Wednesday, 26 January 2011


Ken Berwitz

I just got this from our dear friends Myra and Bob.  I hope you find it as funny as I do - even in its somewhat sanitized form:

One evening last week, my girlfriend and I were getting into bed. Well, the passion started to heat up, and just as we were about to "connect" with each other she said, 'Stop.  I don't feel like it, I just want you to hold me.'

I said, 'WHAT??!! What was that?!'

So she said the words that every guy on the planet dreads to hear...

'You're just not in touch with my emotional needs as a woman enough for me to satisfy your physical needs as a man.'

She responded to my puzzled look by saying, 'Can't you just love me for who I am and not what I do for you in the bedroom?'

Realizing that nothing was going to happen that night, I went to sleep..

The very next day I took the day off to spend time with her. We went out to a nice lunch and then went shopping at a big expensive department store. I walked around with her while she tried on several different very expensive outfits. She couldn't decide which one to take, so I told her we'd just buy them all. She wanted new shoes to compliment her new clothes, so I said, 'Lets get a pair for each outfit.'

We went on to the jewelry department where she picked out a pair of diamond earrings. Let me tell you... She was so excited. She must have thought I was one wave short of a shipwreck. I started to think she was testing me because she asked for a tennis bracelet when she doesn't even know how to play tennis.

I think I threw her for a loop when I said, 'That's fine, honey' She was almost delirious with satisfaction from all of the excitement. Smiling with excited anticipation, she finally said, 'I think I'm finished.  Let's go to the cashier.'

I could hardly contain myself when I blurted out, 'No honey, I don't feel like it.'

Her face just went completely blank as her jaw dropped with a baffled, 'WHAT?'

I then said, 'Honey! I just want you to HOLD this stuff for a while. You're just not in touch with my financial needs as a man enough for me to satisfy your shopping needs as a woman.'

And just when she had this look like she was going to kill me, I added, 'Why can't you just love me for who I am and not for the things I buy you?'

Apparently I'm not having sex tonight either... but at least she knows I can play the same game.


Ken Berwitz

I don't know much about Michael Bowers.  But I do know that he has compiled a voluminous album of hatred directed against Republicans and conservatives.

You can see it by clicking here:

Please take a look.  Bring a strong stomach with you. 

Try to come up with a fraction - even just a small fraction - of this kind of hatred from the right, especially Tea Party rallies. 

Then let's talk about  where the "heated political rhetoric" comes from.......


Ken Berwitz

After President Obama's State of the Union address, CBS anchorperson Katie Couric triumphantly reported that, according to the network's quickie poll, taken immediately after the state of the union address, a huge majority - over 90% - of viewers approved of Mr. Obama's message. 

Me?  I'm in the business of reality rather than fantasy.  So I would like to make a few comments about the poll:

-First off, it was conducted among 500 people.  That's it.  500 people.  On the CBS News web site this is characterized as both "nationally representative" and scientifically representative". 

That so?  Well, how many people were sampled in various subgroups?  Illustratively, how many people from the Midwest were in the sample?  Blacks?  Jews?  If it were representative, there would have been less than 100 Midwesterners, about 60-65 Blacks and maybe 25 Jews. 

You can find more Jews shopping at Zabar's on Broadway and 80th St. right now (Wednesday at about 1PM), and you will find more Black people eating at Sylvia's on Lenox Avenue in Harlem tonight, than that "nationally representative" sample provides.  And that's before we get to the many, many other population components that inherently have too few respondents to measure.

-Then, we have the question wording:  "In general, do you approve or disapprove of the proposals the President made in his speech tonight?" 

This is a very fair question and I have no problem with its wording.  My problem is that it is the slam dunk of slam dunks. 

The President proposed improving the economy, lowering unemployment and moving us forward on education.  How could you not approve of these things.  It literally was a "tee it up and hit it out of the park" question.  You might as well have asked Penn State students if they approved or disapproved of  what Joe Paterno said at a pre-season football pep rally.

-Finally, there are the disclaimers.  In the poll summary it says that Mr. Obama's 91% positive rating is "typical of the high support a president generally receives among people who choose to watch the state of the union", and that "As is often the case, those who watched the speech were more likely to be from the President's party". 

