The Mockery is a column that appears periodically when I don’t feel like writing seriously about current events. Each installment of The Mockery is written with the intent of poking fun at some of the excesses of our modern era. In other words, there is a good chance I am not serious, so take that under advisement.

It is, alas, the end of 2007 and time for the first annual Mockeries of the Year awards. These are not real awards, per se, because, who in his right mind would want to win? Anyway, we have devised the following Mockery Awards:

1) Joke of the Year—The “You’re Kidding, Right?” Award
2) Conspiracy of the Year—The Grassy Knoll Trophy
3) Bleeding Heart of the Year—The “You Poor Thing” Award
4) The Top Prize—The Mockery of the Year Award

Without further delay, we announce the following winners:

In a close battle between Harry Reid and Brian Williams, the latter walks away with the “You’re Kidding, Right?” Award for naming planet earth as person of the year. We at the Mockery gave that honor to my former car, also not a person, for the same reasons Mr. Williams cited.

While it appeared that the secession movement including southerners, northeasterners, and westerners would be a lock for this award, a Cinderella emerged this past month when speculation arose that Dick Cheney set fire to his own office to destroy CIA torture tape evidence. Thus, the Grassy Knoll Trophy is awarded to MSNBC reporters Contessa Brewer and Kelly O’Donnell for speculating that sensitive documents were destroyed in the fire.

This year’s “You Poor Thing” Award goes, easily, to Yahoo! News for publishing a story about the plight of Najaf’s gravediggers who have suffered economically as a result of the US military’s successful surge.

And last but not least, the Mockery of the Year Award came down to a fight between Nebraska State Senator Ernie Chambers and the Lucas County, Ohio (Toledo) Democrat Party. The former sued God while the latter employed strippers to serve drinks at a party golf outing, during which several strippers exposed themselves—this coming in the immediate aftermath of the so-called stripper bill which the Democrats narrowly opposed.

Anyway, the Mockery of the Year Award goes to …Ernie Chambers. While the Lucas County Dems might have been a laughing stock briefly, it was likely only one or two miscreants created the embarrassment. Ernie Chambers, however, has no excuse. He was, after all, trying to make a point, but suing God was probably not the best course of action. Chambers cited the Almighty’s constant harassment of his constituents via storms and other weather phenomena. At least he believes in God.

As we close out 2007, we must thank everyone who went into a little excess this year. Looking forward, 2008 should be a goldmine for the Mockery. Until then, have a great New Year.

The Mockery is a column that appears periodically when I don’t feel like writing seriously about current events. Each installment of The Mockery is written with the intent of poking fun at some of the excesses of our modern era. In other words, there is a good chance I am not serious, so take that under advisement.

It must have started back in the 1980s. Back then, George W. Bush was a failed oil businessman looking to turn it around. Instead of playing by the rules, he must have devised his marvelous plan—albeit a long-term plan to make money in the oil business.

Somewhere along the way there must have been a secret meeting, because, as we found out in 2001, secret meetings are the modus operandi of one of the original secret meeting’s attendees. That man was Dick Cheney. Also present at the meeting were George W. Bush (of course), Don Rumsfeld, and a lot of Jews. At the meeting they must have planned a major scheme to finally hit it big in the oil business.

Step one of “the plan” was develop, over the course of a few decades, the perception that Iraq—an oil-wealthy nation—had dangerous weapons of mass destruction, thus constituting a threat to the United States. The Gulf War was a crucial element in this scenario. This part of “the plan” was called “the threat,” which would come into play later.

Step two involved getting one of their own in the White House. Given that one of their member’s had a father who was president, they chose George W. Bush. Big oil interests, coaxed by Cheney, the Jews, and others, bankrolled W’s campaigns.

Step three occurred during the latter part of the Governor George W. Bush’s first term and during his second term. It involved fooling Bill Clinton into bombing Iraq and making statements about their supposed WMDs. “The threat” appeared real.

