Friday, 29 June 2007

Michael Moore movie simply spectacular! Wow

barry sinrod            
Whether you are right, far right, evangelical or just a Republican you will laugh and cry at this movie which is simply spectacular.
The healthcare industry and the RX's we pay for are doomed.  Wait until we take back the White House and both houses of Congress by a super majority.  Universal healthcare will be a reality.

See what's free at


Ken Berwitz

MTV is hardly the place I would expect to find a hard-hitting honest commentary on what is wrong with Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko".  But Kurt Loden has written just that.

He does see some good work there.  But the honesty kicks in when he talks about how Moore - as with his other projects - goes neck deep into hyperbole and BS.  That, sad to say, is Moore's stock in trade.  And it is all over this movie. 

See for yourself in the excerpts from his review below (yes it is long, even with a lot of it left out.  Sorry).   You can read the entire review at #  As usual, the bold print is mine:.

Jun 29 2007 12:34 PM EDT

'Sicko': Heavily Doctored, By Kurt Loder

Is Michael Moore's prescription worse than the disease?

Michael Moore may see himself as working in the tradition of such crusading muckrakers of the last century as Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair writers whose dedication to exposing corruption and social injustices played a part in sparking much-needed reforms. In his new movie, "Sicko,"Moore focuses on the U.S. health-care industry a juicy target and he casts a shocking light on some of the people it's failed.

Moore does a real service in bringing these stories to light - some of them are horrifying, and then infuriating.  One giant health-maintenance organization, Kaiser-Permenente, is so persuasively lambasted in the movie that, on the basis of what we're told, we want to burst into the company's executive suites and make a mass citizen's arrest.  This is the sort of thing good muckrakers are supposed to do.

Unfortunately, Moore is also a con man of a very brazen sort, and never more so than in this film.  His cherry-picked facts, maniulative interviews (with lingering clse-ups of distraught people breaking down in tears) and blithe assertions (how does he know 18 million people will die this year because they have no health insurance?) are so stacked that you can feel his whole  argument sliding sideways as the picture unspools.  As a proud socialist, the director appears to feel that there are few problems in life that can't be solved by government regulation (that would be the same government that's already given us the U.S. Postal Service and the Department of Motor Vehicles).

In the case of Canada which Moore, like many other political activists, holds up as a utopian ideal of benevolent health-care regulation a very different picture is conveyed by a short 2005 documentary called "Dead Meat," by Stuart Browning and Blaine Greenberg. These two filmmakers talked to a number of Canadians of a kind that Moore's movie would have you believe don't exist:

What's the problem with government health systems? Moore 's movie doesn't ask that question, although it does unintentionally provide an answer. When governments attempt to regulate the balance between a limited supply of health care and an unlimited demand for it they're inevitably forced to ration treatment. This is certainly the situation in Britain. Writing in the Chicago Tribune this week, Helen Evans, a 20-year veteran of the country's National Health Service and now the director of a London-based group called Nurses for Reform, said that nearly 1 million Britons are currently on waiting lists for medical care and another 200,000 are waiting to get on waiting lists. Evans also says the NHS cancels about 100,000 operations each year because of shortages of various sorts. Last March, the BBC reported on the results of a Healthcare Commission poll of 128,000 NHS workers: two thirds of them said they "would not be happy" to be patients in their own hospitals. James Christopher, the film critic of the Times of London, thinks he knows why. After marveling at Moore's rosy view of the British health care system in "Sicko," Christopher wrote, "What he hasn't done is lie in a corridor all night at the Royal Free [Hospital] watching his severed toe disintegrate in a plastic cup of melted ice. I have." Last month, the Associated Press reported that Gordon Brown just installed this week as Britain's new prime minister had promised to inaugurate "sweeping domestic reforms" to, among other things, "improve health care."