Tranlation:  The high number was entirely expected, in no small part because the poll was overloaded with Democrats.  Did Katie mention those facts?

So CBS, and the I-love-Obama crowd can crow over these findings.  Let them have their day.  But somehow I won't be as impressed.


Ken Berwitz

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, here is a picture of the Supreme Court, listening intently to President Obama's State of the Union speech last night.  Please make special note of Justice Ginsberg in the front row, and Justice Sotomayor behind her:

I rest my case.


Ken Berwitz

The following knee-slappers come to us as an excerpt from Paul Bond's article on Sarah Palin, at

MSNBC vp primetime programming Bill Wolff maintains that his network covers Palin because shes newsworthy. Period. End of story.

"Shes powerful and important, even if all you measure her by is her ability to raise money," he says. "She matters. Her blessing and her endorsement mean something.'

Wolff called it "nonsense" that MSNBC is driven by politics or even profits when it comes to how much airtime it devotes to Palin.

"MSNBC does not have a political agenda. The idea that were beholden to one side or the other is ridiculous," he says. "And if Sarah Palin is so good for business, why would we want to destroy her? We tell the truth. We hold up a mirror and say, 'This is whats going on.' Were not so crass to think that shes good for business, therefore we'll talk about her."

Wolff is also executive producer of The Rachel Maddow Show, which ran 90 segments on Palin in 2009 and 99 in 2010, according to LexisNexis.

Do you need a moment to compose yourself?  Then take your time.  Catch your breath.  Laughing does that to people.

MSNBC is not driven by politics?  It does not have a political agenda?  This is a cable news venue with absolutely nothing in prime time (and almost all of daytime) but hard-left hosts.  Can you show me the balance in a lineup of Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell - not to mention the just-departed keith olbermann?  That's not political? 

There's no agenda?  How does Wolff say it with a straight face?  Especially since he is the executive producer of The Rachel Maddow Show - which, as we all know, is a shining paradigm of evenhandedness and neutrality. 

And MSNBC is not driven by profits?  Surrrre.  It's just a public service. 

Heck, they don't even take advertising, do they?  Oh, they do?  Well maybe they don't charge for it?  Oh, they do? 

Gee.  I guess Mr. Wolff is just full of excrement.

This, folks is what these ivory tower elitists pump out at the little people, in the hope that we are all so dumb that we can't figure out how ridiculously dishonest they are. 

Uhhhhh......we can.

But at least we get a few laughs out of it.


Ken Berwitz

These two paragraphs come from Lynn Sweet, writing in today's Chicago Sun-Times:

WASHINGTON--Chicago mayoral hopeful Carol Moseley Braun, a former senator and ambassador, hits Washington on Wednesday for fund-raisers for his campaign hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus and the National Organization for Women. This out-of-town travel comes after she criticized rival Rahm Emanuel for flying to Hollywood for a funder hosted by his superagent brother Ari. The Chicago Sun-Times Fran Spielman and Abdon M. Pallasch have the story.

Braun lags seriously behind in fund-raising. As of Dec. 31, Emanuel had raised $10.5 million (on top of $1.1 million left over from his House warchest) to $2.5 million for attorney Gery Chico, to $450,000 for Braun and $110,000 for City Clerk Miguel Del Valle.

No surprises there:

-Ms. Moseley Braun, who had no problem defining her Mayoral run in racial terms, is being helped along by the overtly racist Congressional Black Caucus - and, of course, the NOWEOWANRL:  The National Organization for Women Except for the Ones Who Are Not Reliably Left Wing;

-Ms. Moseley Braun is vying for out-of-town money after attacking Rahm Emanuel for...vying for out of town money;

-And - I admit I'm laughing about this - Lynn Sweet refers to Rahm Emanuel's "warchest".  How many deranged lunatics do you think she incited to shoot at one or another of the candidates?

-Plus, we are still waiting for the Illinois Supreme Court to tell us whether if Rahm Emanuel is even eligible to run. 

You can't say this race isn't entertaining.


Ken Berwitz

It took a long time and more than enough outrages to finally wake him up, but Rep. Gary Ackerman, a strong supporter of Israel, has finally figured out that J Street is not a pro-Israel organization (to say the very least).

