The big TV appearance

I haven't bothered to watch it, but everyone who has said it wasn't that bad. Still, I'm wagering there's no future in Hollywood waiting. But here it is: http://tinyurl.com/ckzncp.

Enjoy.

Control, control, you must learn control!

As with all other members of my family, I have a temper. Over the years, I have learned to control it, for the most part, and don't lose it nearly as much as I once did.

But it's there. I can feel it. There are times when the hate surges through me and I want to go "nuke" someone (in the words of my dad).

Countrywide brought it out in me and that did them little good. Now our vet has.

Explanation: This past weekend, the missus and I went to my parents' house in Round Rock because it was my dad's birthday, my birthday and the nephew was going to be in town. To simplify things, we decided to leave Deuce and Ripken at the vet's for a couple days. We've done it before, so what's the worst thing that could happen--if they do what they're supposed to and keep them together?

Note the "keep them together" part. It's something I requested three different times--once on the phone when we made the reservations and twice when we dropped them off.

"No problem," we were told.

Problem.

I went to get the boys yesterday and you would have thought they'd just spent 18 months in Iraq. They were, for lack of a better word, traumatized. Especially Ripken, who came home shaking, hid in the closet, came out and slept on our bed and lost control of his bladder. Not what I want when I'm expecting a $60 bill and it comes out to be $140.

I didn't say anything, but I think the look of utter disgust was noticed. More on that in a second.

I knew something was up. The dark side surged. So the missus decided she'd take care of the issue. She called the vet this afternoon and was told, after she completely lost her shit, that no, Ripken and Deuce had not been together, which was contrary to our wishes. Instead, our 65 pound fuzzball who was neutered when he was 2 months old had been tossed in with a bunch of much bigger, meaner dogs. It totally screwed him up.

My wife was disgusted. "Well, we hope you can forgive us," the assistant said flippantly.

"No, I don't think I can," she said. "And you can explain this to my husband."

The hemming and hawing my wife had received before was amplified. Apparently, she was talking to the person who saw the look of disdain on my face the day before and, I believe, knew they'd ignored our instructions.

"I'll have the vet call him," she said.

They haven't. I'm calling them first thing in the morning. And the rhymic, mechanical breathing will probably be very evident when I do. I'm pissed and, honestly, don't care about controlling it right now.

Things you don't want to mix up

In life, there are an awful lot of things you can confuse for another. In most cases, it's not a big deal. Having said that, however, there are a few things you can mix up that will make you look like a certified moron. Here are just a few that I've thought of today that you just don't want to confuse:

• The Miss America wave with the Stalin/Saddam wave: You know the Miss America wave--the one with all the wrist that signfies that yes, I am a brain-dead bimbo but I look hot in bathing suit and my pleas for world peace sounded better than Ms. New Mexico's. You also know the Saddam/Stalin wave-- cupped hand turned sideways, no movement of the wrist whatsoever. If you ever get the roses and tiara, make sure you do NOT give the wave that indicates you're going to kill the families of everyone in the audience, try to kill all the Jews and invade a small country. It will not help you in your mission to end childhood illiteracy.
• Washington D.C. with Washington State: This one galls me to no end and, amazingly, you hear it all the time. I'll be wearing a Redskins shirt and someone will come up to me and say, "I didn't know Seattle had a football team." Well, they do--the SEAHAWKS. Or someone will bitch about why the National Gallery of Art or Smithsonian are out west, so far from the rest of us. If you don't know the difference, hand over your driver's license and voter registration card because you're too dumb to be trusted with something that important.
• Rival schools: A total teeth grinder,which I can direct back to someone I worked with in Georgia. Amazingly, the idiot in question was the sports editor and didn't know the difference between Texas A&M and the University of Texas. After A&M got punked by Texas several years ago in football, he came over to me the following week and said, "You must be happy." I looked at him like he just got off the bus from the sun. Perhaps it's because he's never left ACC country or, more likely because he's a moron, he replied to my invitation to impregnate himself with this doozy: "Oh, there's a difference? I thought all those crappy Texas schools were the same." Sure. And Alabama's like Auburn, UNC's like Duke and Army's like Navy. The following week, his alma mater, Clemson, took it in the trunks from arch-rival South Carolina. I asked him how happy he was, and he got pissed. I replied, "Didn't know there was a difference between you douchebag South Carolina schools." He didn't talk to me for the remainder of the time I was there--seven months. I made damned sure to E-mail him, though, when A&M punked Clemson the following season. Jerkoff.
• The King's English and the President's English: Remember, we are separated by an ocean and a common language. If you ask for a fag in England, you'll get a smoke. You ask for one here, you'll tick someone off, regardless of their sexual preference.
  
• 110 volt outlet and a 220 volt outlet: Margaret Thatcher did this on a trip to Saudi Arabia in the 80s. She plugged her hair dryer into the wrong one and blew out the brakers for an entire palace.
• MSNBC and a real news source: Unless you want to come out of your TV watching experience slightly to the left of Lenin, don't do it.
• ESPN and a real sports source: Unless you feel the urge to root for Duke or any team from New York/New England, it's not worth your time.
• A guy who reads a speech well off a teleprompter and presidential material: Damn. Too late.
• Michael Jackson and a babysitter: And, for that matter, Jesus Juice will not bring your children closer to our Lord and Savior.
  

A bailout for newspapers is a horrible idea

Several months ago, I predicted that the demise of newspapers would occur before the 2012 election. I also made the statement that some, if not all, newspapers were in the tank for Obama and the Democrats in general this past election cycle (more so than usual) because they figured they could get a handout from them.

Both comments were scoffed at. Both have been proven to be correct.

On Tuesday night, Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) introduced a bill that would provide federal funds to newspapers. Cardin's "Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements.

Advertising and subscription revenue would be tax exempt, and contributions to support news coverage or operations could be tax deductible."

This is a terrible idea on a number of levels, both in terms of sheer economics and the role newspapers should play in a free society.

It's a plain fact that newspapers are struggling. The Houston Chronicle cut nearly 30 percent of its staff today and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution slashed similar number. Stories of large papers going bankrupt or to Web-only products. That's a shame, simply because of the historic role newspapers have played in the evolution of our society. But, honestly, they've only got themselves to blame.

The business model for newspapers is untenable and has been for some time. The increasingly leftist slant has turned off a large portion of potential readers and has cost them advertising. The options presented by the Internet have further cut into their reader base. And, honestly, a lot of journalism today isn't fact-based reporting, it's self-important, opinionated crap. That don't help.

So, let the process take its course. Let journalism evolve, as the society journalists are supposed to be serving has. It's the 21st century and papers are still acting like they're in the 1800s. They haven't adapted, so they need to either do so or die.

