THOSE READERS OF A CERTAIN AGE MAY RECALL A COMIC STRIP CALLED "TOONERVILLE FOLKS," which had among its staple of characters The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang among the denizens of that particular comminity serviced by "The Toonerville Trolley That Meets All the Trains," key element to the long-running feature.

Judging by what's going down in the blogosphere, Republican Presidential wannabe John McCain could best be considered Indecision 2008's version of The Terrible-Tempered Mr. Bang.

Witness the following video of the exchange in question (thanks to YouTube, ultimately via The Carpetbagger Report):

Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times: Senator, can I ask you about Senator Kerry. I just went back and looked at our story, the Times story, and you told Sheryl Stolberg that you had never had a conversation with Kerry about being about vice president…

McCain: Everybody knows that I had a private conversation. Everybody knows that. That I had a conversation. There's no living American in Washington—that knows that, there's no one.

Bumiller: Okay.

McCain: And you know it, too. You know it. So, I don't even know why you ask.

Bumiller: Well, I ask because I just read…

McCain: You do know it. You do know it.

Bumiller: Because I just read in the Times in May of '04 you said….

McCain: I don't know what you may have read or heard of, I don't know the circumstances. Maybe in May of '04 I hadn't had the conversation…

Bumiller: But do you recall the conversation?

McCain: I don't know, but it's well known that I had the conversation. It is absolutely well known by everyone. So do you have a question on another issue?

Bumiller: Well can I ask you when the conversation was?

McCain: No. nope, because the issue is closed as far as I'm concerned. Everybody knows it. Everybody knows it in America.

Bumiller: Can you describe the conversation?

McCain: No, of course not. I don't describe private conversations.

Bumiller: Okay. Can I ask you…

McCain: Why should I? Then there's no such thing as a private conversation. Is there (inaudible) if you have a private conversation with someone, and then they come and tell you. I don't know that that's a private conversation. I think that's a public conversation.

Bumiller: Okay. Can I ask you about your (pause) Why you're so angry?

McCain: Pardon me?

Bumiller: Never mind, never mind.

McCain: I mean, it's well known. Everybody knows. It's been well chronicled a thousand times. John Kerry asked if I would consider being his running mate.

Bumiller: Okay.

McCain: And I said categorically no, under no circumstances. That's very well known.

No doubt guaranteed to generate plenty of "Macaca moments" as will no doubt wind up haste posthaste on YouTube ... and, in their turn, sure to undermine McCain's campaign for all it's worth.

*************

AND ANOTHER THING, HOWBEIT UNRELATED: With His Fraudulency finally acknowledging that the economic situation is in a serious state of decline, what exactly prevents his acknowledging that it was his mad rush to ur-RAHOWA Against International Terrorism and his hard-wired belief that tax cuts=jobs=socioeconomic stability (already well discredited) that have aggravated same all the more?

THOSE WHO SEE "COMPLETE AND FINAL REGULATORY RELIEF" AS THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM WITH AMERICAN CHARACTERISTICS--and, in the process, "open the magic doors of the free market, freedom of choice, freedom to choose," yadda yadda yadda, in the Lower Classes, may want to think twice after reading the following "WaiWai" report from the Mainichi Daily News out of Tokyo as may be of interest to that ilk (notwithstanding the inherent lack of credibility common to "WaiWai" items):

Residents of Osaka's Nishi-ku are raising a stink over what they say is a shifty plan aimed at setting up a love hotel right next door to an elementary school in the ward, Weekly Playboy (2/18) says.

Over 4,000 people have already signed a petition opposing the construction of the hotel, which claims to be respectable lodgings for business people and is due to open later this month, adjacent to the Honden Municipal Elementary School.

"Kids walk past this hotel on their way to school every day," Honden's vice principal tells Weekly Playboy. "If it really is a love hotel, it's not very good around here--this is a learning environment!"

Though the establishment prominently displays a sign labelling it a "business hotel," critics say it's merely a disguise. Osaka Municipal Assembly councilor Tadashi Shimizu is outraged.

"Business hotels are normally for single travelers, yet every one of the 20 rooms in this establishment is a twin room. I guess once they open for business, they're just going to push all the beds together and make the rooms doubles," Shimizu tells Weekly Playboy. "We've confirmed other love hotels of identical construction right here in Osaka. I guess this new place is part of the chain."