Excerpted from an article at :

A liberal Jewish congressman tore into the liberal Jewish lobbying firm J Street this week, saying the organization's "brains have fallen out" after it urged the Obama administration not to veto a proposed U.N. resolution condemning Israel

Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., effectively cut ties with J Street, a group that raised campaign money for him last year, in a searing press release Tuesday. The tipping point was the group's call for the administration to clear the way for a Palestinian-backed proposal at the U.N. Security Council condemning Israel's settlement expansion. 

"I've come to the conclusion that J-Street is not an organization with which I wish to be associated," Ackerman said. 

J Street bills itself as the voice for "pro-Israel, pro-peace Americans," and is often critical of Israel's policies in the process. That hasn't stopped Ackerman from associating with the group before, but the organization's stance on the resolution triggered a harsh response. 

"The decision to endorse the Palestinian and Arab effort to condemn Israel in the U.N. Security Council is not the choice of a concerned friend trying to help. It is rather the befuddled choice of an organization so open-minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out," he said. "America really does need a smart, credible, politically active organization that is as aggressively pro-peace as it is pro-Israel. Unfortunately, J-Street ain't it." 

Palestinian Arabs who hate Israel and wish it would disappear, have few more loyal, helpful friends than the people at J Street.  That has been shown time and time again. 

But there are many ostensibly pro-Israel Jews who, in reality, are far more committed to supporting left wing political ideology than the world's one and only Jewish state.  They are prime prospects for membership in this cancerous organization.


Albeit belatedly, Gary Ackerman who is dead serious about his support of Israel - has come to a realization about J Street that many supposedly intelligent Jews will never allow themselves to even come close to. 


I congratulate Mr. Ackerman.  And I hope that his newfound reality sparks a similar movement among some of the other left-first/Israel-last types both, in and out of congress.


Ken Berwitz

The New York Times loved President Obama's state of the union message.  That should be a death knell for this speech, even if you didn't hear a word of it.

Joe Scarborough, a former Republican house member who currently works for MSNBC and has no problem at all complimenting Democrats, called it "tepid".  Maybe that is because of how many times, during his one hour yawn-fest, Mr.Obama paused, expecting applause or even a standing ovation, and none was forthcoming.

In terms of substance, Mark Steyn ( has hit the nail on the head.  Here is what he had to say:

The "new Obama"? All I saw was a dull dissembler, inadequate to the charge history's given him. 2009 buzz word: "Stimulus." 2011 Clinton-era revival: "Investment". Either way, it means "massive government spending". On what? "Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80 per cent of Americans access to high-speed rail"?

Good grief, how can even the hackiest of Big Government hacks read that line with a straight face? Or think it has any meaningful contribution to make to the crisis we face? "Within 25 years"? There isn't going to be a 25 years if the spendaholics don't stop spending, and then cut it, drastically. Instead, President Blowhard tiptoes up to the edge of bold, decisive action:

Now, most of the cuts and savings Ive proposed only address annual domestic spending, which represents a little more than 12 percent of our budget. To make further progress, we have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending alone will be enough. It wont.

And then what does he propose? Nothing. This man looked the future in the eye, and kicked the can down the road. And, even in "discretionary" spending, he wants to blow even more dough even in areas where we're already spending more than anyone on the planet: In education, America spends more per pupil than anywhere except Luxembourg, which at least has something to show for it, and the President says it still isn't enough.

But at least it was "civil", and Republicans and Democrats sat next to each other, and some of them wore nice bipartisan ribbons... After all, what could be nicer than holding hands as the high-speed choo-choo plunges into the multi-trillion-dollar abyss?

If Ronald Reagan was The Great Communicator", Barack Obama is "The Grating Confusicator" -- because it is starting to get to me (and, obviously, many others) that, beyond slogans and sound bites, little of what he says makes any sense.

All in all?  A forgettable exercise in clichs and double-talk.

Zeke .... High Speed Rail will produce tens of thousands of jobs -- in China. .... .... ... And, of course, the Rail Unions have such restrictive work rules that truck and air have become cheaper. .... .... Cost aside, it would take decades to construct meaningful networks of high speed rail. ...... ..... As to the Economic Viability ---- just one word: .... AMTRACK (with billions of taxpayer subsidies and still losing money) ..... (01/26/11)

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!!