If this bill were to pass, newspapers would not only be truly meaningless but another albatross on the American taxpayer. Cardin claims that his plan is intended for smaller, community papers, but that's a bunch of crap. After all, who owns community newspapers? Large conglomerates, many of whom are led by a large, well-known big city daily. The Washington Post group, for example, could claim they're taking federal money to take care of the weeklies under its control and pump it right into the big paper. What's the government gonna do? Nothing. Also, there's nothing stopping larger papers (or groups of papers) from getting in on it, whether Cardin intends it for them or not.

If a paper was willing to agree to the terms laid out by Cardin's bill, they wouldn't even be worth wiping your backside with them. In a free society, a newspaper is supposed to be frequent critic, if not an opponent, of government. You can't do that if you're owned by the people you're supposed to be impartially covering! It's hard to have a free press when you're answering to the federal entity. So, even though the press is currently biased, papers taking money under the Cardin bill would not only be biased, they'd be propaganda organs for the feds.

Goodbye, First Amendment; hello, Pravda.

This bill is a horrible, stupid, very bad idea. Yes, it's a crying shame that newspapers are having a rough go; it's even worse to even consider the government bailing them out in exchange for federal regulation.

If you have an interest in a market economy and a free society (or just one or the other), you have to oppose this bill. It is a disgrace that mocks our historical tradition.

This is what voting Republican in Travis County gets you

My grandmother is dead. At least, that's what Travis County says. And, as a result of her death, she is being investigated for voter fraud.

Seriously.

Why is my grandmother being investigated for voter fraud, since she's plainly dead? She did something horrible, evil, unthinkable in the People's Democratic Republic of Travis: voted Republican. For 60 years, in Virginia, she voted for Democrats. She moved down here and did something unthinkable: she actually read about what the candidates stood for.

As a result, she voted for McCain. CRIMINAL ACT!

Unless, of course, you're dead. Which my grandmother apparently is.

And, to prove she's dead, Travis County wants her to sign an affidavit confirming she's dead.

I'm not making any of this up.

I'm gonna be on telbision (part 2)

Ok, my big show on Houston's News Leader has been delayed until tomorrow (Wednesday). I have some question whether it'll come off at all, honestly; you see, the reporter called Countrywide after he talked to me and, lo and behold, guess who has called to make things right with their displeased customer? You got it.

Then again, if I were 13, I'd still run it for two reasons: one, it showed that they can kick some serious ass and two, just because our situation got cleared up doesn't mean that everyone in Houston is so lucky.

And I may be premature and saying our situation is cleared up. Just because one part of Countrywide is getting on the ball doesn't mean the other doesn't intend to still try to foreclose on us for no reason.

(Oh, dear God) "I'm gonna be on telbision!"

Thanks to Eric Cartman for one of the greatest quotes of all time.

But it is, indeed, the case. Yours truly is back in the media swing of things, at least for one day.

A little background: Countrywide Home Mortgage holds the note on our house. After Hurricane Ike hit, they put us in a forbearance program and told us we didn't have to make payments for four months. Before the forbearance ended on Jan. 31, they sent us a letter saying we were in default and they intended to foreclose. Interesting, especially when they're not taking the payments we're making on the note.

We've been trying to get Countrywide to talk to us (and, more importantly, not screw up our credit) for a month now. Nothing. So I called in a few favors and got the local ABC affiliate, Channel 13, interested in it. They called me this morning.

And showed up at the house 45 minutes later. They are, apparently, going to do a piece on this thing and it will show tonight at 4,5,6 and 10.

Countrywide's gonna love us. But it may save us from losing the house, so I'll take having my less than photogenic mug on TV if that's the case.

More later.

Taking down the Carney

This weekend, I went to the Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo for the first time in four years. I tell you what, all you rodeo-haters: you are missing out on a quality time. Of course, as is par for the course in Houston, we do things bigger and better than everywhere else--our rodeo is also a massive musical extravaganza, carnival and shopping experience as well.

But, like every other fair in the world, we have jerkoff carnival workers, or carneys. Carneys, by their basic nature, are snarky, jaded SOBs who simply hate people--especially little kids, pushover parents or totally whipped dudes trying to impress their girlfriend/wife/mistress. So what do they deal with all day? Any or all of the above.

Carneys also take great pleasure in setting up games that you can't win--particularly the basketball game. You know, the one where you take a regular ball and have to shoot it from about 3-point land through a less than regulation hoop that's all bent up. But, of course, your eyes and past experience tell you that, yes, you can sink that damned ball in that damned hole. So you try. And fail. Repeatedly, as Carney laughs at you and takes your money.

15 years ago, I actually beat Carney at the Lehigh Valley (Pa.) Fair. I sank a shot on the first try--nothing but net. Carney tried to say that I missed entirely, but my friends nearly killed him so he gave me the prize. I promptly gave it to a friend of mine (Sally, if you don't have that damned bear to this day, shame on you).

15 years. 15 long years. Many shots, no paydirt. Victory for the Carney.

Until today.

I will have you know, dear reader, that I left a trail of carnage through the HLSR grounds today. I beat everything--the dart game, the watergun game, the other watergun game, you name it. Momma Pug came home with two stuffed pugs and would have come home with a third if we hadn't given it to the infant daughter of a Houston cop. And then there was the nemesis--the basketball game.

I tried. And failed. Tried, failed. Tried, failed. But, every time, the shot was pure and just barely missed.

So it was Josh Carter time. Time and money were running out and the three needed to be drained. So, with my last shot, a la the Aggie sniper, I took one long stride, evened up, and fired. The shot was online--so online, in fact, I heard CBS's Gus Johnson say, "Pure."

It was. It was down--and then the BS rim came into play. And it popped back up in the air. Carney smiled. My wife shrieked. Her new friend also shrieked.

Then the ball game back down, rattled around, and went through.

It was the game winner over Nebraska, except it wasn't in a gym, it didn't mean anything, I didn't get mobbed and nobody noticed.

Except Carney, that is. It looked like I'd kicked him in the nuts. He had lost, and I had won.

"So whaddya want?" he snapped.

"Get me a Winnie the Pooh," I said.

Of course, all the WTPs were in the very back, buried behind Kung Fu Pandas and other crap. So he looked at me with a look of both disdain and pleading.

"Chop chop," I said. "I don't have all day."

He gave me the WTP and I walked away and never looked back. If I had, I'm sure I would have seen Carney either 1) crying or 2) flipping me the bird. Maybe both. You never know.

When is the media going to get the fact that they were used?

