• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

I enjoy a well written column

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Entire article; link below.

"It's just like playing blackjack in Vegas.

Invariably, sitting right next to you is some guy, eyes shifty and body twitchy and making weird sounds with his mouth and smelling vaguely of sawdust and horse manure and dead dreams, with a huge pile of chips he is quickly turning into a very small pile of chips.

He is suffering. He is playing terribly, grumbling, sneering at the dealer, talking to the cards like they were his personal slutty harem, complaining to his very angry God who is apparently no longer coming through for him. He is getting desperate. He is sweating, glancing around, wondering where all his drunken fraternity friends scurried off to.

Soon he is down to his last chips. He makes one final stab, but his final bet tanks. He is out, the pile is gone.

He then does what every miserable, lunkheaded gambler does at this point: In a fit of alcoholic rage and demonic encouragement, he says, "Screw it" -- and digs into his pocket, pulls out his last remaining crumpled $1,000 bill and slaps it down on the table in one big final gesture meant to turn his fortunes around all at once, damn the wife at home and forget a decent meal and forget every ironclad rule of gambling because damn it the gods owe him and he's long overdue for a change in fortune. Yes. Right. Sure he is.

Sure enough, the lug loses his big Hail Mary bet. He is broke. He cannot believe it. He curses the table, curses the whore cards, swears at the dealer for not treating him better, slams the rest of his drink and his face contorts and his hands shake and he stumbles off into the night, railing against his lousy luck, the gods, all of humanity. Same ol' situation, happening all over Vegas. And, of course, Washington, D.C.

Now, here he is, sitting right next to all the other countries at the Big Table, representing America, it's little Dubya Bush, stewing in his own juices, his poll numbers hovering right near Nixon levels, mumbling to himself, smelling vaguely of sawdust and horse manure and dead Social Security overhaul plans.

He is pockmarked by scandal, buffeted by storms of disapproval and infighting and nascent impeachment. He authorized the leak of classified security information merely to smear an Iraq war critic, he lied about WMD and lied about Saddam and lied about making the United States safer and lied about, well, just about everything, on top of launching the worst and most violent and most expensive, unwinnable war since Vietnam.

His pile of betting capital is down to a tiny lump, nothing like back when he had the table rigged and all the pit bosses worked for him and the pile was as big as a roomful of Texas cow pies. But now, fortune is frowning. In fact, fortune is white-hot furious at being so viciously molested, spit upon, raped lo these many years. The truth is coming out: Bush has now lost far, far more bets than he ever won.

What's to be done? Why, do what any grumbling, furious, confused, underqualified alcoholic gambler does: reach down deep and say, "To hell with the nation and to hell with the odds and to hell with the rest of the planet," and pull out one more desperate, crumpled war from deep in your pants, slap it on the table and hear the world moan.

But this time, try to make it serious. Do not rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Do not rule out another massive air strike, ground troops, special forces, a strategy so intense it makes Iraq look like a jog in the park. Think of yourself as creating a masterful legacy, going down in history as the guy who "saved" the world from Iran's nukes while protecting American oil interests. Yes? Can you smell the oily sanctimony in the air? Is God speaking to you again, telling you to damn the torpedoes and kill more Muslims? You are the chosen one, after all.

Sound far-fetched? Don't think even Bush could be capable of using nukes to slap Iran? Perish the thought. All reports from underground White House sources -- most notably by way of Sy Hersh's horrifying report in a recent New Yorker -- indicate that Dubya and his remaining team of war-happy flying monkeys have been secretly laying out plans to attack Iran for months, possibly including the use of tactical nuclear weapons to get at those deep Iranian bunkers, all because Iran just celebrated its entrance into the world's "nuclear club" by finally enriching some uranium for the first time. Cookies all around!

No matter that most analysts say that Iran is far from being a true threat, that a nuclear Iran is at least a good decade away, if not longer. No matter that 10 years is a good long time to work on ways to force Iran out of the game -- via negotiation, diplomacy, sanctions -- without unleashing another river of never-ending violence.

