When crusty old guys could emphatically tell their grandsons "Religion? It's all a load of bunkem."

And that was that.

Crusty Grandpa didn't have to qualify his statement with "I'm not against religion per se... just organized religion. I mean, I'm spiritual. I believe in a deeper meaning to life. I'm a very spiritual person and I respect those who practice religion for altruistic reasons, don't get me wrong.... I think Jesus Christ was a swell guy, it's just the authoritarianism which has sprung up around his legend that bugs me..."

No sir. No weasely caveats. Just plain old belief in bunkem. And if the local pastor tried to come around and talk Grandpa Crusty into coming along to church on Sundays with Grandma, why old Grandpa Crusty would just tell him "You're wasting your time. Go help some widows and orphans. Now good day, reverend."

Why am I not seeing Ned Lamont on tv? Last night, the media carried Lieberman's "poor, poor pitiful me" concession speech live but only CSPAN carried Lamont's victory speech. Today, all I see all over my TV screen and my net server news sections is Lieberman's face, Lieberman's words.

There was an election. One guy won, the other guy lost. The election is usually about the winner, not the loser. If it's big news that the incumbent lost, which it sometimes is, that's no reason to deny coverage of the victor.

I say we need to bombard the media with demands for an explanation as to why Ned Lamont is being marginalized after he just WON the election of his life.

Unfortunately, being a pundit is much like being a government worker. You can't get fired, no matter what. I have called media outlets, I have emailed, I have snail mailed and pointed out times when pundits have spread completely wrong information, when they've lied and when they've contradicted themselves within a 24 hour period, never saying "I've changed my mind" but behaving as if they always had the new opinion.

Doesn't matter. Nothing changes. Remember when the Washington Post's ombudsman twice misstated that Democrats took money from Jack Abramoff? The first time she did it, she was corrected by hundreds of emails and phone calls. OK, first time. Did she retract her statement? Did she make any remarks noting that she'd mistakenly characterized Abramoff's relationship with Democrats? No. Not only did she not correct herself, she went ahead and did it a second time. By the second time, she *knew* it was false, so she was deliberatley spreading misinformation... which actually used to be considered a despicable among those who considered themselves a notch or two above yellow journalism. When torrents of emails flooded WaPo from angry readers who had already corrected the ombudsman, the editors at WaPo engaged in a fit of hysteria not seen since anyone's Aunt Fanny swooned and passed out while clutching her pearls. The editors accused readers of engaging in "hate speech" because a couple of writers -- out of the hundreds who wrote -- used curse words. Well, those writers were angry at seeing a deliberate disinformation campaign in a media outlet which used to pride itself on its "investigative" journalism. Instead of WaPo admitting that an error was made not once (mistakenly) but twice (deliberately), they tried to turn it into another disingenuous campaign -- a campaign against "the internet" and bloggers. Cue Aunt Fanny.

The same is true of just about every media outlet in this country. They hire pundits-for-life. No matter how many times a pundit is cancelled due to dismal ratings, that pundit gets another gig. (Hello, Tucker Carlson? Dennis Miller?) The punditocracy is made up terminal incumbents and we can't vote them out no matter what.

If so, there's only one thing a freedom lover can do. Buy up a lot of guns.

Who knows? They may come in handy.

get up on the floor of the House and Senate and demand retractions from the people who disseminate this deliberate propaganda? Name names. "I, Senator Blankety Blank, demand a retraction of Joe Propaganda's column where he maliciously and deliberately characterized the Democratic Party's standing on the NSA counterterrorism program as our "wanting it killed" it. This is an outright lie and we should not stand for lies of this sort being spread by people whose only purpose is partisan. It is a disgrace and I ask my respected colleagues of both parties to stand up against the deliberate dissemination of false propaganda; it does nothing but blight the party it attempts to assist and history will shame those who agree to it now, hoping it will help their party in the short run. In the long run, it harms the nation."

"I'm sure some Republicans who are against the war voted on the Lamont side.

--joe"

I'm from NY, where only registered Democrats can vote in the Democratic primary. Is the rule different in CT? Can voters from both parties and registered independents vote in both primaries, regardless of party registration?

Everyone here in "the real America" knows that the Mohawk haircut is named after the Native American Mohawk tribe. And we know the Real American writer James Fenimore Cooper wrote about the Mohawk and other Native American nations in his Leatherstocking Tales. It's basic Real American lit 101. That a politician with a college degree cannot pronounce the word "Mohawk" and seems to have never heard the word before (otherwise, why would the word so confuse him as to be heard as "macaca"?) is an issue a lot of people seem to be overlooking. Should a man who never heard of the word "Mohawk", a part of our Real American history and heritage, be elected to higher office here in the Real America? How American is he if he doesn't know we had to subdue the inferior Mohawk tribe in order to establish a white Christian nation here in the Real America? I mean... sheesh.