The continuation of Skiing Uphill and Boregasm, Zug is 'the little blog that could.'

 My Photo
Name: Ed Waldo
Location: of The West,

I am a fictional construct originally conceived as a pen name for articles in the Los Angeles FREE PRESS at the 2000 Democratic Convention. The plume relating to the nom in question rests in the left hand of Hart Williams, about whom, the less said, the better. Officially "SMEARED" by the Howie Rich Gang . GIT'CHER ZUG SWAG HERE!

Friday, February 9, 2007

Anna Nicole Smith Dead

Sometimes, a blog captures not merely the essence of an event of the recent past, but also an event of the recent future. This is considered either serendipitous or synchronistic; fortunate or potentially diabolically-inspired.

All of which is to say that Tuesday's "Justice In A Time Of Madness" pretty much said whatever needs to be said about the tabloid death of the gold-digger PMOY (Playmate of the Year, rendered in "hip" insider PLAYBOY-speak). The feeding frenzy of the crapmeisters of cable has risen to Lacey Petersonesque heights -- with no end in sight.

And, speaking of brain-dead boobs ...

Alas, if the bar for determining whether or not Ms. Smith was dead was a complete absence of brainwave activity, how the heck could anyone tell?


Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Please Give Generously

I have determined that there is a grand new public health crusade to be undertaken, and like Jerry Lewis renewing a failed career with the MDS telethon, I have undertaken the tough work necessary to run a dreaded scourge -- a grave menace to the public well-being -- to ground.

The malady I refer to is, of course, Snarkolepsy. Therefore be it highly resolved, that we, of Snarkoleptics Anonymous, shall endeavor to raise funds -- certainly enough for our paid staff to live comfortably, as long as the disease is out of control -- to raise funds until this blight is brought under control, or even cured.

Snarkolepsy was only revealed to the American Public in the late 1990s, a byproduct of a backwater of Human Genome research. Due to a deficiency in the TK-321 Gene in the Fibonacci Series, the snarkoleptic will, suddenly and without warning, attack someone with whom one ought to be friends, or, at least, natural allies.

Perhaps it would be easier to explain by invoking the example of 'progressive' radio talk show host Randi Rhodes a few daze (sic) ago, snarking on Sen. Joe Biden's fumbling attempt to congratulate Sen. Barak Obama that came out as the post-modern version of "some of my best friends are Black."

Randi may have been under the influence of lunar hormones, and certainly I recognize the syndrome from what has betimes happened to this author during extreme nicotine fits (usually while attemping to quit smoking): what starts out as intentionally civil turns its complete opposite. That was what happened with Randi, as Senator Biden's characterization moved, by turns, from "what a dumb thing to do," to the tacit "Joe Biden is Strom Thurmond in an extreme combover."

Which was just bloody WEIRD.

Except, a few weeks earlier, in a classic Rovian trick, Senator John Kerry was swiftboated once again over what was, in essence, a sheer triviality, gleefully egged on, aided and abetted by the "progressives" in whose name Kerry once campaigned.

Now, with Kerry, it was more complex. While vaguely admitting that Kerry might have actually won that election, the selfsame progressives turned on him like a terrier shaking a wet rat in the years since the election, and turned Kerry into the devil. A walking clod. A dullard. A bore (Kinda like Al Gore, one recalls).

Result: Kerry withdrew any consideration of candidacy. Gee. Sure interesting timing, wasn't it? (I mean, by whomEVER was behind it.)

The same thing had happened after the 'progressives' knew that Gore had won, and the election stolen. Snarkolepsy kicked in and Gore was, for several years, the boogie-man conjured to frighten small liberal children into eating their broccoli.

This is referred to as a "cascading snarkoleptic attack," or, as a variant of the dreaded cascading CF. But it is not much understood in laypersons' circles.

The phenomenon seems to reside in the reptile-brain, that most ennobled of organs, the sole focal point of all Super Bowl Advertising, and the highest of high tech.

Snarkolepsy is currently considered perhaps the most common of all chromosomal defects, a genetic malady that afflicts over 10 in 7 Americans, second only, perhaps, to transposition malady, or, as some call it, Spoonerism Disease -- according to a recent in-depth investigation by the Northwest Shamanic Fortnightly's crack vegan staff.

