...it all depends on what your definition of "is" is. Maybe Sen. Allen is just parsing words VERY CAREFULLY.

Last week, he bristled at a question about his family history, specifically insinuating that even asking about Jewish roots is somehow an "aspersion". Now, my dictionary has three definitions for that word.

- - - -

aspersion (noun) 1. a sprinkling with water, as in baptizing 2. the act of defaming 3. damaging or disparaging remark; slander; innuendo

- - - -

I must admit, #1 is a new one to me, but maybe Allen knows this particular definition. Being a vocal born-again Christian, I'll bet he's a proponent of full-immersion baptism rather than simple sprinkling. Any hint of a "sprinkling" baptism would HAVE to be offensive. Let's cut the good Senator a break on this, OK?

No way he could have meant definition #2 or #3 -- those are wholly negative, and would imply unease or discomfort with any shred of Jewishness in his family history.

As for the "n" word, my trusty Websters Collegiate doesn't even CONTAIN that word, so let's not go there. But maybe Allen is focusing on the word "used" -- perhaps he doesn't think he ever USED the "n" word. I'll bet he really meant definition #5 as printed in my dictionary.

- - - -

use (vt) 5. a) to smoke or chew (tobacco) b) to take or consume habitually (to use drugs)

- - - -

No doubt, THAT is what Allen meant. He's never smoked, chewed or otherwise consumed black people -- let's see someone in the liberal mainstream media refute THAT!

...building on the previous response from "anonymous" to our beloved Joe, here's a War Room item from Tim Grieve that also hit a home run a little over 3 months ago.

- - - - - - -

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/06/20/911pdb/index.html

- - - - - - -

Ron Suskind, George W. Bush and the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB

Ron Suskind's "The One Percent Doctrine" is out this week, and the Washington Post's Barton Gellman says it's full of "jaw-dropping stories" about the Bush administration's war on terror.

Or lack thereof.

We've known for years now that George W. Bush received a presidential daily briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, in which he was warned: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." We've known for almost as long that Bush went fishing afterward.

What we didn't know is what happened in between the briefing and the fishing, and now Suskind is here to tell us. Bush listened to the briefing, Suskind says, then told the CIA briefer: "All right. You've covered your ass, now."

-- Tim Grieve

...are apparently the latest refuges of a scoundrel, to amend the old saying.

I'd much prefer a competent President with personal character flaws over someone who is obviously incompetent, in-over-his-head and patently destructive to this country and its interests. Sincere people can disagree about competency, of course, as well as the relative importance of character flaws versus that competency.

While there must have been some pacifist-type opposition to our post-9/11 attack of Afghanistan, I honestly can't remember hearing much about it. Our attack on al Qaeda and the Taliban was nearly unanimously endorsed by Americans and the world -- that attack WAS, and IS to this day, the right thing to do.

How anyone can maintain that utter neglect of the existing anti-terror structure pre-9/11, and contemptuous dismissal of what turned out to be a valid warning of the pending attack within this country, is (or was) justified is mind-boggling. CYA? How so?

If Clinton had received and ignored such a warning prior to the first WTC bombing, we would still be hearing about his dereliction of duty.

This should surprise us HOW? It is the height of naivete to expect Congress to do anything significantly different from its behavior of the last six years. The era of real oversight is GONE as long as one-party rule effectively squelches the intended checks and balances of our Constitution. Probably the most disappointing aspect of recent events is when the so-called Republican moderates (and others) stir themselves to life, making noises that hint they've been pushed to the limit and will take no more from the White House.

Then, the spasm subsides and they fall back into line, with next to nothing to show for their "rebellion". Mike DeWine, Olympia Snowe, the spineless Arlen Specter and many others have taken us down this path far too often.

Of course, beyond that behavior, the sheer size of most bills reaching the floor for final approval, coupled with the irresistible urge to slip "surprises" into those bills through late-night backroom deals, brings us to this reality: Our elected representatives end up voting on issues that NO ONE understands fully. NO ONE. It is not a partisan issue -- Republicans and Democrats both bear responsibility for bringing us to this point -- but the GOP has clearly perfected this corrupted form of government during Dubya's reign.

We really need to have some student of political science and history develop a new term for the form of government that has evolved in Washington DC. Democracy, republic, benevolent dictatorship -- all seem so inadequate.

Hey, let's have a contest -- come up with the most appropriate and descriptive name for our current form of government. How about it, gang?

Here's my suggestion: "Unconstitutional Monarchy"

Let's go back to the days preceding the Magna Carta -- here's how Wikipedia puts it (with no further explanation required to see how this is pertinent TODAY):

- - - - -

Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum ("Great Charter of Freedoms"), is an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta was the most significant early influence on the long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today. Magna Carta was originally created because of disagreements between Pope Innocent III, King John and his English barons about the rights of the King. Magna Carta required the king to renounce certain rights, respect certain legal procedures and accept that the will of the king could be bound by law.