Moore's most ardent enthusiasm is reserved for the French health care system, which he portrays as the crowning glory of a Gallic lifestyle far superior to our own. The French! They work only 35 hours a week, by law. They get at least five weeks' vacation every year. Their health care is free, and they can take an unlimited number of sick days. It is here that Moore shoots himself in the foot. He introduces us to a young man who's reached the end of three months of paid sick leave and is asked by his doctor if he's finally ready to return to work. No, not yet, he says. So the doctor gives him another three months of paid leave and the young man immediately decamps for the South of France, where we see him lounging on the sunny Riviera, chatting up babes and generally enjoying what would be for most people a very expensive vacation. Moore apparently expects us to witness this dumbfounding spectacle and ask why we can't have such a great health care system, too. I think a more common response would be, how can any country afford such economic insanity?

As it turns out, France can't. In 2004, French Health Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy told a government commission, "Our health system has gone mad. Profound reforms are urgent." Agence France-Presse recently reported that the French health-care system is running a deficit of $2.7 billion. And in the French presidential election in May, voters in surprising numbers rejected the Socialist candidate, Sgolne Royal, who had promised actually to raise some health benefits, and elected instead the center-right politician Nicolas Sarkozy, who, according to Agence France-Presse again, "plans to move fast to overhaul the economy, with the deficit-ridden health care system a primary target." Possibly Sarkozy should first consult with Michael Moore. After all, the tax-stoked French health care system may be expensive, but at least it's "free."

Having driven his bring-on-government-health care argument into a ditch outside of Paris, Moore next pilots it right off a cliff and into the Caribbean on the final stop on his tour: Cuba. Here it must also be said that the director performs a valuable service. He rounds up a group of 9/11 rescue workers firefighters and selfless volunteers who risked their lives and ruined their health in the aftermath of the New York terrorist attacks. These people there's no other way of putting it have been screwed, mainly by the politicians who were at such photo-op pains to praise them at the time. (This makes Moore's faith in government medical compassion seem all the more inexplicable.) These people's lives have been devastated wracked by chronic illnesses, some can no longer hold down jobs and none can afford to buy the various expensive medicines they need. Moore does them an admirable service by bringing their plight before a large audience.

However, there's never a moment when we doubt that he's also using these people as props in his film, and as talking points in his agenda. Renting some boats, he leads them all off to Cuba. Upon arrival they stop briefly outside the American military enclave on Guantanamo Bay so that Moore can have himself filmed begging, through a bullhorn, for some of the free, top-notch medical care that's currently being lavished on the detainees there. Having no luck, he then moves on to Cuba proper.

Fidel Castro's island dictatorship, now in its 40th year of being listed as a human-rights violator by Amnesty International, is here depicted as a balmy paradise not unlike the Iraq of Saddam Hussein that Moore showed us in his earlier film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." He and his charges make their way their pre-arranged way, if it need be said to a state-of-the-art hospital where they receive a picturesquely warm welcome. In a voiceover, Moore, shown beaming at his little band of visitors, says he told the Cuban doctors to "give them the same care they'd give Cuban citizens." Then he adds, dramatically: "And they did."

If Moore really believes this, he may be a greater fool than even his most feverish detractors claim him to be. Nevertheless, medical care is provided to the visiting Americans, and it is indeed excellent. Cuba is in fact the site of some world-class medical facilities (surprising in a country that, as Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar noted in the Los Angeles Times last month, "imprisoned a doctor in the late 1990s for speaking out against government failure to respond to an epidemic of a mosquito-borne virus"). What Moore doesn't mention is the flourishing Cuban industry of "health tourism" a system in which foreigners (including self-admitted multimillionaire film directors and, of course, government bigwigs) who are willing to pay cash for anything from brain-surgery to dental work can purchase a level of treatment that's unavailable to the majority of Cubans with no hard currency at their disposal. The Cuban American National Foundation (admittedly a group with no love for the Castro regime) calls this "medical apartheid." And in a 2004 article in Canada's National Post, writer Isabel Vincent quoted a dissident Cuban neurosurgeon, Doctor Hilda Molina, as saying, "Cubans should be treated the same as foreigners. Cubans have less rights in their own country than foreigners who visit here."

As the Caribbean sun sank down on Moore's breathtakingly meretricious movie, I couldn't help recalling that when Fidel Castro became gravely ill last year, he didn't put himself in the hands of a Cuban surgeon. No. Instead, he had a specialist flown in from Spain.