Step four of “the plan” included the bribing of judges to deliver George W. Bush to the White House. During this time, step five also began when a group of Jews convinced President Bush—probably during a closed meeting between so-called energy leaders and Dick Cheney—to destroy some buildings in the U.S. sometime late in his first year of office. This act would serve as a pretext for the group’s other pretexts. And because this was just a pretext, Bush was nice enough to allow bin Laden’s family safe passage from the U.S.

Soon, there was a war in Afghanistan. “The threat” was lauded as imminent playing on our fears (they should have been “ashamed”). Step seven was then amended to include clauses, based on the group’s success to that point, to nullify the Constitution and to install one of their own as dictator for life.

Then, step eight—the greatest of them all—came to fruition: war in Iraq for oil. Most of the pieces were in place for W to make money in the oil business. All they needed was time.

But, a few more snags got in the way. Some ex-diplomat found out that the group was lying, so Dick Cheney framed Scooter Libby and Dick Armitage (though the latter was getting paid on the side and was, thus, protected) for outing a covert, James Bond/Jack Bauer-type who just happened to be the wife of the ex-diplomat.

The next snag came during the 2004 Election when it looked as if John Kerry, one who was fooled by the group’s schemes then-heretofore, might win Ohio. So the group bugged the voting machines—which was another side ploy created to rig all elections after the 2000 debacle via a software programming ring—and fooled innocent Democrats from voting. Bush also made it look like Kerry was much father ahead than he really was in order to keep Democrat lawyers and voters at bay.

In a post-election step (step nine), the group sought to solidify its control by sabotaging the levies in New Orleans and creating a hurricane via oil-based global warming to force Democrat voters out of Louisiana. The ploy paid off earlier this year when Bobby Jindal of the GOP (the George-Owned Party) won the governor’s mansion.

Recently we also learned that the CIA had destroyed tapes of the group’s operatives torturing innocent terrorists. In a development this past week, we learned that Dick Cheney burned down his own office where he was keeping more evidence of CIA torture to protect the group’s schemes.

As right now, the operation is one with mixed results. Oil profits are great but the group’s power is weakening. They did, however, succeed at forcing Indians and Chinese to drive in greater numbers, Iranians, and other entities to act in a way as such to cause oil prices to rise. Oil profits rose in tandem. And, alas, George W. Bush is finally making money in the oil business though his dictator-for-life plot seems to have hit a snag.

Disclaimer for the stupid and the compulsive accuser: I don’t mean any of the above. I am merely regurgitating common conspiracy theories about the Bush Administration. If offended, please reread the brief explanation regarding the intent of this column.

Much has been made of the political resurgence of Mike Huckabee. Once a near-nobody in the GOP presidential field, some pundits now claim that the Republican race is practically down to Huckabee and rival Mitt Romney. A Southern Baptist preacher, he naturally relies on his fellow brethren for political support.

In today’s column, Bob Novak wrote, “Huckabee appears to believe that everyone in the Southern Baptist Convention is obliged to support him.” Quite a statement, and if true, I must take issue. As a registered Southern Baptist, I do not support Governor Huckabee for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, he received the endorsement of the National Education Association, perhaps the most liberal (or, perhaps, radical) union in the country, for the GOP nod. That alone is enough to turn a true conservative away. Likewise, my governor, Ted Strickland—about whom I have been highly critical—has also endorsed Huckabee: strike two.

Second: Despite his proclaimed adherence to the Fair Tax, a good libertarian/conservative idea, Huckabee’s past governance was anything but libertine or conservative. As Governor of Arkansas, Huckabee raised taxes immensely well before his celebrated tax cut in 1997. He also supported subsequent tax hikes.

Third: Huckabee is weak on the subject of immigration. Is he right at decrying xenophobia? Certainly; however, having a few bigots agree with you does not make a policy idea wrong. As Governor, he unsuccessfully fought to bestow upon illegal immigrants state-funded scholarships and instate tuition.

Having said all of that, Huckabee is a likeable person. He is right on social issues generally and seems an amiable candidate. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t vote for my own brother if he were a moderate when better conservative alternatives were available, even Mormon alternatives. Should he win the nomination, he will garner my vote in November 2008; but until then, I, a Southern Baptist, oppose him.

