Post-Partisan Presidential Politics?

AS OF NOW we here at WardensWorld -- the monumentally influential Internet Weblog -- are offically endorsing John Edwards for President in 2008 (that's in the unlikely event that there is an election and that the Bush$Cheney Crime Family actually plans on vacating the premises at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue). We see a ticket headed by the North Carolina populist, he of the Two America's stump speech and a renewed war on poverty, with Illinois Senator Barack Obama as VP, being pretty dang near unbeatable (in the unlikely event that they actually count all the votes this time).

But we have always had a soft spot here for Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel -- he of the long-held, laser-like and well-honed antipathy toward the totally corrupt, subliterate, draft-dodging, war-mongerer presently occupying the White House and his disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. And it is clear that we're far from the only ones with Hagel For Prez fever. However, we remember reading that Hagel had all but abandoned those plans some time ago, mostly on the basis of lukewarm national support and lack of sufficient fundage to launch a successful campaign.

Now comes word from none other than the Dean of Inside the Beltway Punditry and Bush Toady No. 1, formally known as David S. Broder, that perhaps it's not too late for a Hagel run. And just who would complete this admittedly longshot ticket? None other than Mayor Moneybags himself: Michael Rubens Bloomberg. The diminutive philanthropist, whose worth is still in the billions even after giving away millions to charity, would solve the money problems of Hagel literally overnight. All puns intended, I was never a big fan of Bloomberg, despising his short-sighted plan to build a sports stadium on the West Side of Manhattan as well as his attempt to bring the Olympic games to New York City. But lately I've been willing to overlook his shortcomings due to his standing tall in the face of opposition to his traffic congestion plans, which even a vertically challenged pygmy can see is critical to the future of New York City.

Hagel still hasn't officially decided to run, but if he does it will likely leave the sinking GOP ship and run as an Independent. Just a few months ago, Bloomie did likewise, switching his party affiliation from Republican to Independent. There's just something about Chuck Hagel that we find appealing, whether it's due to his blue collar Middle American heartland values, his seemingly complete lack of artifice or pretension, the genuine integrity and honesty that define his 12-year record in the Senate, or maybe it's just the idea of a U.S. Senator calling himself "Chuck" as opposed to the more formal-sounding "Charles" -- which somehow doesn't seem like it was focus group tested or politically calculated (unlike, say, Charles "Chuck" Schumer).

As Broder himself puts it in a recent column straightforwardly titled Hagel And Bloomberg For 2008?:

"While Washington is gridlocked in partisan battle between two equally spent parties, the country is moving rapidly, (Hagel) thinks, to the conclusion that neither Republicans nor Democrats have the answers to the problems people see. The war in Iraq is the prime example, a war on which Hagel was perhaps the first prominent Republican to break with the president. Credit problems that have shaken the mortgage markets and fed the decline in housing add to the sense of anxiety. And the abject failure of Washington to deal with the issue of illegal immigration is fueling further frustration.

The common thread to all these problems, he says, is leadership -- and leadership is precisely what Bloomberg demonstrates every day as mayor of New York, following his success as a financial publisher. "A guy like Bloomberg could have deep credibility as a candidate," Hagel said. "He's a fresh face and a proven leader. It could be he'd release a dynamic that would be an answer for many people."

Now while we don't agree with Hagel on a host of social issues, on which the good Senator is still too conservative for our tastes, on the seminal issue of our time -- the disastrous war in Iraq and wrongheaded GOP designs for its foolhardy expansion into still more dangerous theaters -- we are in complete agreement. Plus, it can't be overestimated that because the decorated Vietnam veteran has seen actual combat and thus knows the true horrors of battle, he will be more reluctant to turn to military might as a solution to every world problem. This alone is enough to make Hagel stand out from the howling pack of bellicose war hounds and counterfeit commandos manning the GOP debate podiums, often spouting little more than singularly simple-minded variations on "Extinguish 'Em All & Let A Merciful Higher Deity Sort 'Em Out."

So in short (there we go again), don't throw away those Hagel For President buttons just yet. Far from collectors' items, there may be a more practical use for them. And who among us would not relish a series of Chuck Hagel versus Hillary Clinton versus Rudolph Ghouliani face-offs?

Another Payne-Fully Offensive Vick Defense

Add "distinguished journalist" and one-time Pulitzer Prize winner Les Payne to the long list of misguided defenders and excuse-makers for dog-killer Michael Vick. I had always had respect for the no-nonsense prose style of Payne, and more often than not agreed with his take on politics. But in this Sunday's New York Newsday Payne crossed the line from apology to mindlessly play the race card, and with it set a new low for journalism in the process. His column, boorishly titled Is Michael Vick at the mercy of the pack?, makes Deion Sanders' by now notoriously obtuse defense of his fellow overpaid, sheltered athlete seem like the cogent, well-executed essays of a Michel de Montaigne. The comments following the piece, to which I proudly added my own disgust, are almost uniformly outraged by Payne's many breaches of logic and common decency, such as the following beauts:

"It's a likely bet that Vick loves his dogs the way trainers love their fighters. He likely puts them down, by whatever brutal means, for the same unfortunate reasons that rodeos kill passive bulls and trainers shoot injured horses."

"Vick has been unnerved into plea-bargaining by a snarling posse of dog lovers, a hanging judge, the zanies of PETA and the sporting press - all hell-bent on dishing out the kind of justice long practiced in the Cradle of the Confederacy."

"One might imagine that instead of fighting dogs and animal carcasses, the feds found an al-Qaida training camp on Vick's property. When Stephon Marbury supported Vick as a "good human being" who "fell into a bad situation," the charitable Knicks star was himself mauled as "one sick puppy."

Most of the tiresome arguments spouted by Payne seem to be his way of keeping it real, saying, see, I write for a suburban newspaper but I can still relate to the "ghetto." Payne seems to believe that every black man who gets arrested is a victim of some sort of racism. No accountability for one's own behavior factors into the equation. Bringing up lynching in this case is disingenuous bordering on insane. And I personally would rather spend time with "zanies" who speak for the defenseless -- animals being tortured in medical experiments by cosmetic companies, for instance -- than with people like Vick who inflict pain and suffering on fellow living beings.