I'm not sure what to call the media--whores, for getting paid for their tripe, or sluts, because they repeatedly bend over and take it from Barack Obama for nothing. Whatever he makes up, they dutifully slobber all over it. So I'm a little confused.

They, however, should not be confused about the fact that Obama uses them for a purpose and really doesn't reciprocate their love? This should do it (courtesy of the normally slobbering LA Times):

We're not making this up.

Barack Obama was elected commander in chief promising to run the most transparent presidential administration in American history.

This achievement and the overall promise of his historic administration caused the National Newspaper Publishers Assn. to name him "Newsmaker of the Year."

The president is to receive the award from the federation of black community newspapers in a White House ceremony this afternoon.

The Obama White House has closed the press award ceremony to the press.

From the president's official schedule:

"Later in the afternoon, the President and the First Lady will attend a reception with the National Newspaper Publisher Association in the State Dining Room, where they will be presented the Newsmaker of the Year award. This event is closed press."

Maybe they'll let the newspaper people pass the award through the fence.


Ok, back to me. You think this is enough for them to clue in?

Nah, I didn't either.

March 19 is a busy day in our household

So what does March 19 mean to you?

Standard Republican response: March 19 is the 6th anniversary of President Bush's courageous decision to liberate the people of Iraq from the despotism of Saddam Hussein and remove the risk of his supporting terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.

Standard liberal response: It's another reminder of the evil of BushHitler and his imperialist reign, how he destroyed our reputation around the globe and trampled the Constitution (sniff, sniffle, honk)

Rippy's response: IT'S HIMS DAY! THREE YEARS SINCE HIMS CAME HOME! RIPPY DAY!

He's got a point.

All of these things are true, but that's not the big thing for me.

WHAT, HIMS DADDY? HAVE YOU LOSTED YOUR MARBLES?

Sorry, Rippy, but this is also the fourth anniversary of mommy and I getting married?

It is? Hims did not know that.

It's true. Four years ago today, in Brookhaven, Mississippi, the Missus and I sealed the deal. It was a situation that I'd given up on long before, but she never gave up on me and made a married man out of me.

Since then, we've gone through a combined three residences (one house), five jobs, four vehicles and God only knows how much Pepto-Bismol. We've added three dogs (HIMS!) and a lot of debt, most of which we've gotten out of. So, instead of being some drunk angry reporter, I'm a guy running his own business who gets to stay home and watch the NCAA basketball tournament.

And stay home with HIMS!

Yes, Rippy. That too.

Hims guesses hims should thank hims mommy for that.

Yes, Rippy, you should.

So should hims daddy.

Why do you think I'm writing this, Rippy?

Hims dunnot know. Hims dunnot know. But if it's to tell him mommy that you loves her, that's a good idea, hims daddy!

Thank you, Rippy. I was rather proud of it myself.

Are the Redskins interested in Jay Cutler? Maybe. Should they be? Maybe.

(UPDATE: For further opinions on this matter, see the latest post here.)

I have been meaning to post a blog about how Broncos quarterback Jay Cutler is a whiny bitch. The guy asked for a trade when quarterback coach Jeremy Bates left for USC. Then, when Josh McDaniels showed up as the new coach, he gets offended when McDaniels ponders the possibility of trading for Matt Cassel.

Why did McDaniels want to trade of Cassel? Because, simply, he was his guy. McDaniel was the offensive coordinator in New England last year and took Cassel from a scrub to a $14 million a year guy after he led the Patriots to an 11-5 record. He knows Cassel's system, which is sort of a necessity in Denver, when you consider that McDaniels is probably not going to have much of a grace period in a place that demands winning.

The NFL is a business. If McDaniels thinks that Cassel's going to help him win faster, then so be it. Cutler's a starting quarterback, a Pro Bowl quarterback, so if he gets traded, he'll start somewhere else. And he'll get paid very nicely to do it.

But Cutler's got to whine and moan about how he's being mistreated and demand a trade. Get a life. How immature. How phony. You're getting paid millions of dollars to play the glamor position in a professional sport. Where do you get off complaining about much of anything?

Then I found out the Washington Redskins, my team, are allegedly interested in trading for Cutler. It leaves me somewhat conflicted. Talent-wise, it would be a huge step up. But he's still a whiny bitch.

The Redskins quarterback, Jason Campbell, has been a bit of a disappointment. Last year, he threw 13 touchdowns and only 6 interceptions. That's nice--in half a season. That was his total for the year. He has had to deal with a lot of offensive systems, to be sure, but he hasn't shown a lot of confidence in his abilities and hasn't inspired much in his teammates, either.

Cutler, on the other hand, has a rifle for an arm and impressive statistics last year. He put up more totals in 5 games than Campbell did in a year. He's probably an excellent fit in Jim Zorn's scheme, because it's close to what Mike Shanahan had in Denver last year (there's that scheme thing again).

Putting Cutler in the Redskins offense with Santana Moss, Chris Cooley, Devin Thomas, Malcom Kelly and Clinton Portis makes them infinitely better--on paper. But he's still an immature twerp. The Redskins are fragile enough already in terms of team chemistry; putting a guy under center who was dumb enough to talk about how he has a better arm than John Elway while playing in DENVER! is probably not a good idea.

So please, Jim Zorn, Vinny Cerrato and Dan Snyder--save your draft picks (and whatever players you'd trade to get this guy). Take a pass on Jay Cutler until he grows up.

Give us cookie now

Many, many years ago, I was an infant. I developed fairly normally, I suppose; I ate, I drank, walked around, banged on high chair table when I was watching hockey (I grew up in the north. Sue me).

One thing I didn't do was talk. Eight months, a year, sixteen months went by and not a word. My parents began to wonder if I was...ahem...limited.

Then, one day in about my 18th month, my mother was doing the laundry. She didn't notice, but I had developed a rather smooth contraption of pushing the chair with my booster seat in it over to the counter, climbed up on it and got on the counter top.

I sat down and looked at her. And spoke.

"Gimme cookie now," I said.

And there it was. Not a word like "mama" or "dada"--a complete sentence. A demand, actually. It has become family legend.

Flash forward three decades. My nephew, who many people say is a mirror image of myself, is about 18 months old. He's very active, loud, runs around and generally raises hell. But he hasn't been talking much; he says "dada" and that's about it.

Then, the other day, my sister was cooking dinner. She was by the stove, which is by the cookie jar. My nephew walked over and pulled on my sister's pant leg. She looked down at him. He looked up at her.

"Gimme cookie," he said.

My sister puked.

I love that kid.

And the liberals want our health care to be like Canda's?

