices to gain market share, Merck contributes to out-of-control, upward spiraling health care costs by supporting requirements (I assume also via legislation) that private insurers cover the full price of their vaccine; and, 3) Support for legislative funding making Gardasil available to low income and uninsured children means Merck, unsatisfied with forcing private companies to pay for their product now insist taxpayers also do the same.

Next came challenges from the private sector ominously known as ‘the religious community’. They dared suggest requiring elementary school girls be vaccinated against a medical condition only contracted via sexual intercourse would seem to state girls can’t be trusted to abstain from sex and thus accomplish Merck’s stated goal without Merck’s wonder drug. It’s one thing to vaccinate against something you can get by being sneezed on at the mall and quite another to try preventing something contracted in the back seat of a Chevy. Maybe if we vaccinated against cars …

Hopefully this next chapter will prove the end of Merck’s efforts at compelling the country to buy their product. It seems vaccinating elementary school girls may not be all that effective at accomplishing Merck’s goal of preventing cervical cancer. Not because Gardasil doesn’t work. But because to actually prevent cervical cancer, the vaccine is better given to older women. The HPV Gardasil interdicts takes 10 to 15 years to produce the cancer. The average age for women contracting the cancer is in the 40s. Thus, to keep within Gardasil’s 5 year window of protection from HPV, females being vaccinated ought to be MUCH older than 6th graders.

I don’t think it’s too late for Merck to back up and punt. But the longer they delay, the worse it will go for them. On the heels of their Vioxx debacle, they can’t afford more bad press. And it can’t hurt if we contact Merck to let them know that we’d appreciate them being quick about it.

Hoping my friend isn’t right that 99% of corporations give the other 1% a bad name …


3 March 2007

Short and Sweet …

Posted in: Humor, Short and Sweet, Immigration — Blue Collar Muse @ 7:59 pm

Thanks to James W. for sending me this insightful bite of Immigration goodness …

“The American Indians found out what happens when you don’t control immigration.”

Ignorant as to who said this originally as it came without provenance but thinking it’s no less true for being anonymous …


Good for both Goose and Gander …

Posted in: Blogroll, Conservative, Individual Responsibility, Liberal — Blue Collar Muse @ 10:09 am

When you’re right, you’re right.  But the reverse - when you’re wrong, you’re wrong - is just as true.  It’s easy to condemn an offender if he is also your opponent.  Being critical of allies is more difficult.  Morality, however, is an equal opportunity judge.  If someone is wrong, they are wrong no matter what their affiliations are.

That brings me to Ann Coulter’s widely reported remarks about John Edwards at the CPAC.  For the record, I really like Ann.  I like her ‘take no prisoners’ style of writing. I like her unapologetic defense of Conservative ideas and ideals.  I like her courage out there on the frontier, beyond the cutting edge, leading the charge.

Living in her very glass house, it is easy to undertand she might say something off the cuff or on live TV that she might later regret.  It is more difficult to understand her CPAC comment as it is easily construed as a prepared remark. Either way, her reference to Edwards as a ‘faggot’ was out of and over the line.  It called to mind, ironically, a 2004 Kerry-Edwards fundraiser where Whoopi Goldberg, darling of the Left, made obscene jokes about President Bush.

Right wing objection to WG’s monologue was immediate and appropriate.  Similarly, I am adding my voice to those condemning Ann for her bad judgement in insulting Edwards. She should apologize. Her comment was unnecessary, crude and as far as anyone knows - untrue. Ann is good enough she doesn’t need to stoop to cheap shots. She’s made a career out of saying things in ways that others don’t - not crudely but intelligently.

Recalling WG’s rant, it is notable that only the Right condemned the comic.  The Left ignored or excused the transgression and moved on.  Kerry praised the night’s performers giving tacit approval to her diatribe.  The most emotional response from the Left came when WG lost a sponsorship deal because of her remarks. The Left seldom condemns one of its own.  That truth is amply illustrated by their response to the likes of Bill Clinton, William Jefferson, John Murtha and the Ford family of Tennessee to name just a few.

The Left will also condemn Coulter’s remarks, as they should.  That they will also demand she be offered up as a sacrifice on the altar of bi-partisan unity is expected hyperbole.  The difference is there are many on the Right that will join in condemning our beloved, blonde bombshell.  To recap, when you’re wrong, you’re wrong!