With Bush in power, there is no waiting. There is no thought of avoiding another hideous war at all costs. To the Bush hawks, diplomacy is a failed joke. Negotiation is for intellectuals and tofu pacifists. In the Dubya worldview, the planet is a roiling cauldron of nasty threats, crammed with terrorists and hateful Muslims and foreign demons suddenly growling on our doorstep when, curiously, they really weren't there before he stumbled into power. Amazing how that works.

It is now seven months before what could be a radically influential congressional election, a vote that could very well give power back to the Democrats, who will (with any luck) waste no time launching a number of long-overdue investigations into Bush's failed war and the various scandals and lies and fiscal abuses that led us all here.

For Dubya, now is the time. One last, desperate gamble. Slam that last drink, scrunch up your face, screw the rules and let the bombs fly. What, you don't think he could do it? Don't think a nuclear attack on Iran is possible? You haven't looked into the tiny, ink-black eyes of Dick Cheney lately. You haven't seen Rumsfeld's arrogant sneer, seen Bush looking confused and lost, wondering where all his "capital" went, desperately hunting for a legacy and finding only irresponsibility and self-righteousness and death.

But hell, as we already know, that's good enough for him.


Mark Morford's column appears Wednesdays and Fridays in Datebook and sfgate.com. E-mail him at [email protected]"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/04/19/DDG9EIAGN61.DTL
 

Mike

Well-known member
If you think anything written by that faggot is "well written" you are a bigger idiot than thought. You are to be pitied.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
That particular "faggot" or "faggots" in general? The Greeks pacticed homosexuality. Are the writings of Greek philosophers to be ignored because of that? How about Alexander the Great? He is viewed as one of the most important military figures in the world, yet he practiced homosexuality. He is to be struck from our history books?
 

Mike

Well-known member
Disagreeable said:
That particular "faggot" or "faggots" in general? The Greeks pacticed homosexuality. Are the writings of Greek philosophers to be ignored because of that? How about Alexander the Great? He is viewed as one of the most important military figures in the world, yet he practiced homosexuality. He is to be struck from our history books?

If Alex "practiced" homosexuality, did he ever get it perfect? :lol:

To me, there is a big difference between a "Faggot" and a homosexual. What someone does in his/her own bedroom, with a willing partner of legal age and does NOT trample on anyone else's rights or makes it blatantly known to anyone else is his own business.

If I don't know it, it doesn't bother me. Comprende?

And then you have your "San Fran Writer" Mark Morford, who is in a different realm of reality altogether.

:wink:
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Mike said:
Disagreeable said:
That particular "faggot" or "faggots" in general? The Greeks pacticed homosexuality. Are the writings of Greek philosophers to be ignored because of that? How about Alexander the Great? He is viewed as one of the most important military figures in the world, yet he practiced homosexuality. He is to be struck from our history books?

If Alex "practiced" homosexuality, did he ever get it perfect? :lol:

To me, there is a big difference between a "Faggot" and a homosexual. What someone does in his/her own bedroom, with a willing partner of legal age and does NOT trample on anyone else's rights or makes it blatantly known to anyone else is his own business.

If I don't know it, it doesn't bother me. Comprende?

And then you have your "San Fran Writer" Mark Morford, who is in a different realm of reality altogether.

:wink:

Comprehende? Are you threatened by homosexuals? Do you think one of them will rape you? Are you so pretty that they follow you around? Do you think your wife might leave you for another woman? What is it exactly that makes you talk about other human beings in such ugly, disgusting, terms?

BTW, ignoring the facts set forth in this column by attacking the author's sexual orientation is not going unnoticed here.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
If I don't know it, it doesn't bother me. Comprende?

That's a pretty scary philosophy to have.....