Growing up overseas allowed me to meet some folks from other countries (duh). Some of our neighbors were from Canada, eh. I've been eavesdropping on a conversation one's been having because she needs speech therapy. Here's what she said:

"NS (Nova Scotia) won't see me because I live in NB (New Brunswick). FRUSTRATING"

Her mother replied: "You have been on the list for speech therapy in Saint John since 1967, things move so fast in NB."

So, let me get this right: If you live in one province and have a special need, you can't get looked at in another? So, if I broke my leg in Louisiana, I'd have to haul my busted ass back to Texas to get looked at? Or, worse, if I were on vacation in Virginia and had a seizure, there's nothing they could do?

Yeah, that's great. Bring me that socialized medicine. I want to wait 40 years to get looked at.

If Houston is NOT a sanctuary city..

Would someone like to explain to me the following:

• Why did the federal government define Houston as a "sanctuary city" in 2006?
• Why, if Harold Hurtt has said that anyone arrested on a Class B misdemeanor or higher should have their citizenship checked, is the Houston Police Officer's Union saying that the immigration status of those arrested is not being checked?
• Why did Hurtt testify before the United States Congress that, if HPD actually did do something to arrest illegals, it would hurt them in the Hispanic community?
• Why does Hurtt say he doesn't have enough officers to worry about this sort of thing, when he's got them out monitoring HOV lanes or checking drivers for seat belt violations?
• Why was the federal government not informed when the guy who shot Rick Salter was arrested three previous times?

Now, I understand that Hurtt allegedly changed the policy of HPD after the feds released their report in 2006. I also understand that was an exercise in semantics. If the city of Houston was serious about this stuff, Mayor White--who holds considerable clout--would be on Hurtt's butt to make sure HPD officers (who, by the way, want to enforce this policy) are made to do so. And the city council would pass an ordinance disavowing any aspect of the the "Sanctuary City" policy.

The Mayor has not done so (btw, hi, Bill! Thanks for stopping by. We'll have coffee sometime, yes?). The city council has not done so. Instead, it's hands off, let Harold Hurtt handle it and we'll blame the feds for our problem.

The federal government can be blamed for many, many things. But they're not the major reason Houston cops are getting shot by illegals. That's a self-inflicted wound.

Why that pathetic little school in Lubbock is known as Texas Tceh

Note the flag boys. Then check the circled area for another chuckle.

Chas Freeman stays classy going out the door

Last week, I wrote a blog that highlighted a comment from National Intelligence Committee Chairman-nominee Charles (Chas) Freeman that showed the guy just wasn't real bright, not to mention in the back pocket of the Saudis. I didn't even mention that he's also a big fan of Mao and took more than a little bit of money from the Communist Chinese.

So I wrote what I wrote and a couple of people (thank you, Senator) read it. Even though a lot of newspapers (thank you, New York Times) didn't report it, there was enough of a buzz inside the Beltway about his questionable affiliations and even more questionable beliefs that he asked for his nomination be withdrawn.

In other words, he couldn't take the heat and got out of the kitchen.

So this is what ol' Chas had to say after his nomination was pulled:

"The tactics of the Israel lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and utter disregard for the truth."

Ah, it was the Jews. A typical Saudi/anti-Semitic comment. But I have a few questions for the former ambassador:

• Did you not say that Chinese waited too long to crack down on the protestors in Tienanmen Square?
• Did you not say that Iraq was an old country and that there were no problems between Shiites and Sunnis?
• Do you not work for a lobbying firm paid for by the Saudi government?
• Do you not buy what the House of Saud sells hook, line and sinker?

Not that I'll get any of these questions answered. So I guess I'll just leave it at this: stay cool, Chas. Stay cool.

Houston's sancutary city policy is getting people killed

In a hospital in Houston's Medical Center, Houston Police Officer Richard Alter is fighting for his life. The 27-year HPD veteran, husband, father of two and Texas Aggie was shot in the face by repeat offender Wilfido Joel Alfaro, who was arrested on a myriad of charges five different times. What makes matters worse is that this punk shouldn't have even been in the country--he's an illegal immigrant from El Salvador.

The last Houston police officer shot in the line of duty was Rodney Johnson, who was murdered in 2006 by a man he was arresting. That man was also an illegal.

These incidents are tragedies. The outrage is that Mayor Bill White, Police Chief Harold Hurtt and the Houston City Council bear a portion of the responsibilty for both of these incidents. After all, they were the supporters and enforcers of the Sanctuary City policy.

The Sanctuary City policy is a liberal concept that has been supported by cities like San Francisco and Seattle. Basically, this policy prevents anyone from inquiring about whether a person is in this country legally. This precludes police officers, when arresting someone, from inquiring about their immigration status.

The policy also prevents the city from cooperating with any federal effort to deport illegal aliens.

White has long supported the policy. Hurtt, a first-class idiot, says that HPD officers are law-enforcement officers, not immigration officers, and shouldn't be bothered with immigration matters.

That's utter stupidity.

Avila was deported in 2001 after serving time, and came back into the country. He was arrested in Houston not once, not twice, but three times. He should have been tossed out on his butt years ago, but because of the Sanctuary City policy, he was still here.

So what does Bill White do? Rips the feds for not doing enough to get these people out of here. He says that more must be done to fix the federal database so people know whether an inmate is here illegally.

Ok, Bill--but, by law, you and your police department are not supposed to help in these efforts. If you did, and turned your records over to the INS or DEA or whoever, maybe these things wouldn't happen.

Rodney Johnson is dead. Rick Alter's fighting for his life. And Houston's idiot mayor and moron police chief are furiously looking to pass the buck instead of supporting their officers.

Nancy Pelosi, a leader of the party of the little people, is a rich arrogant snob

In 2006, the Republicans lost control of Congress in large part because Democrats were able to paint them as the party of corruption, arrogance and entitlement. As a result, the nation was "blessed" with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If people would take good look at Nitwit Nancy, they'd see that not only does the GOP not have the market on corrpution, arrogance and entitlement. In fact, she's every bit as bad, if not worse, than anything the Republicans could throw at the public.

A little background of Nitwit Nancy: she's the daughter of a former mayor of Baltimore. She married extremely well and has a hell of a lot of money to burn through a thriving wine business. She could afford her own Gulfstream G-5--honestly, she could own a fleet.

But, apparently, Madam Speaker thinks USAF stands for Ur Speaker's Air Force.

Nitwit Nancy, who has no compunction about ripping the Republicans for being against the regular working schmo, thinks that those same schmos should be paying for her and her family to fly around on military aircraft. She has no problem cancelling the flights at the last minute, even when they've been fueled and staff, and will throw hissy fits when those planes aren't available.