Saying was I what? Oh yes:

Snarkolepsy is definable as a fugue state in which -- imperceptible to the untrained eye -- the snarkoleptic "seizure" causes a hissy fit to be directed towards an object of former affection. Snarkoleptic seizures are the cause of over half of all marital disputes, some researchers claim.

Thus: Randi Rhodes' sudden and inexplicable tar-and-feathering of Sen. Joe Biden for imperfectly expressing affection -- as opposed to the Southern Republican Leadership in the House and the Senate who perfectly express their disaffection and gleefully use the N-word --privately. The very irrationality of the attacks on Biden by those with whom he is in closest harmony ideologically is one classical indication of a snarkoleptic seizure. Aristotle refers to it in his "Poetics":

"As the phlegmatic humor and the melancholic temperament cojoin within the spleen, the symptom of acting like a real dick towards one's friends commences. Right, Plato? That Philip of Macedon may well be the single biggest dumbass it's ever been my misfortune to meet, let alone work for."

Certainly these seizures can be induced via external means, as in the piling on that the Left did to Kerry recently, but, at other times, they are merely random, as in the recent case of the selfsame Randi Rhodes snarking on Al Franken (another host on AirAmerica radio in an adjacent time slot for a couple of years now) and gleeful delight at his leaving the airwaves. The sheer irrationality of the snarkoleptic seizure extended to the following day when Rhodes snarked "I'm not sure I'm ready for SENATOR Franken, either."

This was, of course, utterly against Rhodes' self-interest and values, indicative of the irrational nature of the involuntary snarkoleptic attack. After all, Rhodes' national audience is attributable in large part to Franken's much bigger name (and far greater "show biz" accomplishments), and, even were Randi Rhodes afflicted with that infantile form of self-loathing called professional jealousy, she is certainly intelligent enough not to blab her most vicious sentiments to millions over an open mike, much as the Southern Republican Leadership is smart enough not to openly talk about the "Darkies" (and other, traditional Southern melanin-based nomenclature).

No: the snarkoleptic sufferer doesn't even realize that an attack is underway. They may have headed out in an initially gracious direction ("My fellow AirAmerica Host Al Franken has announced his departure from this network on February 14 ...") when the sneezure takes them into snarkyland.

It was reminiscent of Alexander Cockburn's death snark on Hunter S. Thompson, an idiotic outburst that was as self-defeating as it was incorrect, factually. Cockburn has suffered from the malady for many years now, which explains medically why he tends to veer from crystal clarity to lunatic snarkiness, often several times in the same piece of writing. The affliction is no respecter of persons (somewhat like Cockburn himself).

Recent advances in medical science have moved us beyond the old fashioned and obsolete treatments for snarkoleptic attacks -- the "backhand across the face" and/or the more traditional "cold-cocking the sum'bitch" -- but modern treatments are, themselves, highly imperfect.

Which is why Snarkoleptics Anonymous asks for your generous soon-to-be-tax-deductible donation now. (We can always issue you a receipt later. The paperwork is in process. We promise.)

Snarkolepsy afflicts millions. Suddenly, and for no reason, they turn on their friends like rabid weasels, while the puppy-stranglers of the Right look on in glee, or attend treatment to assure their 100% heterosexual orientation. (A different affliction, and not germane to our discussion here).

Snarkolepsy must be cured in our time. After all, these are intelligent people. They have college degrees, most of them, and yet they turn on their own friends like sharks going after a wounded comrade. This is not merely an inadvertent affectation. This is a full-blown disease, and we've got to find a cure. Snarkolepsy is spreading, and it is only through medical research that we can stop this irrational turning on one's friends and allies that so afflicts 'progressive,' 'liberal,' and 'libertarian' thinking.

You twits.


Justice In A Time Of Madness

I am so angry at Lisa Marie Nowak.

The whole astronaut crazy spurned woman thing, and the rest of it doesn't really concern me at all.

[See "Astronaut Released from Jail" -- sort of the ultimate tabloid headline, ain't it?]

No: I am enraged that Lisa Marie Nowak has now doomed me to over a year of serial abuse by the talking (and yet empty) heads that dominate the fake news channels with -- as if you weren't already way ahead of me -- fake news. You know, that kind of insane and inane trivial bullshit that feeds the media monster, like, hey, Britney Spears wasn't wearing UNDERWEAR!