Source(s): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/19/AR2007121901856_pf.html, http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071128/D8T6I6T00.html

If you’ve never read a “puff piece”—an article from a purportedly objective source that gushes over a particular person—we shall now detail one such piece that appeared on the Cincinnati Enquirer’s web page.

The Enquirer published a glowing article about Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. (Previously, I must note, the Enquirer featured an online “Grade Governor Strickland” blog wherein readers could chime in. I, my pseudonym, and my wife all responded and none of the responses were, shall we say, positive; however, periodic checks over the next few days unveiled several new pro-Strickland posts while our critical blurbs were mysteriously absent.)

Cincinnati’s primary paper continued “Strick-Shielding” with its “A time to embrace” piece on Sunday. It began by stating that Strickland is the most popular governor of modern times, garnering support from Democrats and Republicans alike, “polls show.” (Polls are notoriously suspect due to sampling discrepancies.) Likewise, “[p]olitical blogs buzz about him as a potential vice presidential candidate”—laughable, as we will demonstrate.

However, examination of Governor Strickland reveals something unimpressive: He has really done nothing of note and retreats from any decision that might upset anyone—just as he did in his campaign to capture the state house.

The Enquirer cited as Strickland’s accomplishments five items: near-unanimous passage of a state budget; the tobacco settlement bond; receiving praise for his treatment of a state backup computer device; an overturned veto; and issuing 36 executive orders.

Proceeding item-by-item: First, every governor gets a budget. That’s not a real accomplishment. That it was passed almost unanimously is not remarkable, either, as state Republicans, reeling from stirring election defeats, did not want to further alienate the public. Second, senior tax cut/tobacco bond is a very-Republican thing to do. In other words, Strickland proposed a law similar to one that the GOP assembly might have passed without him.

Third, receiving praise is not an accomplishment, per se. Fourth, vetoing a bill that was overridden does not qualify, either. Finally, every governor issues executive orders.

In other words, there is nothing remarkable to show. Thus, the praise is undeserved—hardly the resume one should seek in a veep candidate..

Governor Strickland has also been shielded from potential criticisms. The new Democrat caucus in the executive branch was elected vowing to end corruption; however, corruption has followed them into office. Strickland, Senator Sherrod Brown, and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner all received campaign contributions from indicted felon Norman Hsu. Not a peep appeared in the Ohio media. In fact, I found only five pieces published on Ohio websites, most of which cited the same AP wire.

Strickland has also remained silent on the topic of his Attorney General, Marc Dann. The Ohio AG gave a man named Kevin Zeiher state work on a lawsuit earlier this year after Zeiher gave a $2500 contribution to Dann’s campaign—well beyond the legal limit. Dann is also involved in a quid pro quo with the state’s largest teachers union, the OEA. The union had previously brought a suit against charter schools, costing them thousands of dollars. It was later revealed that Dann and OEA officials met and it was agreed that OEA would drop its suit and Dann would pick it up on the state’s dime. Ohio filed suit the day after OEA dropped its claim. Very little was made of these scandals in the media and Ted Strickland was silent.

Another Strickland attribute is his squeamishness at controversy. During the gubernatorial race against Ken Blackwell, Strickland never took a firm position on anything. He simply rode the anti-GOP waves into the governor’s mansion.

Likewise, this year’s so-called stripper bill passed the legislature easily. Rather than fight it, Strickland—who clearly opposed the bill because a significant portion of his constituency opposed it—simply allowed the bill to become law. Likewise, he pursued very little of his stated agenda, an agenda that would have provoked stark opposition from Ohio Republicans.

Even in the Enquirer puff-piece, which contained a brief interview, Strickland could not give a straight answer as to whether he was a Reds fan or an Indians fan; a Browns fan or a Bengals fan.