It's becoming something of a trend across Japan for love hotel operators to initially register their establishments as normal accommodation until they open, to take advantage of the less stringent requirements for regular hotels, then become love nests once operations are underway.

Under the Business Affecting Public Morals Regulation Law, love hotels are defined by the limitations placed on them for such things as lobbies and dining areas, as well as by the number of rotating beds and bathrooms with mirrored walls that they contain. The same law also bans them from setting up within close proximity to schools, allowing minors to use the premises and advertising in areas where the underage hang out.

But love hotel operators are apparently a sneaky lot.

"Love hotel owners exploit loopholes in the law. They build hotels without any rotating beds or mirrors and get a license to run them as a normal hotel. But once they've received permission to operate, they start offering them as love hotels for amorous couples," a writer on the adult entertainment business tells Weekly Playboy.

There's not much law-abiding citizens can do to combat underhanded shag shack owners from circumventing the rules.

"About the only way we can fight this is if Osaka comes up with specification ordinances of its own," local politician Shimizu says. "We could set a minimum number of single rooms for a place to be classified as a business hotel, or outlaw hotels from having displays of room interiors in their lobbies. Whatever way, we should strongly regulate them."

Others point to the changing accommodation market and feel they may be fighting a losing battle.

"Now, even posh hotels are offering daytime rates and renting rooms out by the hour instead of the night. I guess most people taking up these offers are only doing it for a place to have sex," the adult entertainment business writer tells Weekly Playboy. "The difference between love hotels and regular hotels has been strongly blurred. It's impossible to try and keep them under control."

Now what do you have to say, ye who support "regulatory relief" as the only way towards "pure" capitalism? 

ONE OF INTERPOL'S MOST WANTED, "MERCHANT OF DEATH" VIKTOR BOUT, WAS ARRESTED BY THAI POLICE @ a Bangkok hotel as he was preparing to sell weapons of mayhem to Colombian-based FARC rebels over the Information Stuporbahn.

Mr. Bout, when you get right down to it, just loved to flaunt UN trade embargoes in supplying the implements of mayhem and destruction to the weird and unwholesome element since the former Soviet Union collapsed.

In any case, call it dumb luck that the Thai police caught up with perhaps the weirdest of the weird and unwholesome before he had designs on selling mayhem and fear to the American "patriot" movement, perhaps.

*************

"DOWN UNDER," PROSTITUTION IS LEGAL ... BUT SEX SLAVERY IS NOT. Nor is forcing prostitutes to pay off their debts through performing Mrs. Warren's Profession almost constantly, for as much as 20 hours a day.

Such was the state of affairs as befell ten South Korean women rescued by Sydney police the other day in the wake of the prostitution ring they were tricked into working for being broken by police, its ringleaders facing charges of False Enticement, Debt Bondage and Immigration Fraud (as in recuriting the ladies under false pretenses).

Let's not forget Neal Boortz' infamous suggestion to a Hurricane Katrina refugee that she turn prostitute as her only hope for empowerment out of welfare....

*************

THERE CAN BE NO MISTAKING THE FACT THAT WE COULD BE LIVING IN TIMES OF REAL OR IMMINENT SOCIOECONOMIC DISLOCATION, what with newly-released calculations showing further erosion of employment numbers and estimates that the number will only get worse--with this being an election year making things all the more complicated.

In any case, expect there to be plenty of carpetbaggery by the so-called "gifting club" community among especially working-class communities in or close to serious risk of adverse socioeconomic impact, and all the more so in lower-income neighbourhoods.

Incentive enough, methinks, to call for "missionary work" to promote the viability of mutual self-help as the best empowerment tool for the Lower Classes (and I'm not talking the travesty therefor which Fox Noise wants thus packaged).

=============

WORTH YOUR READING: This essay on BraveNewFilms.org as gives five reasons why only 3,600 viewers, out of an estimated 30 million cabled homes nationwide theoretically able to watch it, watch Faux Business Network on any given day.

Never mind that Faux Business is being promoted as CNBC for Joe Sixpack and his hard-wired conservative mindset....