Ok, I have a few problems with Nitwit Nancy on this. For one thing, isn't she representing the American people? She is, after all, a representative. Not that she'd know anything about the average American; I wonder if she's actually ever even really met one. So do what other members of congress do--fly commercial!

Oh, but she can't do that; she's too important. She's a potential target for terrorists.

BS. Terrorists know how far the pecking order she is and would love for her to be bumped up to the presidency. If anyone's immune to terrorist attack, it's Nitwit Nancy. Let's get to the real reason Pelosi doesn't want to fly commercial: she doesn't want to deal with the little people, the riff-raff, the trash who fly on big jets. She can't be bothered.

Ok, fine. If that's the case, buy your own damned jet. You've got the money for it. Don't try to get us to pay for your effete snobbery, you San Fran twerp.

I would hope the media would harp on this and the basic arrogance of Nancy Pelosi. But they won't. But just remember this when you see her on TV talking about how she's working for the working poor.

And I apologize if you spit your drink out laughing.

I hate to admit this, but I will be watching Rock of Love Bus next Sunday

Ok, here's the deal: I hate reality TV. Hate it. I think it shows that not only evolution is a truth, but that we haven't separated ourselves far from the apes, if at all.

Nowhere has that been more obvious than on the Brett Michaels' "Rock of Love" series on VH1 over the past three years. There has been more garbage on that show, trying to get in the pants of an over-the-hill semi-decent hair-extended vocalist than there are in most big city landfills.

And it looks like next Sunday's going to hit a new low.

(An aside here: I just found myself laying out this blog post like Brett Michaels TALKS! What the hell is wrong with me? The only thing that I haven't said is that, if one of these tat-infested twerps does something right, "she gets a hot solo date with me." Brett--that's the point of dates, ok, bro?)

Anyway, back to why I, a devoted hater of reality TV, will be watching this bus wreck.

For one thing, my wife loves the show, so it would probably be on anyway. But that's secondary. Apparently, next week's episode brings the ex-boyfriends of the six remaining skanks on the show for them to be judged by the two women Brett has dumped after asking them to "rock his world" the first two years the show was on.

(Another aside here: the girl who won season two, Ambre or Amber or however the hell you write her name, is smoking hot. She also seems to have a decent brain in her head and has no tattoos, which makes me wonder one thing--why would she want to be with Brett Michaels to begin with?)

So they showed the preview for next week's episode. During one of the...interrogations, I guess you could say, this girl Brittanya is sitting there next to her ex. Note: Brittanya has more graffiti on her than the Berlin Wall and has piercings in her cheeks. Thus, it was not too surprising when her boyfriend showed up looking like a reject from MS-13 (the gang, not the rap group--if there is one).

"When we together, we hook up. That's how it is," MS-13 Einstein tells totally hot Amber/Ambre and the Season 1 "winner", who looks like she's totally drunk.

So, after hearing this, Season 1 Winner speaks the truth to Brittanya.

Leaning back in her chair and with a dismissive wave of her right hand, she says, "You a ho."

Brittanya responds by standing up, walking over and firing a right haymaker that would give Mike Tyson a woodrow. In the meantime, Brett Michaels is in another room, urging his bouncer to get in there and break up the brawl WHILE NEVER MOVING HIS EYES FROM THE SCREEN.

The Missus and I rewound the preview and watched it again.

17 TIMES.

I truly believe this could be the greatest single episode of television in the medium's history. Tatted out chick with gangsta boyfriend lays out drunk reality-show "winner" with the cameras rolling and washed-up rock star watching but afraid to move because the whole thing gave him a bulge. Beat that, Discovery Channel.

CNN really IS the Communist News Network

So much for no bias in the media. As I could have told you a long time ago, after the death of John Holliman and the removal (firing?) of Tony Clark from their airwaves, CNN has gone right to hell. Their transparent bias, while not nearly as bad as MSNBC (now MSDNC for all intents and purposes), is pretty egregious.

No comes a headline they're gonna want to squash: one of their former employees is running for president of El Salvador--and he's the communist candidate. What's worse is that he's probably going to win, making things even worse for us in the deep, deep south.

From the Washington Post:

After a 12-year civil war and a peace undermined by soaring crime, leftists in El Salvador are on the verge of completing a remarkable journey from armed struggle to the presidential palace.

Their candidate is a veteran TV broadcaster and morning talk show host, Mauricio Funes [4], whose Facebook page [5] lists his political views as “other.” Funes, 49, a former correspondent for CNN en Español, was recently recruited by the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN), the revolutionary group-turned-mainstream political party that is favored by polls to win the presidency in a vote scheduled for March 15....

Funes considers himself to be El Salvador's Barack Obama -- an agent of change in a country beset by the highest murder rate in Latin America and an economy in free fall.

The comparison is overt: Funes and the FMLN use images of Obama in their ads (despite objections by the U.S. State Department), saying both candidates were smeared by their opponents as allies of extremists. The FMLN television spots complete the link by employing the Obama slogan in English and Spanish, vowing "Yes, we can!"...

Ayayay. Well, one thing's for sure: Fox News probably isn't going to get much help down in El Salvador.

Chas Freeman is another horribly stupid Obama nominee

Dear President Obama:

I would like to offer my services as head of the National Intelligence Council. After reviewing the qualifications of the man you've nominated, I have no doubt I could do a better job. After all, Ambassasdor Charles "Chas" Freeman is a dolt.

A side-by-side look at our qualifications shows that I'm more prepared than he is to take this job--unless you count fawning over the Saudi Royal Family while ambassador to Saudi Arabia as a point in his favor. I have more time and experience in the region than he does, a better understanding of the people and its problems, and I'm not bought and paid for by anyone.

Oh, I also understand the simple truth that Shiites and Sunnis don't like each other. Ambassador Freeman does not, as can be illustrated by his comment before the invasion of Iraq:

"The behavior of the Iraqi Shia in the Iran-Iraq war convinced the Saudis that the Shia were not Iranian surrogates. Washington was obsessed by that idea, and attributed it to the Saudis. I don't know where all this panic about the breakup of Iraq came from. After all, Mesopotamia has been there for quite a while-about six thousand years. Iraq is not a flimsy construction."

Mr. President, this comment makes Ambassador Freeman out to be a buffoon on many levels. For one, while Mesopotamia may be old, Iraq is not. It is a creation of of the 20th century. The fact that Freeman made such a comment without considering the Sykes-Picot Accord between France and Britain from 1916 and the later Anglo-French declaration of 1918, which states that those two countries would help in the "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations" indicates one of two things: he doesn't know they exist or he's not intelligent enough to understand what they mean.