Lastly, the Enquirer piece cites polls indicating solid approval numbers for the freshman governor. I do believe that most Ohioans approve of Strickland’s performance; however, I don’t believe it’s because of anything he has done. Instead, he owes his approval rating to the mere fact that he has not alienated anyone. That’s fine and good, but Ohio needs leadership, not mere consensus. Strickland’s unwillingness to tackle any task that may cause extensive criticism has caused his honeymoon with Republicans. But eventually, something will have to be done about the state’s near-anti-business tax and regulation climate. Until then, Ohio’s economy will likely continue to suffer.

To close, Governor Strickland seems an honorable man; however, he does not appear to be a man of strong conviction. The accolades he has received, including the V.P. buzz, are largely undeserved and premature. The mere absence of bad news out of Columbus does not automatically indicate the executive’s success. Ted Strickland will have to show more in 2008 if he wants to earn his early kudos.

Source(s): http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071216/NEWS01/712160366

The Mockery is a column that will appear periodically when I don’t feel like writing seriously about current events. Each installment of The Mockery will be written with the intent of poking fun at some of the excesses of our modern era.

I am having my Holiday Party this coming weekend and I have invited all of my good friends. Given that my friends are a varied bunch, I have made some modifications to suit their varying needs.

The first, of course, is to call it a “Holiday Party,” which is normal anymore—so no big deal here.

Secondly, I have a lot of environmentally friendly pals, so I have made it my mission to make this year’s Holiday Party carbon neutral.

To do so, I have undertaken several steps. For starters, there will be no holiday lights in order to save electricity. In fact, we will also celebrate under candlelight so to save more electricity and further reduce our carbon footprint.

Next, I will shut off my central heating to, naturally, save electricity and reduce our carbon footprint even further.

Third, no presents will be exchanged because the gifts, the wrapping paper, and the fuel used to purchase the goods will use far too many resources for my friends. The same goes for alcoholic beverages.

Fourth, and going back to the heat deal, I will not be using my fireplace, either, as the flames will emit an unnecessary amount of pollutants into the atmosphere.

Fifth, there will be no cookies, cake, etc. because—you guessed it—they require too many resources to produce and transport.

Last but not least, no tree will be present, as we don’t want to contribute to the deforestation of America’s Holiday Tree farms. Likewise, the resources this takes up—too much.

It will be dark and cold, without presents, booze, or snacks; but otherwise, we’re going to have one hell of a time.

National Review magazine, the only publication to which I have ever loyally subscribed, published a series of pieces on the top 5 GOP presidential hopefuls. Each piece was an argument in the affirmative. Frankly, I thought two of them were strong, one was average, and two were particularly weak. Still, I do not base the following entirely, or even significantly, on these NR pieces.

Instead, in the following paragraphs I intend to examine, however briefly, my view of each major candidate in the Republican field, ultimately to endorse—a term used lightly here—one “lucky” guy.

Having started this column (and taking a break) before National Review released its endorsement, I must say that I will simply second their view. Thus, I, too will support Mitt Romney, and for much of the same reasons.

I have little more than admiration for Rudy Giuliani, but I fear his nomination would alienate enough social conservatives as to deny the GOP a fighting chance at winning the general election. Likewise, his nomination might have serious consequences for the prevailing social platform of the Republican Party.

Mike Huckabee is definitely a social conservative; however, that’s where his conservatism stops. Even so, some of his past social views are what I would describe, nicely, as odd. Huckabee’s economic past, in spite of his currently stated views, would be troubling, particularly on taxes. And when compared to Giuliani and McCain, he lacks the credentials to be commander-in-chief. George W. Bush received somewhat of a pass on this point, but that was before 9/11.

John McCain is, well, John McCain. He is right on most issues but he has had too many bouts with conservatives in the past, particularly on campaign finance reform, which would likely peel off enough votes to cost him the general election. Furthermore, he has run a lackluster campaign to say the least.

As for Fred Thompson, he fits the bill in terms of what I seek on policy. In fact, Thompson has put forth the most detailed policy proposals. Unfortunately, his campaign has also been lackluster. He doesn’t strike me as the type who really wants to win.