Toward the end of the mercifully short piece, Payne makes mention of William Rhoden, a clueless New York Times columnist who wrote a book ludicrously called "Forty-Million-Dollar-Slaves" in which he puts forth the fraudulent, counterfeit proposition that the modern black athlete, although well compensated financially, is nothing more than modern day chattel, with the modern sports field nothing more than a glorified plantation. I kid you not. On so many levels the argument is embarrassing for its sophistry and total lack of connection to reality. That Payne chooses to highlight this harebrained fantasy leaves no room for doubt that he has crossed over to a mephitic region where reason and common sense hold little sway.

Stephon Marbury was rightly pilloried for his uninformed, crude opinions on the Vick case ("From what I hear, dogfighting is a sport. It's just behind closed doors and I think it's tough that we build Michael Vick up and then we break him down ... I think he fell into a bad situation.") -- or is it racism to point out that a black man said something stupid and just plain morally reprehensible, and in so doing proved his overall lack of intelligence. If so, I have no problem being called a racist. Because Payne is obviously a racist himself.

I'm not sure what to make of NAACP leader RL White's equally spurious defense of Vick's actions: "As a society, we should aid in his rehabilitation and welcome a new Michael Vick back into the community without a permanent loss of his career in football. We further ask the NFL, Falcons, and the sponsors not to permanently ban Mr. Vick from his ability to bring hours of enjoyment to fans all over this country." With this tortured logic, it seems White is suggesting entertainers and sports heroes should be held to a different standard than the rest of us who commit felonious crimes. I don't know about you, but Vick's absence from the NFL this year -- and hopefully many years to come -- will not detract from my enyoyment quotient one iota. To the contrary, I salute Commissioner Roger Goodell's tough stance on the Vick fiasco, as do most longtime fans of the league.

But let's return to more of Payne's convoluted claptrap. The most outrageous part of the Payne piece is that if Vick weren't a famous black ballplayer he wouldn't be even writing a column about the case and all but says so himself. In fact, Payne contends that Vick has somehow suffered enough already, and he doesn't want him spending even a day in jail, despite the fact that no contrition or accountability has been voiced by the ex-QB. To the contrary, Payne counts himself among the few who are perceptive enough to see the unvarnished truth, who are willing to do the "right thing" here, although he realizes it's an unpopular stance, as evidenced by the astute conclusion he draws regarding how justice in this high profile case can best be served:

"So who in the media demands fair play for Vick? So far only a select few, knowing black columnists, uneasy about the judicial treatment of black males, have dared speak out. Justice demands not only that the innocent be left alone but that the guilty be given due process and treated fairly, even if convicted.

Precedence in recent high-profile cases offers an opening for Vick, a first-offender, to be judged to have suffered enough. His livelihood should not be destroyed for this offense that he so deeply regrets and is certain never again to commit. He should not serve a single day in prison."

I say this to Mr. Payne: How dare you speak of justice and mercy? Where was the justice and the mercy toward these poor dogs? You're a sorry excuse for a human being if you cast your lot in with Vick and other animal killers. And did you peer into Vick's soul or even speak with him lately to know with certainty his deep regret, not to mention his eventual rehabilitation? A jury of his peers, if you can find 12 such lowlife scumbags, will decide if he has suffered enough, and they will sit in judgment. Then if you don't like the verdict handed down, you and others of your enabling ilk can scream and moan all you want about how the black man can get no justice in a white man's world and other such rhetoric. What's unfortunate is that when there is a case of blatant injustice involving a racist court decision or the railroading of an innocent man, people will hearken back to sentiments like those proffered here by Payne and automatically dismiss it as the raving of someone who sees prejudice and racism behind every door.

Payne, White, Marbury, Sanders and all the other legal scholars who leap to Vick's defense without even a cursory perusal of the most rudimentary facts of the case not only do more harm than good to already strained race relations in this country, but also bring to mind that famous quote by Abraham Lincoln:

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Anyway, for what it's worth, here's my official comment to Mr. Payne posted on the Newsday Website, one of 190 currently posted:

"I just lost all respect for Les Payne. Instead of making it a right versus wrong thing, he makes it a black versus white thing. It's OJ Simpson all over again. To say that Vick loves the dogs he put down is more than sick, it's a disgrace that Payne voices such opinions. As I said, I will never look at Payne the same way again. To point out other wrongs, even if worse transgressions, does nothing to diminish Vick's hideous behavior."

Maybe if enough people weigh in and leave comments or write a letter to the editor, Payne will see the error of his dimwitted defense of an unrepentant thug. But I'm not holding my breath. I am usually against censorship, but this column was so disturbing as to at least warrant a suspension of Payne if he refuses to offer an apology of his own. If not, then his termination at least should be considered by the paper's management. Of course, you can bet that then Mr. Payne will again play the race card to the fullest, only in his case the card is a Joker with his own mug on it.
See also:

Who Let the Dopes Out?

Out of their minds

They said it

It's a madhouse

Losing heads

American crazies

Condemned To Repeat?

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." -- Albert Einstein

Is it just me or has there been a head-spinning amount of political news and developments over the last coupla weeks? Okay, then it is just me. But seriously, you miss the news for a day or two and it's hard to catch up -- kinda like missing a few days of class and then showing up for that big exam at the end of the week: You know you're just gonna have to kind of wing it. Well, there's no winging it here on WardensWorld, just an honest attempt to make some sense out of the winding down of the consensus worst administration in the recorded annals of the republic. So let's begin, shall we? And yes, all this will be on the test.

Sure, Karl Rove is a toxic pig-faced gnome, as hateful as he is despised, and richly deserves all the scorn thrown his way the last week or so after announcing he was leaving the White House next month. But my favorite piece of the week finds Scott Ritter justly demolishing what's left of Dick Cheney's rep with a blistering denunciation of Vice, the real power behind the clown, er throne, in a piece for Truthdig.com titled Why Cheney Really Is That Bad. Not one to beat around the Bush, the combative Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector, argues this is no time for niceties or subtleties, and this may surprise you but we here at WardensWorld happen to agree with him wholeheartedly. Here's an excerpt but it's an absolute must read from start to finish:

"The vice president is the single greatest threat to American and international security in the world today. Not Osama Bin Laden. Not the ghost of Saddam Hussein. Not Ahmadinejad or Kim Jung Il. Not al-Qaida, the Taliban, or Jose Padilla himself. Not even George W. Bush can lay claim to this title. It is Dick Cheney's alone. Operating in a never-never land of constitutional ambiguity which exists between the office of the president and the Congress of the United States, Cheney's office has made its impact felt on the policies of the United States of America as had no vice president's office before him. Granted unprecedented oversight over national security and foreign policy by executive order in early 2001, many months prior to the terror attacks of 9/11, Cheney has single-handedly steered America away from being a nation among nations (albeit superior), operating (roughly) in accordance with the rule of law, and toward its present manifestation as the new Rome, a decadent imperial power bent on global domination whatever the cost.