(And never a mention of what kind of sick photogs are waiting by the door of the car to voyeuristically and opportunistically shove their telephoto lenses metaphorically up Britney's celebrated vulva.)

For the next year (at least) we will be in the thrall of that industry spawned by the O.J. Simpson trial. Some of you youngsters might remember Bill O'Reilly's farewell from the Inside Edition set across from the courthouse while COVERING the O.J. trial in 1995, thus providing employment to his replacement, Deborah Norville, to this very day. Which, serendipitously brings us back around to the phony moralizing, the prudish masturbation that characterizes this sort of coverage.

For the next year, we'll be hearing BREAKING news from Ms. Norville, et al, with phone-sex Bill ejaculating pompous moralizing at various points during his Faux Nooz show, and/or his radio show.

And don't doubt for a minute that Lary King won't convene as many panels as necessary to gush and swoon over the tittilating astronaut games. After all, he took this crap to a finely honed edge with his Lacy Peterson Trial coverage, and his Chandra Levy coverage, and of course, his O.J. coverage.

Another stalwart swimming in the cess pool will be Greta Van Susteren, who got her start on CNN covering the OJ trial. And then there's Nancy Grace, another beneficiary of the tabloid celebrity scandal television industry.

People watch this shit. People eat this shit up with a collective spoon. People actually think that this shit is important. Forget about Habeas Corpus, what about that astronaut chick?

Tell us something moral, Bill.

Tell us something uplifting, Deborah.

Show us something valuable, Nancy and Greta and Lary, et al.

The bottom feeders like Jay Leno have already started. (This guy still makes Clinton blowjob jokes. Haw Haw. Most of us got over it before high school, but Jay seems permanently mired in junior high school bathroom grafitti. There is a special 'dumbass' section of hell reserved for Leno and his ilk, rest assured.)

I guess it isn't coincident that I got this week's NEWSWEEK in the mailbox today. The cover story: Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. The headline: The GIRLS GONE WILD Effect.

Oh. My. Ghod.

The USA may well be the first civilization to collapse from the sheer weight of its own triviality -- a sentiment that I can guarantee that not ONE of the faux moralists creaming in their shorts over the astronaut scandal will voice in the coming year: the coming year of this crap that the astronaut chick has now doomed us to.

That's why I am really, really, really mad at Lisa Marie Nowak.

This is all her fault.


Monday, February 5, 2007

And Justice For All

Justice in a time of madness must, of necessity, be garbled through the funhouse mirror of legal rationalization and the beloved kinds of sophistry that Aristophanes parodied so savagely 2430 years ago ... this year! (Watch for our Special Anniversary Sale!)

'Taint nothing new. But that makes it no less obscene.

105 years ago this October, Ida Craddock, a 45-year-old author, wrote a famous suicide note that is, in all its particulars, an astonishing miscarriage of justice, using the time-honored trick of ... oh. That would be telling.


Room 5, No. 134 West 23D St., New York, Oct. 16, 1902.

To the Public:

I am taking my life, because a judge, at the instigation of Anthony Comstock, has decreed me guilty of a crime which I did not commit--the circulation of obscene literature--and has announced his intention of consigning me to prison for a long term ...
Ms. Craddock revealed the time-honored "trick" that the judge used, in her own words:

On Friday last, October 10, I underwent what was supposed to be a fair and impartial trial by jury; but which was really a most unfair trial, before a thoroughly partisan judge, at the close of which he abolished my right of trial by jury on the main question at issue, namely the alleged obscenity of "The Wedding Night" book. My counsel was not permitted to present in evidence circulars which showed that as far back as 1898 and 1899, I was accustomed to state in print that any applicants for oral instruction upon marriage who were under 21 would have to produce written consent from a parent or a guardian. My evidence was almost wholly choked off; neither my counsel nor myself was permitted to endeavor to justify the book by argument. The most the judge would do was to permit me to read from various paragraphs in the book, without comment, if these could explain the indicted paragraphs. Even with this tiny bit of a chance, I made such good use of my opportunity before the jury, that Judge Thomas, who was evidently prejudiced in advance against both myself and my book, saw that he dared not now risk the case to the jury, or he might not manage to convict me after all. And so he announced that he himself intended to pass upon the character of the book. He stated that there is in existence a decision of the United States Supreme Court which gives him this right.