Ken Berwitz

Weeks ago, I blogged about a Mickey Mouse-like character. called Farfour, which was featured on children's TV programming in Gaza and Judea and Samaria (the west bank).  The character preached exactly the kind of hatred of Jews and Israel that palestinian Arabs apparently want their children to carry on in the next generation, as they have carried it on in theirs.

This hate-filled character caused quite an outcry when it became generally known outside of the so-called palestinian territories (none at all until then, let's remember).  Suddenly it was decided that maybe, just maybe, Farfour was the wrong kind of imagery for children.  So they decided to end the Mickey Mouse/Farfour show.  You would think that to be  good news, wouldn't you? 

Well, not so fast.  Read this:.

Mickey Mouse double martyred on Hamas TV

Character on childrens program beaten to death by Israeli in final episode

Updated: 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A Mickey Mouse lookalike who preached Islamic domination on a Hamas-affiliated children's television program was beaten to death in the show's final episode Friday.

In the final skit, Farfour was killed by an actor posing as an Israeli official trying to buy Farfour's land. At one point, the mouse called the Israeli a "terrorist."

"Farfour was martyred while defending his land," said Sara, the teen presenter. He was killed "by the killers of children," she added.

The weekly show, featuring a giant black-and-white rodent with a high-pitched voice, had attracted worldwide attention because the character urged Palestinian children to fight Israel. It was broadcast on Hamas-affiliated Al Aqsa TV.

Station officials said Friday that Farfour was taken off the air to make room for new programs. Station manager Mohammed Bilal said he did not know what would be shown instead.
Israeli officials have denounced the program, "Tomorrow's Pioneers," as incendiary and outrageous. The program was also opposed by the state-run Palestinian Broadcasting Corp., which is controlled by Fatah, Hamas' rival. .

So instead of continuing as a hate-filled anti Israel anti-Jewish character, Farfour ended its run by becoming a martyr.  The children were treated to watching Farfour murdered by bloodthirsty cheating Jews.

This is what palestinian Arab children are given as entertainment by their government controlled media.  This is what they watch and this is what they learn from.  This is their world, it is what they "know".

This is the face of Israel's "Peace Partner", and what they give to their own children. 

Remember that the next time you wonder why Israel finds it difficult to make peace.


Ken Berwitz

There are few political figures in this country more interesting than David Horowitz.  Mr. Horowitz grew up in a communist household.  When he walked with his father, the two of them would look at the street signs and try to come up with new names (of communist heroes) they would be changed to after the takeover. 

During the Vietnam era, especially the late 60's, Mr. Horowitz was one of the leading leftwing activists in this country.  He worked tirelessly against the war and against LBJ, Nixon, etc.  From 1969 to 1973 he was the co-editor of Ramparts magazine, a radical left publication.  He wrote books.  He wrote articles.  He was a one man marxist/leftist industry.

But the world has a way of turning, and people sometimes see things differently as the years go by.  Over time, David Horowitz rejected his earlier beliefs and has become one of the leading conservative voices in the USA.  Today he is the editor of FrontPage Magazine, an e-zine which I excerpt from below, is the founder of David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly The Center For The Study Of Popular Culture) and has a deep association with Campus Watch, which monitors the pervasive leftwing bias in academia.

Obviously, this is not your average guy.

Now that you know a little about Mr. Horowitz, I would like to direct you to his dismantling of former congressman, senator, vice president, presidential candidate, sore loser and now chicken little wannabe, Al Gore. 

Horowitz has written a long, and terrific deconstruction of Mr. Gore at his FrontPage magazine site.  You can read the entire piece by clicking on  But here is a short excerpt so you'll know just how deftly he cuts through the Gore garbage and gets at reality:.