The absolute worst of the rot that has infected America because of the policies and actions of the Bush administration has originated from the office of the vice president. The nonsensical response to the terror attacks of 9/11, seeking a "global war" versus defending the rule of law at home and abroad, taking the lead in spreading the lies that got us involved in Iraq, legitimizing torture as a tool of American jurisprudence, advocating for warrantless wiretappings of U.S.-based communications (regardless of what the Fourth Amendment says against illegal search and seizure), and pushing for an expansion of America's global conflict into Iran-all can be traced back to the person of Cheney as the point of origin.

America today is very much engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the forces of evil. The enemy resides not abroad, however, but at home, vested in the highest offices of the land. Neither Osama Bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein threatened the life blood of the United States-the Constitution-to the extent that Cheney has. Not Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Ho Chi Minh. Not since the American Civil War has there been a constitutional crisis of the magnitude that exists today, threatening to rip the very fabric of American society apart at the seams, courtesy of Dick Cheney."

By the way, you know the little war we're fighting, the one to topple a dictator and spread democracy across the region, the one in which almost 4,000 U.S. soldiers have died in combat, with tens of thousands more suffering severe, life-altering injuries? Turns out democracy is not the true endgame anymore, at least according to the people actually charged with running this fiasco:

"Nightmarish political realities in Baghdad are prompting American officials to curb their vision for democracy in Iraq. Instead, the officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security.

A workable democratic and sovereign government in Iraq was one of the Bush administration's stated goals of the war.

But for the first time, exasperated front-line U.S. generals talk openly of non-democratic governmental alternatives, and while the two top U.S. officials in Iraq still talk about preserving the country's nascent democratic institutions, they say their ambitions aren't as "lofty" as they once had been.

"Democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future," said Brig. Gen. John "Mick" Bednarek, part of Task Force Lightning in Diyala province, one of the war's major battlegrounds."

Of course, with this autocratic bunch in charge, "democratic institutions" may not necessarily apply for this country's long-term future either, as this administration has demonstrated their supreme impatience with the messy ramifications of actually listening to people who don't agree with them or their failed policies. Exhibit A might just might be this shockingly revealing internal White House document obtained by the ACLU in a Freedom of Information lawsuit that instructs staff on how to deal with those pesky demonstrators.

"The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for "folded cloth signs," it advises.

To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says.

"These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators," it says. "The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."

Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: "If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator's effect."

The manual adds in bold type: "Remember -- avoid physical contact with demonstrators! Most often, the demonstrators want a physical confrontation. Do not fall into their trap!" And it suggests that advance staff should "decide if the solution would cause more negative publicity than if the demonstrators were simply left alone." Washington Post.com/2007/08/21/White House Manual Details How To With Protesters

Hey, maybe President Bush, who Karl Rove insists has read 94 books in the past year, really does know what's best for the rest of us and we should all fall in line accordingly, like well drilled soldiers in a time of war. Maybe the distinguished Yale grad really did have it right the other day when he compared his own reckless, unnecessary, preemptive disaster of a war to the unnecessary invasion and ultimately fruitless slaughter and carnage that defined another generation's involvement in another country's brutal civil war: Vietnam.

But unfortunately, like another paranoid, insulated president who couldn't admit a mistake, Richard Nixon, this present occupant of the White House is not content to unleash chaos and misery on just one nation, but instead his administration seeks to imprint their trademark incompetence and misreading of history to other nation-states. And just as our illegal bombing and shortsighted bungling in the internecine affairs of Cambodia set the stage for the extreme political radicalization that led to the ascension of the Khmer Rouge, there's no telling what disasters our misguided meddling into Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon will lead to.
Now, many historians will tell you that Bush couldn't be more wrong in his conflating the present situation in the Middle East with our long military campaign in the Far East:

"Bush and defenders of the current war and Vietnam ignore crucial aspects of history, however. Vietnam by 1975 had been wracked by a brutal fratricidal war for over a quarter-century, and recriminations were unavoidable, and made inevitable by the nature of the U.S. intervention and occupation of the southern half of Vietnam.

Now, as in the Vietnam era, the United States finds itself in a similarly intractable position. By intervening in a country that was not stable to begin with, putting a government into power that is derided as a U.S. client regime, heightening internal struggles, this time between Shiite and Sunni, taking sides in a civil war, causing massive destruction, and continuing to fight amid escalating bloodshed abroad and popular protest at home, the Bush administration is making many of the same errors that the Johnson and Nixon administrations did during the Vietnam War. While there does not appear to be a genocidal Khmer Rouge-type group lurking in the background and ready to cause incalculable terror, there is no question that the various armed groups that have emerged in Iraq since March 2003 are certain to persist and cause greater mayhem and death, perhaps throughout the entire Middle East.

So Bush's analogy is not only incorrect, but exposes the perhaps unavoidable fate facing the United States in Iraq. Continuing this war amid the daily deterioration will only prolong the time it will take to rebuild Iraq and try to heal the hatred and fear that now engulfs it. The sooner the United States begins a timely withdrawal from Iraq, the sooner the Iraqis themselves can begin to sort out their problems, and hopefully prevent a repeat of the killing fields of Cambodia."

And Bush isn't the only modern pol who apparently chooses to ignore the actual history and lessons of the Vietnam War and its bloody, brutal spillover into Cambodia, what with Rudy Giuliani offering an incredible conclusion on how and why we "lost" that conflict. In a long essay for Foreign Affairs magazine, which has already been torn apart by innumerable critics, we get an open window into Rudy's take on the whole wide world -- a take which is startling not only for its consistent misreading of the seminal events of the past century, but more to the point it's stone cold scary for the glimpse it gives us into the foreign policy proposals a Giuliani administration would be inflicting on an unsuspecting world. Despite sacrificing the lives of almost 60,000 American men and women in that war, with again countless thousands more wounded both physically and mentally beyond recognition, Rootin' Tootin' Rudy thinks we senselessly cut and ran from that far corner of the globe while the battle was ready to be taken. Of course, it was a battle Chickenhawk Rudy wanted no part of, but he wants us all to know what if we just had shown some nerve, some fortitude, some guts, and didn't listen to all the damn protesters, we could have shown them commies that we meant business.

