Today's Idiot: Bill Richardson

Bill Richardson is the current governor of New Mexico and a Democratic Presidential candidate. He's not really a serious candidate, but he'll probably hook on with Hillary as her Vice-President.



He gave a doozy of an interview on the war in Iraq. I generally tend to avoid the war in Iraq because a) it's a touchy subject for just about anyone with half a political mind, and b) I really don't know how I feel about the war anymore. So I try and avoid talking about it. But Bill doesn't.

His main point is that the decreasing deaths and casualties in Iraq basically means nothing. That it shouldn't be called "progress" in Iraq. I don't know where or why he came up with this ridiculous conclusion...maybe because it would make George W. Bush look good. And we know that that should never happen.

All the Democrats could talk about for the past few years were the number of deaths in Iraq. Now, with violence at a low, this is all changing. Richardson said that "Progress shouldn't be measured by casualty counts, body counts." This guy says that real progress can only be achieved by one thing and one thing only: withdrawing from Iraq.

Did you get all that or should I review? Apparently we shouldn't measure progress in terms of less violence, more peace, more commerce, more electricity, more water, more telephones and a steadily improving standard of living for Iraqis. You only define progress by counting the numbers of American troops leaving the country.

Way to go Bill. You're another prime example that the Democratic mind is often less logical that a coke-sniffing squirrel.

Today's Idiot: Terrance Moore

After a week off from Mr. Ballance's intriguing, and often offensive commentary, it's back. We'll start back up with Atlanta Journal Constitution columnist, Terrance Moore.



Terrance Moore has a pathetic column on racial discrepancies in major league baseball. I don't think I can remember an article Moore has written that hasn't whined about how poorly blacks are treated in sports worldwide. Moore spends this entire column complaining that the number of black basebal players has severely decreased since the number peaked in the 1970s.

Terrance Moore doesn't actually say this, but he implies that Major League Baseball should be responsible for taking steps to bring more black players back into baseball.

You, Mr. Moore are an idiot. Baseball doesn't have some absurd racial quota that it needs to fill. Sports have generally been the eternal equalizer. The best man plays. Remember that black coach from TC Williams (in Remember the Titans)? Probably not, but I'll quote him for you.

"The best player will play. Black of white."

Nobody has a racial advantage in sports. If you're better than the other players then you'll play. Simple as that.

I'd pay more attention to Moore if he wasn't a filthy hypocrite. While his "woe-is-blacks" columns range from this baseball one to racial discrimination against blacks in British cricket leagues, he has never written a column about the lack of white players on an NBA court or in the defensive backfield of an NFL game.

Or even the fact that even though the world largest racial population (Asian) is even more poorly represented in Major League Baseball than blacks. But Asian people aren't as important or as highly discriminated against as blacks I guess.

Newspapers have that racial quota that Moore wants Major League Baseball to implement, but sports do not need and should not have such a policy. It's immature, stupid and unfair. By requiring baseball to include more black players it will unavoidably push out better players of other races. But as long as it's not blacks being discriminated against, Mr. Moore is fat and happy.

Today's Idiot: Hannah Montana Fans (and their moms)

The Hannah Montana concert ticket has been a very hot item this year. So hot in fact, that people are suing each other over them.



Here's the scoop. So many people like Hannah Montana (for some reason unbeknown to me) and are willing to shell out hundreds, even thousands of dollars to send their spoiled little 8-year old girls to go to her concert.

Apparently, there are Miley Cyrus (who is the same person as Hannah Montana) fan clubs online. These clubs cost their members around $30 a year to be apart of an benefits include

• Special newsletters available to members


• Makes early-release CDs available


• Allows members who log on shortly after tickets become available will have an opportunity to get them.

The upcoming lawsuit was filed on behalf of a New Jersey woman who joined the Miley Cyrus Fan Club based on its promise that joining would make it easier to get concert tickets from the teen star's Web site.

I'm sorry, PROMISE? The largest stadium in America that I know of is Michigan Stadium, where the University of Michigan plays it's home football games, and its largest crowd ever was 112,118 people. And that was more than capacity. Over 20 million people are members of the Hannah Montana fan club. There's no was that all 20 million members and their mommies will be able to get concert tickets and it's asinine to think otherwise.

So the premise of this lawsuit is that a New Jersey soccer mom with a demanding and whining 9-year old girl didn't get a ticket to a Hannah Montana concert. There's always a scalper selling a ticket and if you're passionate enough to file a lawsuit, then you're passionate enough to spend an exorbitant amount of money to buy their darling child a ticket. And then there's the commitment issue. Some people got tickets because they took off work and camped out waiting for tickets to go on sale. I think that insanely stupid, but also admirable in a twisted way.

Why is it that in this country, it's always someone else's fault when something doesn't go as these people imagine it in their little minds. The website and fan club did not, in any way guarantee that its members would get a ticket to a concert. So there's really no case here. Except the New Jersey woman, who's a nutcase.

Today's Idiot: Bill Clinton

Recently, it's been Bill's husband making the stupid proposals and comments, but Bill joins the fun this week.

The other day, Bill publicly complained about the other Democratic candidates saying, "those boys have been getting tough on her lately."

Too tough Bill, really? Let's review.

Gennifer Flowers: Had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton, during his "marriage to Hillary.
Dolly Kyle Browning: Bill Clinton's high school girlfriend, with whom he had continued sexual relations with up to 1992.
Juanita Broaddrick: In 1998, she revealed that she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton two decades earlier.
Kathleen Willey: Sexually harassed by President Clinton when she met with him in the Oval Office to discuss full-time employment.
Paula Jones: Dropped her sexual harassment suit against Bill Clinton when she was paid $850,000.