Why We Went to War in Iraq
By David Horowitz | June 29, 2007

When he was in office and responsible for protecting us, Al Gore was absent from the war on terror. As Vice President, he was part of an administration that failed to respond to the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; that cut and ran when al-Qaeda ambushed US Army Rangers in Mogadishu; that called for regime change in Iraq when Saddam expelled the UN weapons inspectors but then failed to remove Saddam or to get him to allow the UN inspectors back in; that failed to respond to the murder of US troops in Saudi Arabia or the attack on an American warship in Yemen; that reacted to the blowing up two US embassies in Africa by firing missiles at an aspirin factory in the Sudan and empty tents in Afghanistan; that refused to kill or capture Osama Bin Laden when it had a dozen chances to do so; and that did not put in place simple airport security measures, its own task force recommended, that would have prevented 9/11.

In short, to every act of war against the United States during the 1990s, the Clinton-Gore response was limp-wristed and supine. And worse. By refusing to concede a lost presidential election, thereby breaking a hundred-year tradition, Gore delayed the transition to the new administration that would have to deal with the terrorist threat. As a result of the two-month delay, the comprehensive anti-terror plan that Bush ordered on taking office (the Clinton-Gore team had none) did not arrive on his desk until the day before the 9/11 attack.

Yet, it is characteristic of Gores myopic arrogance that he would wag his finger at the Bush administration for its failure to anticipate the 9/11 attack. It is useful and important to examine the warnings the administration ignored, Gore writes in his self-referentially titled new book, The Assault on Reason. As if to underscore his own hypocrisy he then adds: not to point the finger of blame. Of course not. .


As you may have gathered, if Mr. Gore jumps into the 2008 presidential race (I would estimate a 60% probability that he will), Mr. Horowitz's essay isn't going to be on his official website.


But you should see it, because media have a tendency to fawn over Al Gore as if he is some kind of great demigod, the way they have spent so many years fawning over jimmy carter, the failed president-turned-USA hater and anti-semite.


I gave you a taste.  Please read the entire article.  You owe it to yourself.


Think of it as a counterpoint to the love-fest you will see if Gore tosses his oversized hat in the ring.


Ken Berwitz

I just put on Hardball for a minute or two (thus doubling its viewership, assuming chris mouthews' mother wasn't cooking dinner at the time) and watched a Democrat and Republican trying to outposture each other on the war on terror. 

This in and of itself wouldn't be surprising or edifying in anyway.  But the Democrat said something that stopped me in my tracks.  She said "this is a global problem and we need global partners".

Hello, anyone home?  Aren't major Democratic presidential candidates, most notably the human oil slick, John Edwards, telling us that the global war on terror is a "bumper sticker slogan" (actual quote)?

In other words, what this Democratic operative is saying flies in the face of what important candidates in her own party are saying.  But she says it anyway, without one word of explanation.

Do these people have any shame?  Do they have any respect at all for the average voter?  How can they simultaneously use this as a major issue and disdain it as a bumper sticker slogan?  Do they think no one will notice?

Well, chris mouthews didn't call her on it, that's for sure.  But mouthews is a partisan hack, so that's understandable.  YOU, on the other hand, may not be willing to swallow this BS the way a chris mouthews would. 

What do you do when they BS you like this right to your face, and in effect tell you they think you're an idiot and an ignoramus?

I guess we'll find out in November 2008.


Ken Berwitz

Contrary to what you might think from the events of this week, John Edwards does more than have his wife beg for mercy on his behalf and then try to capitalize on the effort with a fundraising appeal.  The human oil slick is much deeper than that.

He has also assured us that the global war on terror is nothing more than a "bumper sticker slogan".  This is not a snide characterization on my part, it is a verbatim quote.

Well, here is the latest bumper sticker:

U.K. terror attack thwarted?

Car packed with gas containers, nails found in London's busy theater district
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:45 a.m. ET June 29, 2007

LONDON - Police thwarted an apparent terror attack Friday, discovering a parked silver Mercedes that was packed with gas containers and a large number of nails. The attack would have caused significant injury or loss of life, police said.

A British security official told The Associated Press that there were similarities between the device and vehicle bombs used by insurgents in Iraq.

Forensic staff are still examining the device, but once we know more about it, well know more about what type of individuals are behind this, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the security details.