"America must remember one of the lessons of the Vietnam War. … Many historians today believe that by about 1972 we and our South Vietnamese partners had succeeded in defeating the Vietcong insurgency and in setting South Vietnam on a path to political self-sufficiency. But America then withdrew its support, allowing the communist North to conquer the South. The consequences were dire, and not only in Vietnam: numerous deaths in places such as the killing fields of Cambodia, a newly energized and expansionist Soviet Union, and a weaker America."

And just as the neoconmen responsible for selling us the Iraq war in the first place tell us about our own present war of occupation: even thinking of cutting our losses will lead to even more dire consequences and embolden the enemy. Never mind that we expect our leaders to be wise enough to refrain from expending precious resources on a battle is already lost, that it is folly to keep digging a hole you already can't climb out of, but as Fred Kaplan writes in Slate (Rudy the Anti-Statesman: Giuliani's Loopy Foreign-Policy Essay) about Rudy's simplistic reading of the Vietnam conflict:

Does he really believe this? What books have his advisers been giving him? The "South Vietnamese partners" were as corrupt and illegitimate as they come. The Khmer Rouge came to power amid a political vacuum that was spawned as much by Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia as by anything else. As for the "expansionist" Soviet Union, things didn't end very well for the Moscow Politburo. America, it is now widely agreed, was weakened by the Vietnam War, not by its termination. And, by the way, how about that "domino theory"? You'd think from his description that Southeast Asia has subsequently all gone Communist.

As another writer nailed it in a recent column fittingly entitled Rudy Giuliani: Confused, Ignorant or Deceitful (although personally I would substitute the word and for or!),

"That the former mayor is unsuited to be president is evident from his recent essay in Foreign Affairs. He is breathtakingly naive, shockingly irresponsible, and cynically dishonest in turn. Indeed, since this document was undoubtedly carefully drafted and vetted by his campaign staff and outside policy advisers, his personal instincts likely are even more extreme."

And the hits to Rudy's steadily worsening reputation keep on coming! Even within the pages of Time magazine, that bastion of mainstream media that once hailed Giuliani as America's Mayor and proclaimed him Person of the Year for 2001, grave doubts and extreme reservations are being voiced. Amanda Ripley examines the Rudy record behind the boasting and finds it alarmingly wanting. In Behind Giuliani's Tough Talk, she writes:

"Giuliani says he understands terrorism "better than anyone else running for President," and he certainly talks about it more than anyone else. But being a victim of terrorism, or the steely leader of a recovery, is not necessarily the same as understanding terrorism.
The evidence ... shows great, gaping weaknesses. Giuliani's penchant for secrecy, his tendency to value loyalty over merit and his hyperbolic rhetoric are exactly the kinds of instincts that counterterrorism experts say the U.S. can least afford right now. Giuliani's limitations are in fact remarkably similar to those of another man who has led the nation into a war without end.

Giuliani's record on managing New York City's emergency responders is more telling — and shows a more complicated leadership style than Americans saw on 9/11. "When we reflected on his tenure, we saw qualities that were not helpful," says Jamie Gorelick, a member of the 9/11 commission and former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration. "[For President], I think you want someone who is not polarizing. Someone who brings people together by the power of persuasion rather than the power of dictate. Someone who is considering of other points of view and ultimately decisive. And on all three scores, I have serious doubts about the Mayor."

More than anything else, counterterrorism experts interviewed by TIME cited Giuliani's campaign rhetoric as a cause for concern. He frequently conflates different threats, from Iraqi insurgents to al-Qaeda to Iran, into one monolithic dark force. He routinely compares the terrorism threat to the Holocaust and the cold war. In one 15-min. phone interview in August, Giuliani compared the terrorism threat with Nazism or communism six times. When I asked him if he risked exaggerating the threat, since most terrorist plots against the West are not the kind of attacks that will bring down a nation, he replied, "I'm not saying it would take down a country. What terrorism can do and has done is kill thousands and thousands of people. It's real, it's existential, it's independent of us."

Retired Lieut. General William Odom was director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan from 1985 to 1988. He calls Giuliani's terrorism rhetoric "the most delightful thing that al-Qaeda could want." And he laments that Giuliani isn't showing the stoicism he displayed on 9/11. "We need a President who cools it," says Odom, a senior fellow with the conservative Hudson Institute. As for Giuliani's analogy to the cold war, a period Odom knows rather well, he is unimpressed. "Jihadism is a mosquito bite compared to communism," he says. "Anybody who talks about terrorism this way is like a witch doctor."

Spot on, as our friends the Brits like to say!

Giuliani's Foreign Affairs piece is titled Toward a Realistic Peace, but don't be fooled by the misleading word peace: as you'd expect from a gung-ho warhawk who never met a conflict he wasn't comfortable sending someone else's sons to fight, Rudy is much more at home hiding behind a barrage of tough-guy prose proclaiming there's not a problem that can't be surmounted by the application of America's military might no matter where it takes place.

"The U.S. Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades. … We must also take a hard look at other requirements, especially in terms of submarines, modern long-range bombers, and in-flight refueling tankers."

But for all his trademark bluster, nowhere in the numbingly long-winded piece is it explained how all these lofty goals are to be accomplished given an American military that is already overstretched, worn down, and in poor morale. In case Rudy missed it, we're having trouble meeting the minimum monthly recruitment goals, even after foolishly lowering the qualifying standards for American soldierhood. Nor is it likewise explained how a nation deeply in debt, and already expending an obscene amount on defense, homeland security and intelligence can continue to fund what amount to expansionist, imperialistic, and in some cases nakedly aggressive colonial goals of empire.

"For 15 years, the de facto policy of both Republicans and Democrats has been to ask the U.S. military to do increasingly more with increasingly less. The idea of a post-Cold War 'peace dividend' was a serious mistake – the product of wishful thinking and the opposite of true realism. As a result of taking this dividend, our military is too small to meet its current commitments or shoulder the burden of any additional challenges that might arise. We must rebuild a military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges. When America appears bogged down and unready to face aggressors, it invites conflict ... The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system … Bush deserves credit for changing America's course on this issue. But progress needs to be accelerated."