The one saying it best so far is Ilya Somin over at The Volokh Conspiracy. She wrote:

It would be easy to point to various prominent leftists who have made equally reprehensible statements (though only a select few have made as many as Coulter), and I could probably write a lengthy post cataloging their assorted rhetorical sins. Ultimately, however, the stench of the other side’s dirty laundry is no excuse for failing to wash your own.

That would seem to sum it up quite nicely.

Wondering why people so consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory …


27 February 2007

When Life Imitates Art …

Posted in: Individual Responsibility, Liberal, Politics — Blue Collar Muse @ 7:57 pm

One of my most vivid childhood memories is finding a picture in a coffee table book on the art of famous painters. Amidst the pious Madonnas, the agonizingly crucified Saviors, the curved and plump depictions of femininity and the various other expressions of ‘Ars gratia artis’ was de Goya’s piece ‘Satan devouring his children’.

Since then, the painting and the concept behind it have rattled around in the back of my mind. For example, from my perspective as a Christian, I’ve wondered what homicide bombers think, in the first moments of existence on the other side of eternity, when they realize what awaits them is not the 72 virgins they were promised.

To believe something, to heavily invest in it emotionally only to have it let you down when you need it most, is devastating. This is true of ideology and also of relationships - relationships in general and of the relationship with our parents in particular. With the possible exception of relationship with a spouse, no other relationship means more to us than the one we have with our parents.

Whether your relationship with your parents is good or bad, you understand what’s at stake. If it’s good, you remember the fear it might not turn out to really be that way at some point. If it’s bad, you already understand from experience more painful than most will ever know.

CCM artist Bob Bennett penned a lyric many years ago that established the goal. He wrote, “There’s no such thing as divorce/between a father and a son/between a daddy and his daughter.” Put bluntly, good parents don’t betray the trust their kids put in them. For my mother, true to her Missouri farm girl roots, it was rather less dainty. Parents who wouldn’t live up to their responsibilities didn’t deserve to draw another breath. Farm animals that didn’t care for their young were killed. Problem solved.

Enter Goya and his art. Satan is evil. We all understand that. But Goya’s painting evokes a strong response and heightens the devil’s heinousness. Many of his servants, no doubt, use him as much as he uses them. Bad boys, they earn their wage playing with a bad boy badder than themselves. They took their shot and failed. But what of those more innocent, to whom the father of lies whispers enticing promises in order to bind them to him with no intention of keeping his end of the bargain? What of those whom Satan devours?

Such is the picture, the dilemma and the emotion Goya’s painting evokes. But it’s all hypothetical. It’s just a painting after all. It’s just art. I can identify with the feeling but I’m safe because the people I trust wouldn’t turn on me like that. That is, until life imitates art.

We’re about to enter (actually, it looks as if we have already entered) the primary season for the 2008 presidential election. If the recent past is any indicator, it is going to be a rough ride for Democrats. Republicans tend to be more private in their differences. Reagan established the boundaries with, ‘Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican!’ Republicans disagree with their colleagues but they tend to do it more discreetly. There are exceptions, of course, but nothing that comes close to recent doings on the Left.

First there was Joe Lieberman. A Democrat Senator since 1989 and his party’s candidate for VP in 2000, Joe dared to break with his party on one issue, that of the war in Iraq. For his chutzpah, he was made a pariah and his own party supported another Democrat to take his Senate seat in 2006. A sitting Senator opposed by his own party after years spent supporting that party yet differing with it on just one issue!

Now David Geffen publicly insults, of all people, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Need I say she is a sitting Democrat Senator and former First Lady? Democrats running to her defense are conspicuous in their absence. Geffen and others now flocking to the bandwagon of B Obama, the new darling of the Left, have only scorn and insult for the one they formerly fawned over and lionized. Loyal Democrats publicly, intentionally and mercilessly thrown under the bus when their perceived value is diminished and their talents no longer needed. Satan devouring his children …

Understand, I’m not calling Democrats Satan or satanic or even evil. I’m wondering what is going through the minds of Lieberman, Clinton and their peers when the party discards them so casually? Do any wonder if they are next? Which of today’s icons will bleed tomorrow’s ichor? Who is currently bulletproof but will be felled in a hail of rhetorical gunfire tomorrow? Is anyone asking himself, don’t my years of faithful service count for anything? Does anyone feel betrayed by the father that loved them, lured them and then left them?