Since I doubt, Mr. President, that you do either, I'll simplify: the Sykes-Picot deal allowed the Brits and French to cut the Middle East up into spheres of influence. Under pressure, they later adjusted their plans as seen in the 1918 declaration. So what'd they do? They cut arbitrary lines in the sand and made countries out of them. Countries, by the way, they thought they could control (oops).

So, thanks to Paris and London, you had people who had separated themselves from one another for 1000 years because they had a nasty habit of trying to massacre the other whenever they got together mashed into one big mess. This doesn't even count the Kurds, who are another problem.

Shiites and Sunnis have been trying to murder one another since the 8th Century. They did a pretty good job of it in Lebanon in the 1980s and the Saudi government, the one that Freeman's so in love with, knows full well of the antipathy Shiites have for Sunnis. After all, the House of Saud is Wahabbist Sunni, while the majority of the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia--you know, where all the oil is--is Shiite. The Saudis may say that there's no problem between the two (and Freeman may be dumb enough to believe it), but it's bunk. The House of Saud is terrified of a Shiite uprising and has clamped down on that segment of the population for the past 30 years. The Sunni-controlled national guard keeps a tight grip on the Eastern Province; Shiites are not allowed to hold major positions of authority, like in ARAMCO, for example. At least twice, in 1979 and 1987, the Saudi military rounded up large numbers of Shiites in the Eastern Province when they got a little "uppity" and "took care" of the problem. Taking care of the problem seemed to include making sure these folks never went home.

I'm sure you can look that up.

The only reason that the Iraqi state didn't come apart previously can be traced back to one thing: control. The British controlled the country until the end of World War II, and they weren't going to let it get out of hand; a series of military dictatorships followed. The Shah of Iran had his own problems, so he wasn't going to try to support some uprising that would infuriate his two largest supporters, the U.S. and U.K. By the time the Ayatollah came to power and encouraged a Shiite revolt, Saddam Hussein was waiting for him and anticipated the move. He had already clamped down on the Shiite south, instilling a reign of terror--and still he invaded Iran to remove the threat posed by Khomeini to his power.

So, Mr. President, in discussing the actions of the Iraqi Shiia during the Iran-Iraq War, he forgot something. That something was why the war was fought to begin with!

Iraq is and was a flimsy construction, Mr. President. To not recognize this is fallacy and your predecessor paid a terrible price for it. I was and remain a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, but my plan was rather different--I would have used a lot more troops to begin with, and a lot more force, but you would have had to have been ready to clean up the mess made. This way, we would have shown that we were the authority, but we meant what we said when we wanted a new, peaceful Iraq.

It's sort of like that "Surge" you strongly opposed that worked so brilliantly, just five years earlier.

I am not a professor; I am not a former Ambassador. But if I can see these things, you would think that a man like Chas Freeman would have as well. Instead, he completely missed one of the fundamental truths of the Arab world! Mr. President, how can you sleep at night considering that this man, who was a Quisling for the House of Saud, would be running our national intelligence? He's got to be as dumb as a brick?

So what is it, sir? Did he donate generously to your camapaign? If that's the case, my candidacy should receive greater support, as I'm donating to you now.

It's called my taxes.

A&M's Stephen McGee has quality pro day, continues to move up the draft boards

Four months ago, Texas A&M quarterback Stephen McGee's football career was over. Kaput. Zip. Done. He had the East-West Shrine Game and then a career in coaching ahead of him.

Then a strange thing happened: he got good.

Well, technically, he didn't just get good; he got healthy and got some good coaching. And it couldn't have come at a better time. McGee was easily the best quarterback at the Shrine Game, both on the field and in practices. He easily outdid players who were supposedly locks for the big time, like Tom Brandstater of Fresno State and Chase Daniel of Missouri (both of whom, by the way, sucked).

The McGee I saw that week was healthy, confident and, really, a different player than you saw on Kyle Field. Scouts took notice. I said then that, if he had a good combine and pro day, he'd be drafted.

Check off both of them. McGee's star is ascendant.

After running the second-fastest 40 time for QBs at the combine (4.6-ish, if I recall), he had a solid workout. At A&M's pro day (which I didn't get to attend, but a friend did), he was supposedly outstanding. One way or the other, scouts from all 32 teams were there and many, from what I'm told, went away highly impressed.

Let's get one thing straight: McGee is benefitting from a horrible, horrible year for quarterbacks in the draft. Matthew Stafford is supposedly the best of the bunch, and he's just not really good. There are no franchise QBs to be found and the overall depth at the position is pathetic.

These points work in McGee's favor. When you add the fact that Brandstater, Daniel and Graham Harrell of Texas Tech have all royally sucked in their workouts and at the combine and you can see why McGee's on the move up. There's a need for quarterbacks in the NFL--a desperate one. As a result, teams are more willing this year to take a chance on a project because there's nobody else to take.

Stephen McGee WILL be drafted, gentle reader. It could be as high as the fourth round, though I doubt it. I'm hearing fifth or sixth round, and that's just fine. The kid's showing that if you give him a chance to get in the door, he'll make it worth your while.

A sure-fire way to know you've got it good

Through the miracles of Facebook and other modern technologies, I have had the opportunity to find out where virtually all the women that I've cared for or been involved with over the past 15 years are in their lives. Remarkably--especially when you consider that none of my breakups have ever been anything less than thermonuclear exchanges--I'm friendly with almost all of these ladies now. But where they are and what they're doing has been, to put it mildly, informative. Here's the lowdown on a few of them:

1. Girl #1 from college #1: married, two kids. Good for her. Lives in a place I wouldn't want to be.
2. Girl #2 from college #1: Involved, living someplace I wouldn't want to be.
3. Girl #1 from college #2: Married, couple of kids. Good for her. Political affiliation says "liberal." That wouldn't have worked, especially when you consider she doesn't like football or baseball that much.
4. Girl #1 from job #1: Married. Good for her. Wants to be a cop. Uh...good for her again?
5. Girl #2 from job #1: Insane. Have a restraining order against her. Next.

One of the girls that had escaped notice was Girl #2 from college #2. That was, until today when a friend sent me a link with the note: "Check this out."

It was her Facebook page. It had her political affiliation as "Green Party" and her religion as "Buddhist." When I last knew her, she was a Catholic and slightly left of center. She was also about 150 pounds lighter (back then, that is).

Some guys, once they get married, wonder what might have been if they had gone off in another direction with another woman from their past. I know what would have happened to me: I would have screwed up royally.