So building a costly Star Wars-type "shield" to protect us would be a Giuliani priority, despite widespread belief that the system may never be workable. And not only would it cost some $10 billion a year to build, but even a perfectly operational system may do nothing to protect the next terrorist attack. Let's hope Rudy's next missive contains an infusion of actual logic into his grand design for world domination, because this one is frightening in its lack of diplomacy and insistence on a belligerent, unilateral approach to foreign policy.

"Constellations of satellites that can watch arms factories everywhere around the globe, day and night, above- and belowground ... must be part of America's arsenal."

"We must also develop the capability to prevent an attack—including a clandestine attack—by those who cannot be deterred."

"Those with whom we negotiate—whether ally or adversary—must know that America has other options. The theocrats ruling Iran need to understand that we can wield the stick as well as the carrot, by undermining popular support for their regime, damaging the Iranian economy, weakening Iran's military, and, should all else fail, destroying its nuclear infrastructure.

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. Has there ever been a politician in need of intensive psychotherapy more than this bullying creep? Taking a line from the Good Book that Republicans regularly use as a campaign prop but whose most basic tenets of decency, humility, compassion and generosity they almost uniformly ignore:

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?
Or to paraphrase slightly, why should anyone vote a man into the highest post in the land when it appears the closest members of his own family can't stand to be in the same census tract as the guy? The answer, of course, is we shouldn't, and hopefully won't.

"Freedom Is About Authority"

God, I love Youtube! Now, it may not be for the exact same reasons others do. Because Youtube is like a mirror into the soul of the user: It can be deep or as shallow as you make it.

Like reality itself, every spectrum of human behavior seems to be covered in some way, ranging in seeming randomness from bum fights and beheadings to lonelygirl and stupid pet tricks -- and everything in between... from unhinged depravity and deviance to sheer uncut stupidity on display, running the gamut from technical wizardry to amateurish naivety.

Of course it's cool to punch in the names of your favorite bands and see what pops up. And there's great old sports moments or even last night's game right there at your fingertips.

But what I think is remarkable about Youtube, perhaps even revolutionary, is its ability to highlight a seminal political moment and literally influence the process itself, sometimes directly, sometimes in more nuanced, indirect ways.

Consider the George Allen "Macaca" moment.

A recent Dick Cheney clip from 1994 about not wasting American blood on Saddam Hussein.

The terrific 9/11 stuff, including the infamous BBC broadcast prematurely announcing the fall of WTC7, which incidentally got me started down the primrose path of conspiracy surrounding the events of that sordid day.

How about MC Rove, or George Bush playing conga drum, which are in a class by themselves that sadly straddles a bad Saturday Night Live skit, dumb game show, and embarrassing home movie.

But in almost complete and utter seriousness, I think the clip I just saw courtesy of Wonkette may take the lead in my Youtube hit parade, if only for its startling insight into the inner workings of the modern police state. Here's what happened, according to the Toronto Star:

Protesters are accusing police of using undercover agents to provoke violent confrontations at the North American leaders' summit in Montebello, Que.

Such accusations have been made before after similar demonstrations but this time the alleged "agents provocateurs" have been caught on camera.

A video, posted on YouTube, shows three young men, their faces masked by bandannas, mingling Monday with protesters in front of a line of police in riot gear. At least one of the masked men is holding a rock in his hand.

The three are confronted by protest organizer Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. Coles makes it clear the masked men are not welcome among his group of protesters, whom he describes as mainly grandparents. He urges them to leave and find their own protest location.

Coles also demands that they put down their rocks. Other protesters begin to chime in that the three are really police agents. Several try to snatch the bandanas from their faces.

Rather than leave, the three actually start edging closer to the police line, where they appear to engage in discussions. They eventually push their way past an officer, whereupon other police shove them to the ground and handcuff them.

Late Tuesday, photographs taken by another protester surfaced, showing the trio lying prone on the ground. The photos show the soles of their boots adorned by yellow triangles. A police officer kneeling beside the men has an identical yellow triangle on the sole of his boot.

Kevin Skerrett, a protester with the group Nowar-Paix, said the photos and video together present powerful evidence that the men were actually undercover police officers.

"I think the circumstantial evidence is very powerful," he said.

It's funny: this happens with Reichsfuhrer Bush in Canada to promote something very much like what Poppy proposed in that infamous New World Order speech he gave, get this, on September the 11th, 1990. For whatever reason, credible evidence suggests someone in very high authority apparently went a very long way toward attempting to discredit or vilify a peaceful protest led by a union president. Why? The same reason a near police riot broke out a few years back in Miami during a protest against implementation of yet another disastrous NAFTA-like treaty -- FTAA: to quell dissent, make examples, and in general enforce the mandates of corporate power in its naked, essential form. Brute force representing state power, in tandem with a coordinated criminalization and demonization of the opposition.

The benignly named Free Trade Area of the Americas did little to address, for instance, generations of almost biblical impoverishment for millions of Central and South Americans, but instead shamelessly promoted a mutant strain of unfettered corporate avarice that sought to stack the hemispheric deck in favor of unbridled exploitation of the work force, the concerted extinguishing of trade unions or associations, the widespread establishment of free trade zones which ultimately result in workplaces that are de facto sweatshops -- basically legislation designed to maximize shareholder profit while offering in return little more than sustenance wages.

Remember where this video takes place when you contemplate relocating to Canada if someone like, oh, Crazy Rudy Ghouliani gets elected. And believe it or not, Britain has its own Patriot Act, and it's even more onerous in terms of civil liberties, as authorities of the former commonwealth (what an archaic term, and increasingly so by the day: at least in America, the divisions that now separate us cut much deeper than the ties that once bound us) shred what's left of their landmark Magna Carta, just as our own "elected" officials race to rend our once-sacred Constitution.

In a Guardian UK story headlined Police to use terror laws on Heathrow climate protesters, we get an ominous foreshadowing of what may be in store for those wishing to still exercise their once Constitutionally-guaranteed right of free assembly:

Armed police will use anti-terrorism powers to "deal robustly" with climate change protesters at Heathrow next week, as confrontations threaten to bring major delays to the already overstretched airport.
Scotland Yard's plans for handling the protests are revealed in a document seen by the Guardian, which was produced by Met commander Peter Broadhurst during a legal hearing at the high court which imposed restrictions on a number of named campaigners.

"Should individuals or small groups seek to take action outside of lawful protest they will be dealt with robustly using terrorism powers. This is because the presence of large numbers of protesters at or near the airport will reduce our ability to proactively counter the terrorist act [threat]," the document says.