Where's the pic of the ostrich with it's head in the ground when I need it????!!!!
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
If I don't know it, it doesn't bother me. Comprende?

That's a pretty scary philosophy to have.....

Where's the pic of the ostrich with it's head in the ground when I need it????!!!!

:lol: Don't ask; don't tell. That was a Bill Clinton program, wasn't it? Remarkable that Mike seems to be saying he agrees with some of Clinton's philosophy. I guess wonders will never cease. :lol:
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
i agree with the "if i dont know" deal. I really dont want some guy/girl/it, what every you call it, in the same shower stahl at the ymca as me. If i know the guy is gay, i wont go in there. same as the military. i do agree with that policy thats for sure. I do feel threatened, but if i dont know, i dont. Kind of scary huh?

Do ya think we should have restrooms that are labeled His, hers and ?....probably!
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
i agree with the "if i dont know" deal. I really dont want some guy/girl/it, what every you call it, in the same shower stahl at the ymca as me. If i know the guy is gay, i wont go in there. same as the military. i do agree with that policy thats for sure. I do feel threatened, but if i dont know, i dont. Kind of scary huh?

Do you honestly think a gay man would attack you just because he saw you naked? And if you didn't know he was gay, he wouldn't attack you? Are you so beautiful that he couldn't resist? Men, even nice men, have been making passes at women forever and women generally tolerate it and go on with their lives. Why is it that men are so outraged that a gay man might make a pass at him?

Do ya think we should have restrooms that are labeled His, hers and ?....probably!

Whatever you're willing to pay for. A third restroom in all public buildings would be very expensive. Of course, the Republicans don't mind running up the deficit. What's a few more billion$$$.
 

Mike

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
If I don't know it, it doesn't bother me. Comprende?

That's a pretty scary philosophy to have.....

Do things bother you that you know nothing about? :lol: :lol:
 

Southdakotahunter

Well-known member
SO why dis, shouldnt we have just one restroom. One that says UNISEX, that way, we wouldnt have to worry if your man, woman or not sure. call me homophobic if you want, really dont care at all. I know whats right and whats not, say what you will. Would you mind if there were men in your restroom? Do you think every man would want to make a pass at you? Would you feel threatend? WHy not just let the gay man go to the girls room and the gay woman go to the mens? Thats what they want to be anyway and what they really feel.
 

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Southdakotahunter said:
SO why dis, shouldnt we have just one restroom. One that says UNISEX, that way, we wouldnt have to worry if your man, woman or not sure.

There are places with only one bathroom; it's not that uncommon in Europe. I've never had a problem using a unisex bathroon. You're the one wanting to spend the big bucks to add a third bathroon everywhere.

call me homophobic if you want, really dont care at all. I know whats right and whats not, say what you will.

You're homophobic. Is seeing another man naked right or wrong? Don't you believe the human body is God's temple?

Would you mind if there were men in your restroom? Do you think every man would want to make a pass at you? Would you feel threatend?

Yes, no, no.

WHy not just let the gay man go to the girls room and the gay woman go to the mens? Thats what they want to be anyway and what they really feel.

How do you know that's how they feel? I think you're confusing transsexuals with gays. Gays are perfectly happy being men. Transsexuals feel they were born the wrong gender and some have surgery to become the gender they feel they should be.
 

mp.freelance

Well-known member
There's way too much talk about homosexuality, both on this forum and everywhere else. Whatever your position, it's the least of our problems.
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
I fully agree w/ MP and his last statement.

BUT...Mike....I at least express and interest in what maybe going on around me or about to happen. I have a willingness to learn and obeserve.

And SDH...if you're that " hunky" that everyone one of every gender makes passes at you.......let us all see...post a pic!!!
 

Mike

Well-known member
kola:BUT...Mike....I at least express and interest in what maybe going on around me or about to happen. I have a willingness to learn and obeserve.

It's just that I don't delve into others peoples personal lives and don't hang around gossipers and others that do.
 
Top