You see, I now have a pretty nice house (certainly for a first-time homeowner), my own business and three dogs who think their daddy (or dadduh) is pretty cool. If I couldn't be a pro ballplayer, I've pretty much got the life I want (even though I wouldn't mind strangling one of the dogs right about now). The reason for this is simple: my wife.

She's been the driving force behind my "failing upward" and never let me give up because she believed in me, even when I didn't believe in myself. She looks at me with such complete love and devotion that you can't help but feel better about yourself.

If my wife hadn't come along when she did, I'd probably be some poor fat drunk living in an apartment with a cynical, anti-social outlook on life. God knows, I was sure heading in that direction. And I'd still be a journalist.

Now, I'm just fat, and even that's changing. My wife changed my life around and I know that nobody else would have had the time, love and patience to point me in another direction--even if they had a taser.

For that, my wife gets my complete love and adoration. And to put up with my crap for the rest of her life. What a deal!

Are the Washington Redskins interested in Terrell Owens? The answer: HELL NO

Over the course of the past decade, I have corresponded with Mike Florio of Profootballtalk.com a number of times. This goes back to when he was part of NFLtalk.com, which later became ESPN Insider (puke, gag). I've never talked to Jason Whitlock of Foxsports.com and the Kansas City Star, but, like Florio, I've respected their work.

Today, however, I find myself wondering if they're quite as sharp as I once thought they were. Both of them think (or thought) the Washington Redskins would make a run at classless idiot Terrell Owens when he was released by the Dallas Cowboys last night. Let me make this quite clear, even though I don't speak for Dan Snyder (who I frequently disagree with): there's not a snowball's chance in hell of them going after t.o. And there are more than a few reasons why.

• They have four wideouts already. The Redskins, like it or not, are stuck with Santana Moss, Antwaan Randle-El, Malcom Kelly and Devin Thomas. The first two have big cap numbers; the latter two were drafted last year (in the second round, no less). There's simply no room for another wideout, much less one who's 35 and in decline.
• Their quarterback is Jason Campbell. During his career, t.o. has played in three places. He has been a raging asshole in all three, primarily because he fought with the quarterbacks in his attempt to control the team. Jeff Garcia, Donovan McNabb and Tony Romo all became targets of t.o. I would wager that all three, Romo especially, have more confidence than Campbell does at this point in his career. Jason Campbell, to this point, has been very average. He is in the last year of his contract and his confidence is likely brittle. The last thing he needs is a jerk like Owens showing up and screaming because he isn't getting the ball.
• The Redskins have seen him twice a year for the last three years. Actually, it's been longer than that, but I'm not sure how you define that year when the Eagles kicked his sorry ass to the curb and didn't play him. In any case, the Redskins, especially last year, figured out how to defend t.o. They put Shawn Springs or DeAngelo Hall on him and bascially beat the punk into submission. They jammed him at the line and he's no longer capable of getting off those jams. His route running has never been that good and his hands are subpar as well. So, if he can't get open, why bother? And, I'm sure the reasoning goes, if we know this--doesn't everyone else?
• You don't need his crap in the locker room. The Redskins, for the most part, are a veteran team. Once place where they're younger is at the offensive skill positions. They've already had problems with Devin Thomas' attitude, as well as new tight end Fred Davis--and you want to go put Owens in with those guys? This is the same piece of garbage that bitched about Jason Whitten getting too many balls and hated Jason Garrett's scheme, so he fractured the Dallas locker room. In the process, he spoiled the heads of Roy Williams, Patrick Crayton and Will Hurd, all of whom now hate Whitten because t.o. did. So what would t.o. do the first time Campbell looked for Chris Cooley instead of him?
• Their coach is Jim Zorn. Steve Mariucci was soft in San Francisco. Owens ran all over him. Andy Reid was not soft in Philly and kicked his ass out, but not before Owens damaged the Eagles. Wade Phillips is a total wimp and his inability to stop t.o.'s crap killed the Cowboys. Zorn had problems keeping his team's confidence last year and just doesn't seem to have the sterner stuff needed for this job--why the hell would you push him over the edge by bringing in this moron? If Joe Gibbs were still there, I could see it. Well, I could see it for about three weeks, then Owens would spout off and Coach Joe would cut his sorry ass.
• THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY. I mean, seriously. What cap room they have left should be spent on finding a left end and/or another tackle.
• THEY HATE HIS GUTS. "We had no interest in him three years ago," Redskins pseudo-GM Vinny Cerratto said. "Why would we have any interest now?"

Just a few minor reasons that anyone who watches the Redskins would know and take into account when thinking about signing Owens. I wonder if Florio and Whitlock have taken the time to do so, or just hate Dan Snyder so much that they just decided the Redskins would sign this damned idiot.

An Open Letter to Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele

Mr. Chairman:

Please allow me to begin this letter with my congratulations on your recent election to your new position. After the incompetence shown by the Republicans on Capitol Hill over the past several years and the astounding naivete of the McCain campaign, it is evident that the party needs new leadership.

I am sad to state, sir, that I believe you have already failed your first test of leadership and failed it miserably. Your recent spat with Rush Limbaugh was foolish in the extreme and gives an indication that you have yet to develop any semblance of a plan that will lead the GOP from self-imposed inconsequence to a commanding position in Washington--an opportunity the Democrats, though their remarkable indolence, are basically handing to you.

First, however, I believe it is imperative that you re-unite a severely fractured party. A large portion of the party's base feel betrayed and abandoned by the weak, sniveling stances on issues taken by members of the House and Senate. They were disappointed by the last years of the Bush Administration and disgusted by John McCain's utterly foolish attempt to cater to those who wish him ill--specifically, the mass media and the left.

I will say this, sir: I do not speak about the bias of the media simply because I listen to the likes of Mr. Limbaugh or Sean Hannity on occasion--I say this because I was once a member of the media and can tell you without equivocation that the fast majority of its members wish you and the Republican Party ill. There can be no mistaking that.

It was, therefore, dismaying to see you sucking up to the likes of D.L. Hughley on CNN the other night and criticizing Mr. Limbaugh. I would remind you, sir, that Hughley said your party's convention "literally looked like Nazi Germany." Such a comparison makes you a pathetic token in Hughley's eyes--in the words of another leader of a twisted totalitarian ideology, it makes you a "useful idiot."

Mr. Steele, there is nothing good that comes out of snuggling up to CNN or a vat of delusional tripe like D.L. Hughley. More importantly, there is nothing good that can come out of insulting a man who has the attention of 22 million people on a daily basis.