The police report makes it clear that the government has encouraged police forces to make greater use of terrorism powers "especially the use of stop and search powers under s44 Terrorism Act 2000".

The law gives police powers to:

· Stop and search people and vehicles for anything that could be used in connection with terrorism

· Search people even if they do not have evidence to suspect them

· Hold people for up to a month without charge

· Search homes and remove protesters' outer clothes, such as hats, shoes and coats.

You see, the long-armed might of the Modern Global Corporation State knows no boundaries and recognizes the laws of no nation. Instead, through lobbying and influence it writes all the important economic legislation in its favor, and through an entrenched culture of lobbying and cronyism -- best exemplified by the revolving door between defense contractors and the Defense Department -- it sustains and enriches itself indefinitely, while cultivating new ways of insulating itself from criticism and oversight.

If you think this is some leftover Sixties rhetoric, that's your prerogative. But what to make of the following statement from one of the current candidates aiming to become the 44th President of these United States -- seamlessly blending the old school dementia of Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Father Coughlin and George Orwell:

"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do." - Rudy Giuliani, March 1994

Which is why the great Jimmy Breslin once nailed him as "a little man in search of a balcony."

The World Can Wait

It's been a good long while since I've posted something even resembling an old fashioned journal entry based on how "things" have been going. What used to be a mainstay of this blog -- bitching and moaning about my work situation -- has seemingly been relegated to secondary status. Funny how things can change.

Like most bloggers, I usually write better when I have something to be pissed off about. Lately, however, things have been going pretty well in the freelance biz. Still not quite enough weekly hours to suit my taste, but at least the workload has been fairly steady. The last coupla weeks, though, have been interesting if not noteworthy.

A few Fridays ago I was bemoaning the lack of hours I was getting at LT, my usual freelance "headquarters" if you will, when I got a call from the agency that I am booked through. It was C wondering if I was interested in some weekend work, off premises. Of course, of course, I verbally indicated, and it was on. It was a small project involving a 13-page insert for an in-flight magazine put out by AE. It was great to get another client into the fold, especially at 30 bucks an hour, even if it turned out to be only 3 hours' worth of work; that's how it got started with all six or seven of my present clients: a one- or two-day project, and if you can manage to do the job well enough and stand out a little, they're usually gonna want you back. At least that's been my experience.

Then a few weeks ago I got a call from a good friend who wants me to help him out with his Website, managing the managers, so to speak. A few days later we had a meeting with his Webmaster dude down at a small office on Varick, where I was also able to network a little bit and may have gotten my foot in the door for some future proofreading work not only at his agency, but for someone else he knows. After I finish editing some work related to the site, we'll go back downtown and I can follow up on things.

Ironically, or at least coincidentally, this past week marked the two-year anniversary of The Big Layoff, as it's come to be known in publishing industry circles. As my regular readers already know, that was the occasion of my being downsized out of a job as Managing Editor of Production/Copy Editor at an institution I had toiled at for just shy of 17 years. Then one Monday coming back from a lunch break at the South Street Seaport, I was informed that my services were no longer required, and my presence at said office was in fact no longer permissible, effective immediately. (Hey, I am starting to get pissed off again! This is gonna be good therapy for me!)

I'm not gonna the same old ground or cover all the low points of getting fired, trying to make sense of it all, the trials and tribulations and false starts as I wended my way back into the employment sector. All that is available in the WardensWorld archives, often in excruciatingly painful detail. Someday I hope that period of my life will be turned into a cinematic masterpiece starring somebody like Robert Downey Jr. or Matthew Broderick in the title role, hopefully capably helmed by a director in the mold of a Marty Scorcese or a Jimmy Jarmusch.
Instead, I remain incredibly optimistic, which is not always easy given the vicissitudes of the modern freelancer's lot in life. The key is that I steeled myself very early on to the likelihood of my having to do this for three or four years -- supplemented by some catering work, some odd jobs -- before landing a plum or even peachy publishing gig that would not only take full advantage of my various and myriad skill sets, but would in turn reward me with a wide range of benefits and handsome salary package, as well as a spacious cubicle or cozy corner office overlooking some idyllic cityscape. That's if this very Weblog doesn't take off like a proverbial rocket and become a cash cow, allowing me to work at home in my underwear. Hey, a slacker can dream, can't he?

But characteristically, I digress. Almost all of the 6 or 7 clients that I have built up over the last almost year and a half have used me or at least inquired about my services at some point over the last month. Some days I'm already booked somewhere else, such as one day a few months ago when I was already at LT and both WO and S, two downtown ad agencies, called within an hour on the same day requesting my services; and then there are days where I am off from LT and no one calls. Usually they know to call at least a day or two ahead of time. That was the case last Friday, when I was booked at LT for an early afternoon shift, but then S needed me to work on the Sw. Catalog, which is a little like the Pensky File that George Costanza worked on in that great Seinfeld episode, except I actually get some work done.

So Friday I got down to Varick Street at 9, worked for S until 1:00, then shot uptown and got to LT for an afternoon shift. That's how I always imagined freelancing to be. And it would get better. While I was at LT I got a call from K. at A. telling me another client was requesting my earthly presence -- none other than the good folks at V Magazine. I had worked for them last fall for a short-term project, and they had called for my services a few times since then, but it was again a case of already being booked on the days they needed me, but I took it as a good sign that at least they were still asking for me.

Now in many ways, freelancing for a new client is almost like starting a new job all over again, only instead of having weeks or months to ease into a position, you're expected to master all the relevant details and get cracking immediately. For this project, V really needed someone for the full week, but as K. put it, they could use me for two full days because they liked my work the last time I was there, which involved proofreading one of their Websites and checking that all the links were functioning properly. Now it all hinged on coordinating my schedule with my LT peeps. LT has been a life saver for me; I've been here for over a year now, since June of '06, and it's almost like I'm a fixture at the office here. (Yes, it's a slow day here -- allowing me to blog away to my heart's content and, ideally, your ultimate reading entertainment. You can thank me later and, yes, we do take gratuities. )

Bottom line, long story short, cutting to the chase, doing away with formalities, I worked Monday and Tuesday of this week for V, and then back at LT today (Wednesday) for a short 11-4pm shift. The V assignment was on premises, but instead of the office I worked at last time, this time I was to report to the office at 1166 Sixth Avenue. Now, 4 Times Square is where the actual magazine headquarters is located, which, as you may imagine, is quite nicely stocked with members of the fairer female sex in full possession of qualities placing them well above the societal norm in terms of physical attraction, charm, hygiene and winsomeness that are quite rightly prized by the more shallow members of my own chromosomal makeup.