*************

ANOTHER ANGLE FOR TO "SWIFT-BOAT" JOHN McCAIN'S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WITH (AND THEN SOME), thanks to the following advert from the freshly-launched 501(c)(4) "Campaign to Defend America" (thanks to Think Progress for the hat tip):

• drug addicts;
• alcoholics;
• sex fiends and perverts (especially pedophiles);
• wife- and/or child-abusers;
• such with Notorious Police Records including stints in Corrective Schools;
• chronic and habitual gamblers or spendthrifts;
• such with "broken home" or otherwise dysfunctional family histories as can be easily exploited;
• undischarged bankrupts; and
• the Archie Bunker/Alf Garnett element.

Which, (un)knowingly, amounts to an (un)conscious Fifth Column within the Beltway--only they prefer to project the likelihood thereof to "liberals," "Secular-Progressives" and "closet Communists" to avoid attracting suspicions among "those Meddling Bloggers" in the Freddie Jones, Daphne Blake, Velma Dinkley, Norville "Shaggy" Rogers and Scooby-Doo vein (or so they must fear pro Deo et patria).

*************

AND STAYING WITH THE EARLY-MORNING BOMBING YESTERDAY NEAR THE LITTLE THEATER OFF TIMES SQUARE, and the search for the perps thereof:

How do we know we're not really dealing with an agent provocateur in the pay of Fox Noise (all the more taking unscrupulous advantage of his psychoemotional instability, and history thereof) seeking cheap and cheerful means by which to whip up a new round of Islamophobically "patriotic" anti-terrorist paranoia among their audience of the weak-minded and easily-led, shopping Wally World for the most part just because they offer lower prices and have no regard for value for money?

THE CONWEBWATCH BLOG IS TAKING NOTE OF HOW THE CONSERVATIVE "NEWS PORTAL" WORLDNETDAILY IS HANDLING a case from down California way involving parents suspected of neglecting their children by not sending them to public schools "on religious grounds" and, instead, homeschooling them.

And, throughout, presenting the parents as "martyrs" in the hands of "Nazi" policymakers "showing reckless and utter disregard for the rights of Christian families to educate their children as they alone think proper."

Following is a recent article off ConWebBlog as makes note of court documents in dependency cases involving the family involved which WorldNetDaily's coverage chooses to ignore in the name of hard-wired support to conservative articles of faith, homeschooling among them:

We've previously noted how WorldNetDaily's Bob Unruh played the Nazi card in likening a California ruling ordering a family's homeschooled children to attend regular school to "officials from Germany, where homeschooling has been outlawed since 1938 under a law adopted when Adolf Hitler decided he wanted the state, and no one else, to control the minds of the nation's youth." We also presumed that Unruh wasn't telling the full story about this case because, well, that's what Unruh does.

Indeed, we were right. The AMPS blog has uncovered what appears to be the complete court ruling about this case and a related case involving the family, and it includes numerous details about the case that Unruh failed to report, presumably because they interfered with his effort to portray homeschoolers as the noble victims of Nazi-like oppression.

Unruh had written:

The judges ruled in the case involving the Longs the family failed to demonstrate "that mother has a teaching credential such that the children can be said to be receiving an education from a credentialed tutor," and that their involvement and supervision by Sunland Christian School's independent study programs was of no value.

Nor did the family's religious beliefs matter to the court.

But according to the court ruling, the parents claimed that Sunland Christian School was a "charter school" without any evidence that it was, as defined by state law. The ruling also pointed out that the parents were depriving their children "of an education in a public or private full-time day school setting, or by a credentialed tutor, through the ruse of enrolling them in a private school and then letting them stay home and be taught by a non-credentialed parent."

Further, Sunland's "involvement and supervision" appears to have been minimal at best; the school's administrator said "he makes visits to the parents' home about four times a year," and "the children in the family reported to the Department of Children and Family Services social worker that they were given tests at the end of some school years and they took the tests at the Sunland Christian School." Such minimal supervision by Sunland arguably does render it as having "no value."