The official said Britains domestic spy agency MI5 also would examine possible connections between Fridays incident and at least two similar foiled plots including a planned attack on a West End nightclub in 2004 and a thwarted attempt to use limousines packed with gas canisters to attack targets in London and New York.

'Serious and continuous threat'
Officers were called to The Haymarket shortly before 2 a.m., a police statement said. Sky News cited witnesses as saying doormen from a nearby nightclub had reported that someone had crashed a Mercedes sedan into garbage bins and ran away.

The Haymarket is the site of restaurants, bars, a cinema complex and theaters, and there would have been crowds in the area.

The incident comes a week before the second anniversary of the July 7 London bombings, when four British Muslim suicide bombers killed themselves and 52 bus and subway passengers.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who took office on Wednesday, said the incident was a reminder that Britain faces a serious and continuous threat and the need to be alert.

I will stress to the Cabinet that the vigilance must be maintained over the next few days, Brown said.

The area around the vehicle was cordoned off as a precaution on Friday morning. London transport officials said the Piccadilly Circus underground train station was closed. .

There is a war in progress.  Terrorists around the world are at war with western civilization.  The USA, the UK and Israel are their very special targets.  Why?  Because these three countries, more than any others, are fighting back.

We can choose to fight or not fight.  But either way THEY are fighting.  And if we don't fight them successfully, be assured that they will win, and your children will grow up under shari'a law, with no freedoms and no latitudes to be anything but what a fundamentalist Islamist dictates that they will be.

That may be too long to fit on a bumper sticker.  But it's the truth.  And we ignore it at our own peril.


Ken Berwitz

This has nothing to do with politics, hopelessly partisan or otherwise.  But I find myself compelled to pass it along to you because it is so weird that you have to see it. 

I found this article in something called the Sin Chew News - which I will resist making about 392 bad puns about, 376 of which would be lewd.  You'll have to do that yourself:.

Barbie Shrine Discovered In Singapore

Updated:2007-06-21 15:39:54 MYT

SINGAPORE: Some of the locals in Pulau Ubin have taken to worshipping a Barbie doll that occupies a shrine there.

At the shrine known as "拿督公姑娘廟" (which literally means Lady Na Tuk Kong Shrine", you will find a barbie doll occupying the place on the altar usually reserved for the statue of a deity.

Even some of the offerings left on the shrines altar by worshippers are different from the norm. There are creams, lotions, rouges, powders, small mirrors and combs.

The assortment of cosmetic products makes it seem more like a girl's dressing table than an altar, though given the object of worship at the shrine that may not be inappropriate.

According to Literature and History researcher Han Shanyuan (name transliterated), the story behind the shrine begins with a German couple and their daughter.

The family cleared the land in the area to establish a coffee plantation in Pulau Ubin at the beginning of the last century.

However, when World War One broke out, England was at war with Germany and the British viewed Germans as their enemies. During that time, Germans who lived in British colonies were not only unwelcome but were suspected tobe spies. Their properties were confiscated or frozen.

One day in August 1914, the British army came for the German couple and their daughter. The army caught the couple but the girl managed to escape to the mountain behind her family's plantation. Unfortunately, she fell from a cliff and died.

Locals then built the temple in order to pacify the girl's spirit.

According to the temple's keeper, at first people worshipped a porcelain altar instead of the Barbie doll. The porcelain altar is believed to contain a lock of the girl's blond hair and a crucifix that is said to be the one the girl was wearing when she died.

Three years ago, a local emigrant to Australia had the same weird dream for three nights. In his dream, a western girl led him to a shop. She then asked him to buy a Barbie doll and bring it to the"Lady Na Tuk Gong Shrine".

The man followed the directions given with a grain of salt. To his surprise, he found the shop and also the doll the girl described in his dream.

He bought the doll and brought it back to Pulau Ubin.

Today, a lot of people come to the temple to worship the Barbie doll and it is said their prayers for safety and health are answered
I wonder if Larry King has any plans to interview it.........


Ken Berwitz

Let's cut and run.  Let's go back in time and de-authorize what we authorized four years ago.  Do-over.  Hindu.