Instead, this office seemed to be inhabited by techie types who toil selflessly behind the editorial operations of the magazine itself. My assignment involved as I said looking for broken links, typos, spelling errors, inconsistencies, then charting it all on an Excel spreadsheet. After every 50 entries in the spreadsheet I sent it along to the proper authorities so that the problems can be rectified, and we all know how painful that can be.

Now, such painstaking proofreading is not for everyone: it takes concentration, focus, diligence, you name it. But the good folks I dealt with over the last few days were so darned appreciative of my effort that it bordered on incredulity. I did catch a ton of stuff, and by the end of the day I was up to 250 errors or at least notations on the old Excel chart. It was just after 5 yesterday when I was winding down, getting ready to thank everyone for the opportunity, blah blah blah, when my cell rang. It was K. again, calling to tell me that the folks liked my work so much they were hoping I could continue and finish off the project, even if it meant working at home. But since I had a shift today at LT, which is only a few minutes from their office, I suggested returning tonight to finish it off, and they agreed. So after I knock off here at around 4, I will shoot over to 1166 and be on the clock by 4:30 till whenever the job is done. I think it's about 5 more hours of work.

It's funny: Proofreading or copy-editing for spelling, grammar, content, context, consistency, etc., is one of those things that most people have no clue about. To the young people I come across especially, what I do is akin to the black art of a sorcerer, so shrouded in mystery and mystique is turning incomprehensible gibberish into something logical and readable (I actually think of myself as The Fixer, but that's for another post). How else to explain the gratitude I receive upon completion of what comes so naturally to me, although of course I can boast of having over 20 years in the rough & tumble world of high-stakes publishing and other media.

For instance, toward the end of the day yesterday, before I knew I was coming back to finish off the project today, I got an email from one of my supervisors there telling me how much she appreciated me. Even I was startled, and believe me no one ever accused me of having a small ego or being modest when it comes to my work. The message read "Thanks for being so great, Barry!" The day before it was "Thanks for all your meticulous work!" And you know what, she's right: I am meticulous! It was all I could do to refrain from responding with a reply email telling her, in the immortal words of Sally Field: "You like me! You really like me!" But I think I'll save that sappy sentiment for when I'm offered a full-time position at CN!

Now if you'll excuse me, I have an important Yankees game to monitor on the Internets...

See also:
Please Be Seated
Thankless
Out to Lunch
Live Off Me
Worked Over
No Account
Take This Job

Baby Have You Seen Her

BY NOW you've probably already heard about Rudy Ghouliani's 17-year-old daughter Caroline's Facebook page, on which she seemingly supports Barack Obama for Prez over her very own pops. In that she should be congratulated for having good taste.

But more to the point, if Republicans can continue to make an issue of Chelsea Clinton, which they obviously still do, then should the media/blogosphere be admonished from having a proverbial go at Caroline G; after all, if all is fair in love and war, is this not wartime? More importantly: Is our children learning? Didn't think so. But make no mistake about it: even if I didn't stumble on the above photo of Senator Lindsey Graham holding that stunningly simplistic, childish sign [OSAMA OBAMA AND CHELSEA'S MOM SAY CUT y RUN!!!], we would still be making ample room for all and sundry anti-Rudy news & views, including reprinting the following pictures of his surprisingly winsome daughter. 'Swat we do here on WardensWorld, inasmuch as we can be said to do much of anything here.

We will admit to a certain amusement bordering on jubilation when we found out earlier this year that Rudy's golf-obsessed 21-year-old son Andy -- that chubby kid we used to see in the '90s with the always-becapped Hizzoner in the stands at Yankee Stadium -- wants nothing to do with his old man now, understandable given the undeniably shabby circumstances surrounding Rudy's divorce from Donna Hanover.
It was with another large dose of mirth closing fast on elation that we more recently received apparently reliable reports that pompous Rudy attended his only daughter's high school graduation ceremony only to abruptly leave before so much as speaking with her, apparently more than just symbolic of their less than rosy relationship. In Rudy's defense, I'm sure he had a paying speaking gig somewhere to jet off to, a speech undoubtedly extolling his puffed-up role in 9/11; I mean, if he didn't have time to join the Iraq Study Group, you think he's gonna hang around a mere school to mingle with a bunch of proud parents? That's such pre-9/11 thinking.

Vanity Fair just unleashed a blistering take on the current Mrs. G -- entitled Giuliani's Princess Bride -- in which nobody is willing to go on record saying anything remotely positive about her. On the contrary, apparently people were tripping over themselves in the rush to publicly castigate her toxic personality. Before you bemoan the piece as a partisan hatchet job, remember how the press (mis)treated John Kerry's admittedly scary wife. Just saying.

But it's not just Rudy's closest relatives who are looking more and more like chinks in his flimsy, contrived armor; over the weekend, a former close aide (Jerome Hauer) told the U.K. Telegraph that Ghouliani would make a "terrible president," all but calling him the worst human being ever: "He's a control freak who micro-manages decisions, he has a confrontational character trait and picks fights just to score points. He is the last thing this country needs as president right now." Ah, a guy after my own heart. But then that's not new news to anyone who lived under Ghouliani's ham-handed reign of blustery hubris.

It's also worth repeating, if for no other reason that someone somewhere somehow may not have heard what by now is old but still relevantly embarrassing news, that at least two prominent members of Rudy's campaign inner circle have come back to cast some righteous aspersion on his basic people and organizational skills. Not that the buck ever stops with Rudy (see Kerik, Bernie; also "mobbed-up sleazeball").

In June, according to CNN.com,

"Giuliani’s South Carolina chairman resigned after he was indicted on drug charges. Giuliani insists he should not be judged based on the behavior of certain individuals associated with his campaign or mayoral administration."

The drug was evidently crack cocaine, which is not only alarmingly déclassé in the year 2007, but it's what you'd have to be smoking to still believe in Rudy's chance of being elected.

Back on July 5, when Ghouliani was campaigning in South Carolina, the disgraced Thomas Ravenel's now-thoroughly-blackened name repeatedly surfaced on the lips of inquiring reporters, and Rudy was forced to make a statement seeking to quell the damage, presciently intoning via the side of his crooked lying mouth: “I think everyone knows that in families — no matter how big they are — tragedies happen,” the GOP presidential hopeful added. “Bad things happen.”