While Unruh stated that the family has homeschooled their children "because of various anti-Christian influences in California's public schools"--he later adds the father's assertion that "he won't allow the pro-homosexual, pro-bisexual, pro-transgender agenda of California's public schools, on which WND previously has reported, to indoctrinate his children"--the court ruling states:

Over the years, the parents of the children have given various reasons for not sending the children to school. Although previously they have stated they do not believe in the policies of the public school system, more recently they have asserted that they home school because of their religious beliefs. The father also recently opined that educating children outside the home exposes them to "snitches."

The ruling concludes: "Given this history of this family, which we need not discuss here, permitting the parents to educate the children at home by means of a credentialed tutor would likely post too many difficulties for the tutor." What is that history? The related ruling supplied by AMPS, involving the California DCFS' case against the family, details:

The family's third contact with the juvenile court came when a petition was filed in November 1993 for the same five children plus minor Rachel. According to a Department report in the instant case and a Department report in a 2001 matter involving this family, the six minors were found to be persons coming within the provisions of section 300 on the basis of the following sustained allegations: the parents' home was dangerous to the minors in that it included, but was not limited to, approximately 60 guns, rifles and/or assault weapons; black powder in an unsecured location; and live ammunition, shells, and magazines, all of which was within access of the minors, and the guns and ammunition were in close proximity to each other. Further, the minors' home was found to be in [*9] an endangering filthy, unsanitary and unsafe condition, and the minors were chronically filthy, and unsupervised late at night. Additionally, the parents unlawfully concealed the whereabouts of the children from the Department and father willfully gave false information to the court concerning the whereabouts of the children. Eventually all of the minors were released to mother's care.

[...]

The fifth and current involvement of the Department with this [*10] family came as the result of minor Rachel's contact with the Los Angeles Police Department, Wilshire Division, on January 26, 2006, when she asked to be picked up because she was tired, hungry and had no place to live. She was fourteen years old at the time. She had run away from the family home on October 29, 2005. Rachel told the Department social worker that she was tired of living under father's house rules. She stated father would hit her with a stick, hanger or shoe if she did not follow his rules. She said he will not let her wear pants at home and she had to wear skirts or dresses, not let her wear makeup, and not let her attend public school. Rachel also reported that Leonard C. repeatedly molested her when she was between the ages of four and nine. He repeatedly groped her and would come into her room when she was in bed and put his finger into her vagina. She said she told the parents about it when she was 12 years old but they did not believe her. She stated the man still comes to the house occasionally and she worries that he might begin molesting her sister Mary Grace. She stated she engages in selfmutilation (cutting herself with a razor blade) and has problems with [*11] depression, but her parents will not send her to therapy because father tells her that speaking with him is all the therapy she needs. She stated she would never be all right with father now because she has been sexually active. She stated she would continue to run away if she is forced to live at home. The social worker reported that Rachel's situation was similar to her sister Elizabeth's, who also ran away, wanted to attend public school, objected to father's house rules, was removed from the home for physical and emotional abuse, and complained that father dominates everyone in the house, including mother.

[...]

In the meantime, on January 27, 2006, a visit to the parents' two-bedroom home in Lynwood revealed it was very cramped with the family's belongings, the hallway had a dresser and plastic boxes piled almost to the ceiling and they partially blocked the door to the children's bedroom, which had no door on it. The yard was laded with junk that presented a fire hazard and breeding ground for vermin.

[...]

By the [29*] time of the May 18, 2006, adjudication hearing, Rachel was living with her sister Elizabeth. The Department was having difficulty securing a clothing allowance for Rachel because a birth certificate for her was needed but the parents continued to assert there was no birth certificate. Because the parents were not willing to sign an affadavit stating where and when Rachel was born, the Department indicated Rachel would be required to have a bone test done to determine her age, and for that, a medical or court order was necessary.

[...]

Rachel stated she is attending public school and likes it. She stated she does not have the same knowledge that the other students in her class have and she is working to catch up to them. Asked how much time she spent each day on being school at the parents' home, she stated "sometimes two hours. [*27] Sometimes half an hour. It depended on what homework it was."

These are the people Unruh is painting as victims of state oppression -- whitewashing their real background in the process.

If Unruh was turning in slanted, incomplete copy when he worked for the Associated Press, as he does for WorldNetDaily, no wonder he doesn't work there anymore.