He said he would not let the question go to the jury; he considered the book "obscene, lewd, lascivious, dirty." He added that he would submit to the jury only the question of fact. Did the defendant mail the book? (The charge was "mailing an obscene book.") He said, "Gentlemen of the Jury, the question for you to pass upon is, Did the defendant mail the book? You know that she admits having mailed the book. Please render your verdict. I do not suppose you will care to leave your seats." And the poor little cowed jury could do nothing but to meekly obey the behest of this unrighteous judge, and to pass in their ballots, "Guilty of mailing the book." Which, of course, was no crime at all.

I fully expected that the public press of New York city would duly chronicle this most remarkable invasion of the rights of the people by such an abolishing of the trial by jury; but so far as I could learn, the press remained totally silent....
The judge had neatly removed the REASON for the trial from the trial (i.e. was Ida Craddock guilty of obscenity for having mailed a copy of her marital manual THE WEDDING NIGHT to a Comstock operative in a "sting" operation?) and the only question was ... was she guilty of mailing?

I bring this up because I heard the same thing this morning, an early judicial celebration of the anniversary of the lawful persecution unto death of Ida Craddock, perhaps. (In lieu of an Anniversary Sale).

At least the press has not been as silent this time.

Here from the Guardian [UK] wire story on the Seattle trial of Lieutenant Ehren Watada, via South Africa. Take a long look across the Equator, back "up" at the good ol' Yew Ess Ay:

US officer goes on trial for speaking out
03 February 2007 11:10

On the eve of the United States's invasion of Iraq, he was heartsick at the prospect that he might not be military material. He even shelled out $800 for medical tests to convince the recruiters that he was fit for duty despite childhood asthma that would ordinarily render him ineligible for service.

On Monday, that same eager recruit, now Lieutenant Ehren Watada, faces a court martial for refusing to deploy to Iraq and for making public statements against the war. He is the first officer to be prosecuted for publicly criticising the war -- indeed the first since the Vietnam era when an army Lieutenant was court martialled for addressing an anti-war demonstration outside the US embassy in London. If he is convicted on all charges, Watada could spend four years in a military prison....
Yes. WE, the USA, insisted that the world establish, at the Nuremberg Trials, that soldiers are responsible for their actions, even if they were following orders. All basic training teaches that soldiers are lawfully required to refuse to obey illegal orders.

Ehren Watada refuses to return to Iraq because it is an illegal war, BY the standards that we ourselves set, and set in Law as signatories to the Geneva Conventions -- from earliest to latest -- by the UN Charter, and by our own laws on war crimes.

Lieutenant Watada is as unquestionably right about this obscene war and occupation of aggression as Ida Craddock was that foreplay was a good idea before (marital) sexual relations, and that her saying so was NOT obscene.

But take a moment to recognize the dulcet tones of that judicial echo of another age:

From, A Gazillion Newspapers, take your pick:

By MELANTHIA MITCHELL, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 4, 5:58 PM ET

SEATTLE - Denied a chance to debate the legality of the Iraq war in court, an Army officer who refused to go to Iraq now goes to trial hoping to at least minimize the amount of time he could serve if convicted.


[Watada's lawyer] Seitz unsuccessfully sought an opportunity to argue the legality of the war, saying it violated Army regulations that specify wars are to be waged in accordance with the United Nations charter. His final attempt was quashed last month when the military judge, Lt. Col. John Head, ruled Watada cannot base his defense on the war's legality. Head also rejected claims that Watada's statements were protected by the First Amendment....
The entire reason for his refusal to return to Iraq has been ruled, essentially, as irrelevant. Gee. Why does that sound SO damned familiar (and chilling) to me? Hmmmm.

Only two things remain. The first is to determine whether or not Lt. Watada mailed that obscene book. (There is no indication as to whether the Judge in question is, in fact, a kangaroo or any other hopping marsupial.)

And, secondly, we must remember this date with a Sale come next Anniversary.

Rest In Peace, Ida Craddock.

Rest In Peace, Rule of Law.

Rest In Peace, Aristophanes.