On Needles and Pen

I feel like I’ve been attacked by a rabid Singer sewing machine. My friendly urologist performed a slightly invasive procedure known as a needle biopsy on one of those uniquely male parts of my anatomy, the prostate.

He thanked me profusely for not kicking him during the process, which resulted in a total of 24 precise needle punctures in my backside’s insides.

The prostate is often confused and mis-identified as the “prostrate” gland. That’s an understandable mistake to make, when you must prostrate yourself on a cold, butcher-paper covered table for access to your prostate. On reflection, maybe it should be called the prostrate gland.

The Doc told me the next few days would be colorful experiences for me. I could be an extra in a porno horror film. He also told me no sexual activity for the next few days. No worries there…hard to feel amorous when you really feel like a human pin-cushion.

Guess I shouldn’t whine too long or loudly about one blessedly short session with Dr. Jellyfingers…women endure similar indignities on a more regular basis, I am told.

Here’s the point of all this (no pun intended): Guys—get the check-up. Regularly. Especially if you’re at or beyond the half-century point in your life. Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer (excluding skin cancer) among American men. According to the American Cancer Society, men aged 50 and older, and those over the age of 45 who are in high-risk groups, such as African-American men and men with a family history of prostate cancer, should have a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test and digital rectal exam (DRE) once every year.

For me, my punctuality (again, no pun intended) for yesterday’s exam was simply to eliminate the possibilities of the cause of a recently discovered anomaly in my anatomy. Watch this blog for updates, soon.

Ronnie Earle Doth Protest Too Much

Like an observer along the back row of the theatre in a magic show, I cannot help but wonder, while Democratic prosecutor Ronnie Earle is performing his legal slight of hand against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, what is going on in the other hand while we’re watching the performance? What other, potentially more-important ball, is our eye being drawn away from while this next media circus unfolds?

With $200-billion up for grabs in restoring the Gulf Coast to pre-hurricane conditions, it seems our time and attention might be better spent overseeing how that federal mother lode is to be administered, instead of picking sides in a relatively penny-ante spitting contest…which, apparently, is looking more and more like a thinly-veiled political hatchet job by a puppet prosecutor for the party most recently spurned by a fickle electorate.

All the whoopla and uproar is over $190,000, used in an apparently legal manner…although ethically questionable...when the fact is both parties are adept at this brand of sleight-of-hand.

Texans for a Republican Majority, otherwise known as TRMPAC, or "trim-pack," sent $190,000 to Republican National State Elections Committee, a.k.a. RNSEC, or "rinse-sec," and RNSEC then sent the same total amount in seven checks ranging from $20,000 to $40,000 to Texas House candidates in 2002.

Travis County DA Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, says this is money laundering, because the money that TRMPAC sent to RNSEC came from corporations, which are barred from contributing to campaigns in Texas.

What you're not going to hear in the press is that A) This is a perfectly legal move, and B) the Democrats did the exact same thing. Maybe that will all come out in the wash...in the RNSEC cycle, perhaps (gotta keep this money laundering metaphor afloat!)

A recent study by the Institute on Money in State Politics discovered the Texas Democratic Party did the same thing in October 2002 when it sent $75,000 to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and received $75,000 back from the DNC the very same day.

Ironic, don't you think, that the Democrats pulled off an exact, duplicate move in 2002? Only the names and the amounts were changed--especially the amounts: Democrats transferred a total of approximately $11 million dollars in soft money from its national parties to fund Texas campaigns in 2002, compared to $5.2 million transferred by Republicans.

Methinks the political Pot is calling the Kettle a Cookware-American…and mewonders what else is going on that we’re not seeing, while we’re watching this political freakshow unfold.

Effing America

The Hollywood Elite is at it again, pandering to the enemies of America, and offering yet another fantasy-land perspective on things of which they know nothing. The latest to join the ranks is Donald Sutherland, the voice of Volvo, and one of the cast on the new ABC fictional drama, “Commander-in-Chief.”

Sutherland was recently interviewed by The BBC, in which he blamed the Bush Administration for the ills being suffered from Hurricane Katrina, and for the fallout from the War in Iraq. Sutherland, ever the actor, even managed to shed tears as he told the BBC that we have taken our children’s’ legacy from them, and that President Bush will destroy our lives.

It’s important to keep in mind two key points as you hear about this story and digest its true meaning. Number one, Sutherland is an actor. He’s a fine actor, too, with an impressive filmography. What he is able to portray on the screen, however, is an illusion—a fantasy—scripted versions of reality that are not necessarily real.

Number two—Sutherland is not an American citizen, but a native of New Brunswick, Canada…who was raised in Nova Scotia. It’s okay to criticize—but it would be prudent to not nibble too sharply on the hand that is feeding him so handsomely.

That’s what I really resent about these so-called stars, who may have worked hard to create their careers, but seem to think that because they can portray a character on the large or small screen, they have the rubric for truth and knowledge. Then they rail against the very form of government that has allowed them the privilege to excel in their chosen field and craft.

In the interview with the BBC, according to www.drudgereport.com, Sutherland ripped President Bush and his administration for the Hurricane Katrina relief fiasco, saying "They were inept. They were inadequate to the task, and they lied."

Do you find it a little intriguing that Sutherland fails to comment on the corrupt New Orleans city management that should be held to account for its official actions before and after the storm?

How is it that the politically-astute Mr. Sutherland conveniently neglects to mention Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco’s ballsy appearance before congress last week to ask for billions in federal aid, while refusing to answer any questions about her role in that state’s preparedness for the storm, and subsequent bungling of assistance resources?

How would Sutherland explain the flooded school busses in New Orleans? There’s a graphic portrayal of ineptitude. There’s your poster-child for inadequate leadership.

Sutherland’s rants on the War in Iraq are equally one-sided…

"And they were insulting, and they were vindictive. And they were heartless. They did not care. They do not care. They do not care about Iraqi people. They do not care about the families of dead soldiers. They only care about profit."

Remember, Donald Sutherland, who is married to the daughter of a Democratic Socialist in the Candian government, also counts in his filmography a production with Jane Fonda, “F.T.A.,” which was an documentary of their involvement in a anti-war stage show that entertained soldiers during that war, and is credited for being part of the momentum that eroded soldiers’ will to fight.

“F.T.A.” is an acronym for the film's true title, which uses the “F-word” to depict what should be done with the US Army. Some would say that title is an accurate depiction of what really did happen to all US forces… but who was the “Ef-ee” and who was the “Ef-or” depends upon your slant on the issue.

Bottom line—when US Morale crumbled—at home and abroad-- we lost that war.
Thanks Jane…thanks Don.
Hmmm…think I’ll buy a Volvo today.
Not.

Interestingly, the www.socialistworker.org web site says, “Today, it’s tragic to watch Jane Fonda’s moving speeches against the war and sketches against sexual harassment knowing that she moved on from her radical commitment to social justice to be reborn as America’s workout queen in the 1980s. Or that now, she makes her grand return to the big screen playing the wicked mother in Monster-in-Law.”

I’m not sure tragic is the correct word.
Hypocritical is more like it.
Or Shameless.

But through it all, remember, they’re actors.
We pay them to act that way…