Indeed they do, Mr. Mayor, and indeed they would. Less than a week later, the fecal matter continued to hit the high velocity air circulator in the form of the David Vitter hooker scandal, wherein Rudy's Southern regional campaign chair was quite lit'rally caught with his pants down. According to my sources at Wikipedia:

On July 10, Jeanette Maier, the "Canal Street Madam", alleged that Vitter was a customer on more than one occasion in the 1990s, when Maier was identified by federal prosecutors as operating a $300 per hour brothel.^[27] The Times-Picayune reported that "Maier offered no evidence or documents to support her claim."^[28] Maier said that Vitter "was not a freak. He was not into anything unusual or kinky or weird," and that he favored one prostitute in particular, Wendy Cortez,^{[29][30][31][32]}, the name of the prostitute that Vitter had been accused, during his 2004 campaign, of having had a lengthy affair with. Vitter denied that allegation during the campaign.^[33] On July 12, Cortez told The Times-Picayune that Vitter was "a regular customer" during his time in the state legislature, but that they "did not have a romantic relationship." ^[34]

Vitter is unlikely to face criminal charges due to statutes of limitations.^[35] Vitter apologized to GOP senate colleagues but avoided the press who repeatedly attempted to talk to him. ^[36]

In May 1999, Vitter replaced Congressman Bob Livingston after Livingston resigned due to an adultery scandal.^[1][37][16] Vitter said about Livingston's decision to resign, "It's obviously a tremendous loss for the state .... I think Livingston's stepping down makes a very powerful argument that Clinton should resign as well and move beyond this mess," referring to the Monica Lewinsky scandal of President Bill Clinton.^[38] In 2000, his wife, Wendy Vitter, commenting on the same scandal, said, "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he [Vitter] does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me," referring to the incident of Lorena Bobbitt severing the penis of her husband and to Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton.^[37]

So in the future, whenever you see the word Republican next to an elected official's name, remember that it's shorthand for Greedy Shameless Lying Hypocrite, as evidenced by the following:

"While the Lousiana state Republican Party offered guarded support,^[39] national Republicans offered forgiveness.^[40] The liberal magazine The Nation predicted that the Republican Party would be in a "forgiving mood," pointing out that if Vitter did step down, Democratic Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco would likely appoint a Democrat to take Vitter's place until a special election took place, thus increasing Democratic control over the Senate.^[41] Marianne Means, a syndicated columnist for Hearst Newspapers, reported that Republican senators gave Vitter a "loud standing ovation," which she characterized as hypocritical by contrasting this with the Republican attitude toward President Clinton's marital infidelity."

Ah, the hallowed halls of the U.S. Senate!
***********************************************
The terrific political blog Wonkette had an update today on the Caroline Giuliani Facebook story, if by update you mean excuse to print a bunch of photos of Rudy's daughter in various stages of apparent intoxication. This recent sordid downturn for the worse aside, Wonkette has had a notable resurrection lately, really coinciding with founder Ana Marie Cox moving on last year. Coincidence or not, lately their biting satirical tone and brand of black humor is a perfect comic disinfectant for the almost daily dose of noxious effluvia emanating from the White House. Plus, the site's commenters might be the Internet's most reliably hilarious.

Now, as to how Wonkette got hold of the pictures and under what circumstances, that's a big yawn to me at this point, but you can hit Slate.com if the details are important to you. Someone got hold of a few Facebook fotos, which, as one spot-on Wonkette commenter put it, encapsulate what passes for cool among young wannabes:

"What's with all the pictures of teens and 20-somethings smiling for the camera holding up a nearly full glass/bottle/can of whatever? "See! Look! We are having FUN! We can prove it by grinning like an idiot and holding up liquor! Ha! Take that old people! We are daring and care-fucking-free!" Yawn."

That's what's known as nailing it, commenter JAMIESOMMERS, whoever you are.

Anyway, we reprint some of the better Caroline shots, along with some witty remarks from the learned smart-asses of the Wonkette peanut gallery. The only background you need to know is that according to the person who "supplied" Wonkette the pix:

"My sister went to elementary school with Caroline Rose G before she switched to Trinity School and apparently Caroline friended her even though my sister and her group of friends think that Caroline is catty and only friends with gay boys (like father, like daughter?). So my sister had no qualms about letting me send you these facebook pictures of her former schoolmate, including some she had de-tagged, but were found on mutual friends’ accounts. Enjoy."

We will enjoy. In fact, we already have...














Wonkette reader comments:

"Christ I'd hit it!"

"Of course she's single! This girl is a bigger fag hag than her daddy! Look at those boys she's with!"

"I hate to say it, but she looks a little like a non-sociopathic version of Ann Coulter."

"Who, or what, is seated beside her in picture number one? It looks like the daughter of Miss Jane Hathaway, a woman voted Least Likely To Conceive by the Class of '38."

"Rudy will make lemonade of this. Here's his next debate one-liner:
"Yes, my daughter supports Obama. Now can you right-to-lifers running against me finally understand why I support abortion?"

"She looks exactly like her mother, actually. a touch of rudy around the mouth. no doubt as to paternity, but obviously got the better of the gene pool. looks like a normal wholesome gay loving college girl. if rudy was MY daddy, you can bet my daddy issues would go a lot deeper than fag hagging and supporting black Democrats for president."

"So let me get this straight. Rudy has been married three times so far. He has a track record of being vindictive, petty, angry, of taking things personally and having a thin skin. He is a cronyist of the first order. His grown-up kids are estranged from him. And the topper is that they don't even support him to become President, and presumably they know him better than anyone else. I used to think this was the sort of irrelevant fluff that one comes to expect of the MSM, but now I'm leaning in the other direction. The man doesn't seem to have anyone who likes him. Hell, even a loser like Mike Dukakis could secure 80% of his own family's vote."

"Help me out, team. In the (first) photo, is that a young adult born as a female who is compressing her boobs and hasn't discovered the miracles of waxing/bleaching the 'stache, or is that a young adult, born as a male, who is taking female hormones? Not that I want to get all fixated on the gender spectrum here, or that I'm judging or saying you gotta be at one end or the other of the gender spectrum, but I think young Caroline might be more than just a fag hag....just imagine how Rudy will do in that South Carolina primary if it turns out she's hanging with Upper West Side teen trannies."