TOBY PETZOLD

I noticed the other night that KFC is calling itself Kentucky Fried Chicken again.

When did they decide to do that?

Obstinate bastards.

Maybe Sean Payton was thinking of basketball where you can’t call a time-out if you don’t have any to call. That’s a technical foul in basketball, but not in football.

I’m pretty sure I’ve seen defenses in football calling two time-outs in succession to ice the kicker.

Chicago over New Orleans, 24-17.

New England over Indianapolis, 34-17.

In the Super Bowl, Tom Brady is the MVP.

UPDATE: Uh, well…uh…Go Bears?

One of the dysagonists who graces my comment threads is just moist about the possibility that Bush the Younger will be impeached.

Well, better hurry, comrades! Y’all got almost exactly two years to prove to the world that you’d rather sic the serpents on Laocoon and his sons than to defend the West against the murderous plots of the Islamofascists.

And speaking of horseshit, how about that Nancy Pelosi, huh? She and the other Dhimmis rode the anti-war thing all the way back to the top —and now, when she either has to cut off the troops or own the whole pile— she merely demurs.

Bet the revolution eats its own, eh?

First, the United States Senate wants to vote on a resolution opposing the President’s so-called troop surge in Iraq. But it’s a non-binding resolution. It has no authority.

Second, the Bush Administration is submitting itself again to the putative authority of the FISA Court in the matter of its warrantless searches. The President and his attorney general have decided to make a sacrifice of their previous argument that such activities are within the powers of a Commander-in-Chief.

Which of these items is the greater example of political cowardice?

Now that the Dhimmicrats have ridden their anti-warhorse back into Congressional leadership, why are they lollygagging with non-binding resolutions? Time’s wasting, comrades! You said this war has to stop, so why not go ahead and cut funding to our troops?

But, Mr. President, why would you choose to submit your powers again to the un-Constitutional FISA Court? Did you do it to appease the ACLUniks? I think it’s a disastrous decision to concede that power.

Why is Alan Dershowitz so angry about Jimmy Carter? Because he believes that Carter is prostituting himself for Arab money at the expense of the security of Israel. Writes Dershowitz:

No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask Carter. The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter—not me—who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter’s own standards, it would be almost economically “suicidal” for Carter “to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine.”

Carter may turn out to be a bigger shakedown artist than Jesse Jackson. (He’s already the bigger anti-Semite.)

I’m not seeing a lot of it, but it’s snowing in the City of Austin right now.

There’s some accumulation on the rooves around me, but this isn’t exactly Christmas of 1974.

That was the only true winter wonderland I ever experienced. There at my Grandmother and Daddo’s house on Memphis Avenue in El Paso, Texas. And on Christmas Day, too! Those are sacred memories.

Especially the angel in the snowflake there on the back stairs.

Why is the quality of the video feed of Governor Perry’s inauguration so bad? It sucks on every channel.

No matter. I can still see Sydney Perry well enough. She’s bored with the old man’s speech. So am I.

Damn! That girl needs a good, long spanking.

I won’t pay to read Jimmy Carter’s new book, but I am very interested in the reactions to it. From an editorial in the New York Post (emphasis by the editorialist):

January 15, 2007 — Has a former president of the United States - a Nobel Peace Prize winner, no less - given his blessing to wanton murder and terrorist assaults against Israel?

Sure looks that way.

How else to read that astonishing statement on page 213 of Jimmy Carter’s new anti-Israel screed, “Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid”?

To wit: “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.”

Has this been taken out of context, too?

This quote sounds like Carter is associating himself with the methods used by Palestinian terrorists. He seems to be saying that terror is a legitimate political tool for the Car Swarm People.

Okay, but why aren’t more people in Big Media and the blogosphere asking him why he is a supporter of Palestinian terrorism against Israel? Either they do not want to embarrass their partisan friend by publicly committing him to a side or they already know the answer: Carter is a paid propagandist of Arab terrorism sponsors.

I just saw a few seconds of Helen Mirren at the Golden Globe Awards and, I must say, that that is a hot babe. Late fifties, early sixties? She’s still very pretty.

I don’t know if that sort of thing makes me strange, but who cares?