You may deem Mr. Limbaugh an entertainer, and that is accurate. However, he is also representative of tens of millions of people who feel the Republican Party, at this point, is led by a bunch of Democrats who just can't bring themselves to support gay marriage. There is no strength shown by anyone in Washington, no conviction to stand up for certain ideals and let the American people decide whether they're right or wrong; instead, there are a group of people trying to hide from the people who elected them while placating the Democrats, who are interested in putting their foot to your throat and shoving the entire party into irrelevance.

Making deals on horrible bailouts and stimulus packages are not signs of good leadership. Going on CNN and pandering to some brainless blowhard is just as foolish.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize that your position is not an easy one. You must bring together a base divided by John McCain's idiotic campaign and meld it into a cohesive group. You must also find a way to bring more people into the party's "Big Tent" in order to successfully stop President Obama, Majority Leader Reid and Speaker Pelosi. But the opportunity is there and grows by the day--essentially, any time any of the aforementioned individuals opens their mouth.

Sir, plainly stating what the Republican Party is for and not allowing the Democrats to paint you for what you're (allegedly) against will be sufficient to appeal to the majority of Americans. People want leaders who have a coherent economic policy, who are willing to work with business and private industry and not take them over. They will support those who call for lower taxes, especially when it's shown that that money does lead to economic expansion, job growth and higher salaries. They want people who are going to stand up for this nation's defense, not cater to those who will do us harm. And, most simply, they'll back a party who believes that, for the most part, a private individual can succeed if they're just left the heck alone.

Mr. Limbaugh, like him or not, has successfully imparted those beliefs for 20 years. If you don't like his approach, that is understandable--but his overall message is one that will win. It doesn't have to be called the "Limbaugh Method"; it can be called common sense.

These are simple points to make, but the GOP continues to allow itself to be painted as a party of intolerant religious zealots. Instead of fighting that message, Republican leadership has been content to curl up in a corner and happily take the beating it has received from those who mean it ill.

Mr. Limbaugh is an exception to that rule. He turns the tables on those who are quick to criticize Republicans, which offends them. It also means he receives an increased level of vitriol, most of which is unfair. The left loves to paint him as a drug-addled dullard, filled with hate. It would be simple to ask them why the party that allegedly believes so much in second chances and letting minor issues like perjury and drug use go for their members won't do the same in his case; it would also be really easy to ask them if they've ever listened to Limbaugh closely, to hear the real message. You, sir, missed a great opportunity to show courage and leadership when discussing this matter with D.L. Hughley. Instead, you continued the grand tradition of GOP leaders rolling over and playing dead when attacked.

You also succeeded in further alienating a large portion of your frustrated base, who feel ignored and betrayed by weak leadership and the coddling of an opposition which understands this isn't the Good ol' Boys Club; it's the NFL and losing means not going to the playoffs. Right now, the Republican Party has an awful lot in common with the Detroit Lions.

Sir, this country is in a crisis. The opposition proves on a daily basis it is not capable, by lack of intellect or corrupt theology, to handle the problems facing it. It is time for someone to stand up, have the courage of their convictions and lead the American people who still believe in simplicity over socialism, strength instead of appeasement and a straightforward approach over arrogant snobbery.

The opportunity is yours for the taking. Sadly, I see that you intend to follow the same weak approach of the past and fawn over those disinterested in helping the GOP. I will not support those interested in continuing to placate members of a party intent on destroying the one I have voted for since I turned 18.

Mr. Steele, when you were elected to run the RNC I was excited at the concept of new leadership and was prepared to donate some of the money I have been fortunate to bring in through new clients over the past few months to help fund the Republican cause. After your appearance on CNN, I have reconsidered that decision and will not be forthcoming with such monies. Until I see a fundamental change in leadership and approach, I will consider that money as wasted as if I spent it on Jewish History classes in Iran.

I invite you to prove me wrong.

A new, old pair of pants

Once upon a time, many years ago, I considered myself to be somewhat of an athlete. I used to play football and golf, a little soccer even, and ran track.

And I played baseball. I was really good at baseball.

I worked out and kept myself in relatively good shape. And then I got lazy.

I don't know when the lazies hit, but I was certainly flabby by the time I moved to Georgia. By the time I got married, I was heavier still. Then the fat bomb hit.

Since the Missus and I didn't have a whole lot of money, we ate a lot of crappy food. It's funny; we're one of the richest countries in the world, but it's our richest folks who look like they're emaciated. Why? Because they can afford to be. McDonalds and all that stuff will just eat you up.

So will getting fired. When I lost my job in '06, that was what really sent me around the bend. I was depressed, felt completely worthless and had nothing to do. So I ate, and I ate garbage. I would even wake up in the middle of the night and eat half a bag of chips and salsa. It was pathetic.

I knew I was gaining weight; the jeans I'd bought in '05 no longer fit. I couldn't even get my Aggie Ring on, and that was the ultimate humiliation. What was once loose--when I lost it for a time, I even got one a half-size smaller -- was now too small.

So what did I do? Nothing. I ignored it. I even went so far as to avoid looking at pictures for the humiliation of it.

I bottomed out about two years ago at about 50 pounds heavier than I was when I graduated from A&M. I lost about 15 pounds quickly and it stayed off, but I didn't lose any more. It's probably because I didn't try very hard. That and, honestly, I didn't think I had the guts or willpower to make a diet work.

Then the Missus told me in December that she was going on a diet, and that it wouldn't work without my help. In other words, if she was eating right and I was still eating crap, what kind of support system would I be? I would be an enabler.

And what kind of person would that make me? Not only a worthless fatass, a worthless fatass who's encouraging others to be fat too.

So I began to diet with her.

Honestly, it hasn't been hard--with the exception of french fries and Mexican food, I haven't really had to cut anything out of my diet (and I can still have a Freebirds burrito, thank God). It's a matter of knowing what you're eating and when, and how much you can eat.

I've learned this: my eating habits sucked. I was an embarrassment to mankind. I was not only eating crap you should eat only on occasion, I was eating a LOT of it. To boot, I had no idea how bad a lot of it was. Simple stupidity based on my desire to ignore a growing problem.

But the diet has taken effect and it has held up nicely. I've started working out again and have discovered that when you have something driving you, it's not drudgery. In fact, it gets the old competitive juices flowing. When it's life or death, it tends to be a tremendous motivator.

In seven weeks, less than two months, I've lost double-digit pounds. I don't know how much yet; I'll know tomorrow night. But the progress is tangible and visible. As I write this, I'm wearing the jeans that I ate myself out of three years ago. And, last night, I wore my Aggie Ring for eight consecutive hours and didn't have to remove it because it was too tight. It's still snug, but I'll get to where it isn't.

And then it'll be loose again.

All because my wife told me it was time to do something that was painfully necessary.