In short, dysfunctional on steroids and amphetamines.

To whom it may concern:

Please allow me to use this opportunity to ask you some questions about the responsibility (or lack thereof) you may have when it comes to harnessing the power and potential of the broadcast medium for "winning of hearts and minds," never mind any patsies and bromides you may want to resort to claiming that your shows should be looked upon in the context of "entertainment" rather than news and information--with particular regards to this being an election year, where your resort to fear, vitriol, pandering to the basest of emotions and paranoia, among other vices, is more likely to be pronounced.

May I proceed:

• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the likelihood that some of your most avid listeners could be among the most vulnerable to suggestion, and the influences thereof?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware that the vulnerability I just referenced may be attributable to mental and/or psychoemotional disorders aggravated by the likes of alcoholism, drug addiction or dependency, abuse and/or mistreatment in childhood, dysfunctional parents or even the effects of veneral disease?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware that the vast majority of these vulnerable elements among your listening audience can be said to come from the lower socioeconomic classes, known to be all the more likely to associate with the Dregs of Society, among other elements weird and/or unwholesome?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the proverb that "actions have consequences"? And how such would apply within the context of remarks made on your programme, especially such with tendencies towards hatemongering, bigotry, prejudice, discrimmination, etc.--and especially so the likelihood of your using "patriotism" and "national honour," among other patsies, to excuse such remarks?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the clear and present danger for your remarks, depending on the tone, nuance, subtleties and shades of meaning thereof, being motivation enough for certain vulnerable and/or easily-influenced listeners to carry out acts, deeds and exploits which are likely to cause physical, mental and/or psychological harm or injury--perhaps even death--against members of specific and identifiable National Minorities as are targets of your hatemongering, let alone your packaging such as "harmless entertainment"?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the likelihood that the perpetrator(s) of such sinister acts, deeds and exploits could invoke the influence of your programmes, and the messages carred on same, as motivation therefor if and when questioned by police, never mind the possibility of their pleading insanity to avoid more serious consequences (even considering the likelihood for Hate Crimes enhancements)?
• Are you not (un)consciously (un)aware of the likelihood that you may be asked to testify as a witness in any court proceedings as a consequence of such acts, deeds and exploits influenced by your programme's comments, even if you deliver such via video link? And that you will be testifying under oath, (un)consciously (un)aware of the consequences for Perjury?
• What sort of liability would you have for the ensuing consequences caused by the acts, deeds and exploits of some emotionally unstable listener who takes your remarks to be a call to violence, let alone a valid legal defence?
• Have you no shame?
• Have you no sense of Decency, Sir, @ long last?
• Have you left no sense of Decency?

I ask you these questions out of a clear and sincere concern for the likelihood that your remarks could too easily be taken so literally that physical and/or psychoemotional harm, fear and even death could ensue under the wrong set of circumstances, and in the hands and mind of some emotionally-unstable or overzealous listener crossing the line as a result. Not to mention ask what sort of liability you would have if you were @ least indirectly implicated.

Perhaps it was time you realised that "actions have consequences," and the wrong sort of actions could mean all the more serious consequences on your end. In such instances, what sort of remorse would you have, if any?

What steps would you try to take to avoid the likelihood of scandal, all the while unaware that scandal may already have caught up with you to the point of damage being done to your name and career?

Or have you no sense of remorse by deliberate and spineless choice?

In any case, the stakes are too great to recognise the consequences as will likely be laid upon your good name and repute.

Awaiting some logical-sounding and rational answers, I am

 Disobediently yours,
ILUDIUM PHOSDEX
(die egte artikel--aanvaar geen plaasvervangers)

*************

MEMO TO BLOG READERS: You are strongly encouraged and advised to share this Open Letter to not just your friends, but also to those hosting conservative talkback radio programmes--and your local radio stations as carry them, usually on a syndicated basis.

But do so responsibly; in other words, avoid "spamming" and keep your remarks polite, yet professional.

It's the voices of conservative talkback radio especially as need to "get the message"--before something serious happens. As in reminding them of the consequences of their abusing such a powerful medium, let alone its power and intrusion, for dangerous and sinister ends.

Otherwise--?

But don't come crying to me.