Resisting the urge to close with, “Bon appetit!” …


25 February 2007

This Bang is all about the Bucks …

Posted in: America First, Iraq, 2nd Ammendment, War, US Military — Blue Collar Muse @ 8:26 am

Last night, my wife and I watched the movie ‘Hitch’.  Near the end the female lead, Sarah,  says, “Maybe this is an example of ‘Let’s go our own ways and everything will be fine.’”  Hitch responds, “What if ‘fine’ isn’t good enough?  What if I want extraordinary?’  Sarah responds, “It doesn’t exist.”

Well, ‘Extraordinary!’ may not exist, but ‘Better than what we have now.’ will always be an option - especially when talking about technology.  There is always room for improvement.  Just because something is better, however, doesn’t mean we rush to buy the next generation microwave, tv or whatever.  I’ll eventually have a flat panel, HD, 42″ television but for the moment my old school, cable ready, clunker will have to do.

But for US troops risking everything in Iraq, Afghanistan and a score of places not mentioned on the nightly news, it should be different.  We’ve heard stories about our troops not having the best gear available keeping them safe and allowing them to kill people and blow things up.  We’ve heard about body armor and vehicle armor.  Now, the conversation extends to basic weaponry.

This morning I found an ArmyTimes article on the H&K 416, currently being fielded by US SpecOps units. The 416 is unlikely to be available to regular units anytime soon, despite evidence it is superior to their current M4s and M16s. The reasons are, 1) it costs too much to change over the entire US military to the 416, possibly as much as a billion dollars; and, 2) the 416 doesn’t make a big enough leap forward in technology over our current weaponry to warrant the change.

This means a new application of current technology likely to save lives and increase both offensive and defensive capability won’t be made available because it costs a billion dollars while, as reported by Joe Galloway, we can give away $12 billion for other things with no financial accountability.

This is an outrage!  Contact your elected officials and the Pentagon and tell them to do whatever is necessary to get the best gear to our troops and cost be damned. I can think of few better uses for tax dollars and several less important ones.

Wondering why the people in charge seem to reflexively make the wrong choices …


22 February 2007

Buzzwords and the Left …

Posted in: Humor, Liberal — Blue Collar Muse @ 10:09 pm

James W.  sent me a list of the top 13 buzzwords of 2006 as chosen by the readers at BuzzWhack. I took the liberty of editing their list down to the 10 I thought best represented politicians in general and Liberals in particular.

Feel free to include these in your daily conversation. As an example of how these might be used, given the recent flame-out Presidential wannabe H. R. Clinton had when former friend and former fundraiser David Geffen hopped on board the B. Obama bandwagon, the following statement would be appropriate (see #5 below):

“Didja’ hear about Geffen jumping ship to Obama’s camp? Yeah? Wow, he REALLY plutoed ol’ Hillary, didn’t he?”

Have fun devising other amusing observations using the buzzwords below!

1. Blamestorming: A group process where participants analyze a failed project and look for scapegoats other than themselves.

2. Death by Tweakage: When a product or project fails due to unnecessary tinkering or too many last-minute revisions.

3. BMWs: Bitchers, Moaners and Whiners.

4. Clockroaches: Employees who spend most of their day watching the clock - instead of doing their jobs.

5. Plutoed: To be unceremoniously dumped or relegated to a lower position without an adequate reason or explanation.

6. Carbon-based Error: Error caused by a human, not a computer (which we assume would be a silicon-based error).

7. Menoporsche: Male menopause. Symptoms include a sudden lack of energy, crankiness and the overpowering urge to buy a Porsche.

8. Adminisphere: The upper levels of management where big, impractical, and counterproductive decisions are made.

9. Deja-Poo: The feeling that you’ve stepped in this bull before.

10. Bobbleheading: The mass nod of agreement by participants in a meeting to comments made by the boss even though most have no idea what he/she just said.

Keeping it loose … keeping it light … keeping it Left for comic relief …


To Page 2 »

Powered by mijzelf !! en MainCore