Now, I'm one that's always suspicious of sexual harassment charges brought on, especially against high-profile figures, and then even more so when they're dropped. But I'm noticing a pattern here, not an isolated occurance.

Now I'll ask Bill. Who's been more "tough" on Hillary? Your multiple partners duringand throughout your marriage, or her fellow candidates that drill her (no pun intended) on her flip-flopping political stances, most notably the illegal immigrant driver's license bill in New York and planting questions in her appearances?

And I also have a problem with their handling of this situation. Any normal woman would divorce a man that has allegedly had affairs and raped other women. But this is what Hillary wants. She sticks by her man, plays the victim card and collects the female vote by playing the role of "supportive wife" which is insulting to all real wives in real marriages everywhere.

Hillary is a pathological liar and master control freak/manipulator. And America has about a year left to figure that out.

Ughh...Hillary

Hillary Clinton's been in the news a lot lately, and it hasn't been for what she would have hoped it would be. Her healthcare plan from 1993 is causing a big stink and her campaign is planting questions during public appearances. I really want to touch on both of these, but I may run out of time.

First, the healthcare thing. You probably know that Mrs. Clinton proposed a governmental healthcare system in 1993. So you'd think that the proposal would be completely available for people to peruse before making a decision on it. The federal agents assigned to handling the proposal (and cronies of Hillary, nonetheless) are slow in releasing the information. Bill Clinton even sent them a letter in 2002, giving them permission to open up material. But not everything...not any material that contains "negative" or "derogatory" information. Any information centered on "sensitive policy, personal or political matters." Or information involving communications directly between Bill and Hillary. So we don't get everything.

Topics like "Positioning ourselves on healthcare" and "General targeting strategy." Both not available.

The bottom line is that both Bill and Hillary will do everything in their power to keep the public unaware of her failed attempt at national healthcare from 1993. I still haven't been convinced that a national healthcare system would benefit the country, and this certainly doesn't help.

The one thing that we do know for certain about the 1993 attempt is that if a citizen wanted to take his or her own money and find a private doctor and pay for their own healthcare...it would have been a crime and they would have gone to jail. A great definition of "freedom" from Hillary Clinton.

----------------------------------------------------------

Secondly, planting questions in public appearances. It's not technically illegal, but it's low and underhanded. It's like rigging a game or stealing a test beforehand. The only difference is that the second two are illegal.

Clinton says she knows nothing about the planted questions, and while it's perfectly clear that Hillary that there are a lot of issues that Hillary Clinton knows nothing about (illegal immigration, healthcare and Social Security being among the ever-growing list) I'd be more inclined to believe this isn't one of those issues.

This comes at a convenient time when the negative press started to really crop up about her. Rehearsed answers would show a solid front and make her seem like she knew what she was doing.

Hillary Clinton would be absolutely atrocious for this country. I've started hoping for a huge snowstorm on Election Day that would keep many of the single Clinton women out of the polls. I generally assume for the better when it comes to American people, but when a high school accumulates 150 female signatures to "End Women's Suffrage" I really start to wonder.

Today's Idiot: Jose Guadalupe Flores

Here's a link to the entertaining article that discusses today's Idiot


The other day, police in McAllen Texas received a phone call from a man who claimed that his house had been broken into he had been robbed at gunpoint.

Pretty legitimate 911 call, right? Wrong.

The deputies arrived at the house and found 15 pounds of marijuana scattered around the floor. Flores complained to the deputies that the gunmen had stolen nearly 150 pounds of the drugs that he was preparing to ship out.

Good move, Mr. Flores. And the kicker? Guy's an illegal criminal immigrant from Mexico. He's going to stay in jail until his trial comes up. Here's to an unpleasant deportation!

Today's Idiot: Zaid Jilani

This will be the beginning of an ongoing series. I'm decent at predicting the future, so I can say with a good amount of certainty that Hillary Clinton will appear here with regularity. UGA students will probably frequent this forum as well.

Today's culprit is a sophomore from the "esteemed" University of Georgia majoring in International Studies.


Inaugural Idiot, Zaid Jilani
Sketchy major nonwithstanding, UGA let him write for the student paper for some reason. Apparently there's no screening process for aspiring journalists there. Anyone that can write (or repeat what he's heard from other ignorant liberals) is welcome.

Jilani's Opinion Article in the "Red and Black" student newspaper.

He begins his article by saying that he noticed that his University Union had invited a conservative talk radio host, Neal Boortz to speak at his University. Then he continues with the following line: "Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge defender of free speech..." and then he proceeds to list reasons why the aforementioned talk show host should NOT be allowed to speak. So he's a huge defender of free speech, as long as that speech is something he agrees with. Typical foreign liberal.

He goes on to incorrectly claim that Boortz "doesn't have to actually research what he says, or make logical arguments, or maintain academic decorum." Ooooh...someone discovered his laptop had a thesaurus feature. Since most of what he said about Boortz was wrong, I guess Mr. Jilani doesn't actually have to research what he writes.

He calls Boortz's favorite targets "defenseless" targets. Such as "mothers on welfare, the homeless, Muslims and immigrants." Convince me that Muslims are defenseless. Convince me they don't strap bombs to themselves and blow things up in the name of religion. Convince me they don't advocate beating their wives. By "defenseless" I must assume that Zaid means "not intelligent enough to make a cognitive argument against Neal Boortz."

After a veiled death threat, (I thought Muslim death threats were rarely veiled?) he calls himself an "over-educated, socialist liberal." The last part I agree with. The over-educated part however, makes me laugh. Grow up kid, and realize that you have no Constitutional right not to be offended. Mr. Boortz in fact does have the right to say what he likes.