Which leads us to Romney. Frankly, his Mormonism is not an issue because he will not be Pope nor will he head the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact, his values are the same as the typical evangelical Christian or Catholic. Furthermore, I believe his evolutions on certain issues, namely abortion, are genuine.

Romney has also headed a successful corporation, giving the leadership ability to be president. Likewise, he fought a very liberal Massachusetts legislature for largely conservative fiscal policy. As for foreign policy experience, Romney lacks the credentials of a Giuliani or McCain, but his corporate leadership gives him the skill to be commander-in-chief and his policy positions seem well informed enough.

Lastly, as the editors of NR put it, Romney stands the best chance at keeping the conservative coalition united as one. If the goal is to win in November 2008, then this is the first step. As the primary season begins shortly, Mitt Romney is the right man.

Time magazine ran an online feature today regarding the 2007 Person of the Year. The piece featured several well-known figures who chimed in with their picks for the prize.

Among them was John Kerry, who picked a Marine. Aretha Franklin chose Bill Cosby. The most notable selection, however, belonged to Brian Williams, the NBC Nightly News anchor.

Williams tabbed a woman “with a history of abuse;” “a woman who has never run for elective office.” She is “someone we all know” and “makes her presence known on a daily basis in all our lives.” In fact, she is “better than any male alternative.”

The winner? Drum roll, please. She is none other than Mother Earth. Why? Well, “the environment is the compelling issue of our time,” of course.

In that case, now I shall delve into my selection for Person of the Year.

My selection is a man who has since left us (my family, that is). He has a history of abuse. He never ran for elective office. He is someone we all knew and he made his presence known on a daily basis in all the lives that came into contact with him. Until he moved on, there was no better female alternative.

Simply put, the 2007 Person of the Year is my former 1998 Ford Contour. Why? Transportation is the compelling issue of our time, of course—you know: oil, cars, global warming, etc.

Early favorites for next year include water, Dan Rather’s tie, and a pair of underwear. Stay tuned.

Source(s): http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689222,00.html

The Dayton Daily News offered its diagnosis of new Ohio Governor Ted Strickland’s first year performance. And as usual, obfuscation is the modus operandi.

Even the title is misleading (“Strickland wraps up a good year”). Strickland “didn’t know what to expect from… Republicans” in the legislature. In fact, their “cooperation surprised him.” (The DDN should know that this assertion looks good for Republicans.)

Then: “It’s been a good year for Strickland.” His approval ratings are astronomical, even among Republicans (65% approval, we’re told). GOP legislator William Batchelder from liberal Medina said Strickland is the most successful first-term governor since James Rhodes.

How did he succeed? By forging a “politics of inclusion.” The evidence: the state budget passed with one dissenting vote.

As for reality: Ted Strickland did, indeed, have a good as governor, but not due to any executive victories on his part.

There was a degree of cooperation on the budget but there were otherwise no major battles. In fact, the budget and a tax cut for seniors are the only real fruits of the ‘07 Strickland administration; and we know tax cuts are a GOP staple. Democrats voted for the cut because the governor was kin. On the only publicly controversial issue—the stripper bill—Strickland simply refused to enter the arena, allowing GOP and Democrat legislators to duke it out, which left his image untarnished.

Frankly, Strickland was a success precisely because he did absolutely nothing of note. Thus, even if the polls indicating that 65% of Republicans approve of Strickland are true (questionable results at best), they approve specifically because the governor did not pursue his many policy ideas that GOP voters find objectionable.

As for the V.P. talk: Ted Strickland looks good at this point because he has not looked bad, if that makes any sense. The media shielded him from his involvement in the Norman Hsu campaign finance scandal. His ally and Attorney General Marc Dann’s quid pro quo with the OEA went largely unnoticed, as did his other campaign finance indiscretions, thus bringing no scrutiny upon the governor.

In reality, Strickland has not proven himself a qualified veep candidate. The absence of widespread dissent does not automatically indicate raging success. Here we must use a baseball analogy for success: He didn’t strike out—i.e. he put the ball in play—though he only had one or two hits.