We have a congress being run by people who have no intention of legislating anything, but are 100% invested in a never-ending series of dog and pony shows to placate the LAMB (Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade) segment.  Like this one:.

June 28, 2007
Pelosi, Reid to announce new push to end Iraq war

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are expected tomorrow to  announce a new coordinated effort to force votes in July to end the Iraq war, according to Democratic insiders.

Reid has already publicly declared that Senate Democrats will offer four Iraq-related amendments to the upcoming 2008 Defense authorization bill, including a proposal by Reid and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) to set a firm timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by next spring.

Pelosi is planning to announce that the House will also vote on a bill setting a new withdrawal timetable of April 1, 2008, although the details of the proposal were still up in the air at press time, according to Democratic sources. The House will consider this proposal as a freestanding bill, said the sources.

Pelosi is also planning to force a vote on a proposal by Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, to repeal the 2002 use-of-force resolution for Iraq. This "deauthorization" proposal may be offered as an amendment to the 2008 Defense spending bill, which the House is scheduled to take up following the week-long July 4th recess.

In addition, House Democrats will push proposals to prohibit the creation of permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq, as well as a "readiness" initiative similar to that authored by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). The Webb proposal would limit deployments of U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq by requiring the Pentagon to keep military units from being sent back to Iraq until they have been stateside as long as they were in the combat zone.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the powerful Defense subcommittee on the House Appropriations Committee and a leader of the anti-war movement, is planning to offer his own new measures as part of the Defense spending bill.

Pelosi has been quietly meeting with various factions within the Democratic Caucus this week on the Iraq initiative, including Blue Dog conservatives skittish about being seen as anti-military, and the Out of Iraq Caucus, whose members have pushed hard for an end to the U.S. military involvement in Iraq..

The bad news for Democrats is that, in just a few short months, congressional approval ratings have gone from appreciably higher than President Bush to appreciably lower.  The good news, I suppose, is that they can't continue to go much lower because they are literally running out of room.  

Do you want specifics?  Ok.  The last half dozen polls on congressional job approval average out to 25%.   By comparison, President Bush - you know, the guy who is supposed to be so dead in the polls that he is over and out - averages to 31%.

So, as they fall apart at the seams, what do Democrats in congress decide to do about it?  They decide to do more of what GOT them into this sorry mess.  

Investigate and put on a show.  Put on a show and investigate.  Attack, complain.  Whine.  Try to remove opposing opinions.  Anything but LEGISLATE.

There is an old Italian saying:  "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer".  Republicans would have to think about this long and hard, because it's hard to tell which way Democrats fall right now. 

After all, how much friendlier can an enemy be than when it intentionally destroys itself?


Ken Berwitz

Remember that "Fairness Doctrine" scam Democrats were floating?  The one where radio stations that have conservative-oriented talk show hosts would have to have as much time devoted to liberals, even though the only reason conservatives dominate is that people want to listen to them INSTEAD of liberals? 

Well, they actually took it to a vote in the house yesterday. 

As reported in "The Hill" (you can read the entire article at

The House voted overwhelmingly Thursday to prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using taxpayer dollars to impose the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters who feature conservative radio hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

By a vote of 309-115, lawmakers amended the Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill to bar the FCC from requiring broadcasters to balance conservative content with liberal programming such as Air America.

The war in Iraq rages on, Afghanistan may be heating up, they just thwarted a terrorist bombing in London this morning, health care is boiling, immigration is exploding, abortion is simmering, school desegregation is re-emerging............

........and Democrats are busying themselves by trying to shut up political opinions they disagree with.

This makes rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic look like significant work.

My very favorite part of the article comes from David Obey, the Democratic house member from Wisconsin.  He said, so help me, that: .

We ought to let right-wing talk radio go on as they do now, he said. Rush and Sean are just about as important in the scheme of things as Paris Hilton, and I would hate to see them gain an ounce of credibility by being forced by a government agency or anybody else to moderate their views enough that they might become modestly influential or respected. .

If you like sour grapes, this is an entire vinyard for you in one short quote. 

When do these people start LEGISLATING?

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!